Bulletpoint

On the other hand, I think the CM formations are generally reflecting the ideal version of the units, with full numbers of tanks etc. even though reality was often different.

They are good in forests, but the canister is actually a problem in towns because the tank will foolishly use it against buildings where it has very little effect.

I think it often has to do with there being just a bit of slope in the forest. So incoming lines of sight have to penetrate much less terrain. I've often been surprised by this, when I thought my teams were perfectly safe many squares into a forest. I find the LOS-blocking of tree trunks very unpredictable.

I wonder they even attempted. Common procedure more likely was what is seen as well... getting the path clear with a little help from the engineers. I read somewhere Panther or Tiger tanks were able to push down trees with 50-60cm diameter at max, but I doubt this was attempted oftenly in the field. Even when pushed down you can still belly up and a (german) tank commander could likely expect to look into some his superiors barrel of a Luger when it happened. Or maybe the entire scene was staged for the camera to show audiences back home how difficult the conditions were? That would help explain both why they were running into the tree and also why they did it so slowly.

One thing I find very difficult is combining large-scale features with small scale terrain. For example, in your example you want the terrain to gently roll down into a valley and then up again on the other side. But if you want to add a ditch that runs along a road that goes into that valley, it's pretty much impossible to get right. Because the gentle slope is made by game's interpolation between distant nodes, and your ditch needs to do hug the road, thus your control nodes need to be close together, and you can only adjust height in 1-metre intervals, leading to stair-stepping and ruining the smooth curve of the slope...

Sure, it's just that I think there are two different basic design philosophies here.

I don't think you should design the map to offer/block certain things. That feels gamey, I think. Instead, what I prefer to do is to just focus on making a realistic landscape for the actual location. That kind of map always provides good gameplay opportunities. As a player, I think the fun is to read a believable landscape and trying to figure out a good plan for the assets I have, not to play "guess what the scenario designer wanted".

Wow that's psychedelic

That's a pretty thick tree though. And the tank did not have much momentum. Smooth tracks too, not much traction. I think another conclusion could be that it's interesting that they seemed to expect there was a chance to break through the tree. I guess in some cases they could.

Just noticed the M8 "Greyhound" armored scout car has only 500 rounds for its 7.62mm machinegun. The all-knowing Wiki says it should have 1,500 rounds. But as we all know, sometimes Mr Wikipedia gets it wrong. Should the M8 have 500 or 1,500 rounds?

No true Scotsman would make such an argument!

I think in many cases a blank space was inserted between each house just to make it clear how many houses were in the vilage - instead of just drawing them in one big blob. Here's the village of Pierrefitte-en-Cinglais, which inspired me to make a scenario. I spent many hours studying the photo to make the scenario as close to reality as I could. Notice how even in this small vilage, most houses are joined or very close together. The buildings are not more than 2-3 stories and they are not spread all over the map.

@Bulletpoint answer made me think of the branching system in campaigns which you might find interesting. Many of the campaigns have branching paths that you can take. Example: If you win scenario #3 then you advance to scenario 3A. If you lost scenario 3 then you go to scenario 3B. This also allows for a change in the situation. Since you won #3 now scenario 3A might have some advantage for you (because you broke through the main line of resistance (MLR) etc). If you lost scenario #3 then scenario 3B would probably reflect that new situation in some way. I decided not to mention the branching, because I think the way it's been done so far is a bit underwhelming. For example, the difference between missions in the Peiper Campaign seem quite minor. No matter if you rush Stavelot or arrive later, you're still going to find it full of troops. If you decide to keep going and not rest, I don't even think your troops get any stamina penalty for it? At least I didn't notice any. And I think you get Tiger II's no matter if you captured the fuel depot or not? I love the idea of making decisions in campaigns, it's just that I don't think the way it's been done so far really has any meaningful impact.

Not to be that guy, but I get confused every time you say 'mod' and mean 'module' instead of 'modification'. Ok, I am that guy.

There is a campaign system now, but it's basically a predetermined series of missions on a string, where some of your units carry over (so losses hurt later on). Troops won't gain experience between missions. However, several of those campaigns are really good, with everything from the terrain to the OOBs meticulously researched, and the briefings well written. Despite the shortcomings, I found myself very immersed in most of the campaigns in CMBN and CMFB.

I agree, apart from the bit about houses being too close to each other. I think the opposite really. Many QB maps place 4-5 level buildings in seemingly random places over the map, where a real old village in France/Germany is usually more compact, with 1-2 level buildings clustered around the crossroads and often with no space between buildings.

Ok, I got an email with the explanation of this piece of German humour.. I begin to understand why the German army liked to call their vehicles stuff like Sd.Kfz. 251/9, since that is very difficult to turn into a joke!

I honestly don't know, I only play very few games these days

Well, you'd have one or two rich guys who would have an entire Panzer division to unleash on the guys who could only afford a platoon of stragglers. Well the idea was that games are still balanced by points, so the playing field is equal, it's just that you have to pay for the losses ...

Hmmm, I thought it was a pretty straight forward question actually ? Not sure how political correctness plays into this?

And if the Tiger gets destroyed, you have to pay again for a new one. Also, each soldier costs 1 cent. I wonder how that would change the way people played these games?

Even if shots are coming? Imagine that you are moving in the direction of the shots. In real life, I guess I'll go onto the ground instead of running to the enemy. It's been discussed a lot. Many players have wished for a move order that mixed quick and hunt behaviour - run cautiously forward but drop down when taking incoming fire.

I'm still hoping for an optional game mode where on-map mortars can only fire at a spot if they have received an enemy contact marker close by.

That's a bit optimistic

Still I think that this issue is probably surmountable in the current engine if you would allow soldiers to clip through the ground mesh? Or make the ground deform dynamically when the trench is spotted, like a crater is made every time a shell hits the ground.