Flibby

I hope that this is taken in the spirit in which it is meant - CM may just need a reasonable competitor in order to push the series forward.
We all enjoy and appreciate the effort that is put in by BF. We would not be here otherwise. It is unfortunate however that CM is resigned to years of semi-releases and updates rather than the great leaps forward that I think we would all appreciate.
The gulf in the trajectory between OpenGL and DirectX have been there for all to see for decades now. Unfortunately it doesn't really hold water to say that it's a surprise that development is limited by not taking a decision to re-engineer the engine in DirectX years ago.
The new modules, battle packs etc are all well and good, as are the steam releases, but I can't think that I am in a minority who would sacrifice significant releases for a period for the knowledge that a new engine was being created, with current technology, which would allow an even more realistic experience. Much less talented game designers are out there creating games which, given the 'CM Treatment' would solve a lot of the on-going issues which cause issues with the current experience.  I realise BF aren't a tripe A developer, but it's not as though we see a new release every year anyway. And they have moved to a different engine before.
At the moment the competition is either too 'gamey' such a Regiments for example; or like Mius Front, has a UI which is totally unintuitive. Both things which CM excels at. Then we have Squad Battles by John Tiller for example which are great games but very abstracted given they are trying to emulate Squad Leader. Even Second Front which I had high hopes for looks like a cartoon and I can't take it seriously. 
Anyway - I'm going to keep playing the games because there's nothing better, and therefore little incentive to update the system. Perhaps I'm part of the problem.

Dissapointed ! 😖

This is true imo...
Having more shooters and superior firepower compared to the defender is more important then the actual terrain they are in.
 

...and that's how one starts to arrive at Soviet doctrine.
 
One of the core tenants of the Soviet way of way is a mathematical adherence to firepower-above-all. You can indeed create situations where firepower alone is sufficient to get the job done, but it's a narrow and single-minded point of view. It can certainly be powerful, but it's successful if and only if you can remain in control of the broader variables, and can successfully shape the engagement to your liking.
As soon as you run into situations where things aren't going your way, you'll start running the risk of such an approach being badly exposed. In those situations, you're often better having some more depth to your thinking, and giving yourself more outs.

There's an analogy I like about this kind of thing, about mountain climbing - one school of thought gives the climber a bunch of different backup ropes, so that they can lose half a dozen of them, and it doesn't matter. This is wasteful of resources, sure, but this kind of redundancy can severely reduce the risk you're willing to accept. The other gives the climber just a single rope, but focuses on making it a really good rope. In this situation, you're following the straight line path to the goal, and if you're not hitting anything outside of the parameters you expect, you're doing it with maximum efficiency and economy of effort.
So yes, it's a viable approach, but it's not necessarily uncovering some deeper truth - rather it's one possible way of thinking, which will sometimes be the best (or least-worst) course of action, but not always, or in every situation.

For me the ideal showcase for suppression in the series is the first mission in Road to Montebourg for CMBN. When I first opened the scenario I thought no way. No way am I getting across this open ground with nothing but infantry and a bad attitude. But of course suppression is a thing in Combat Mission, and I was able to finish the mission with surprisingly light casualties.
This is the map. Wide open, and enemy dug-in on the far side, hemmed in by mines, and supported by pillboxes and artillery. It's a killing zone of the first order. You have no heavy weapons, vehicles or armor.
 

 
For me, crew-served machine guns are rather ineffective in this game for whatever reason. They rarely contribute the sort of kill numbers I'd expect. So instead of using them as a means to destroy the enemy, I see these weapons as suppression tools. Find the enemy and fix him with machine gun area fire. Just keep pouring bursts in to the position. You're not going to kill anything, usually, with an occasional exception. But you can keep their faces in the dirt.
For the mission above, it was a combination of this area fire from my machine guns, combined with liberal use of smoke and artillery. It takes a long time to move the troops across this much open ground, and so the suppression effort has to be kept up throughout so that you can maneuver the troops forward and avoid having them in turn become pinned down. It's a matter of fire superiority I reckon, and the AI doesn't use area fire much if at all, so the player has this advantage as long as the ammo stocks can support sustained suppression.
My example may not help the OP much, but I'd recommend this scenario for anyone who wants to see a perfect example of how suppression can work in Combat Mission, and how to accomplish it in a scenario which is designed to make it essential to success.

British Commonwealth have three Brens in a platoon. You need all three of them to gain fire superiority over a single MG42 in a foxhole. While all three can fire on the MG42 the MG42 can engage only one at a time. While you get them into position the 50 mm applies obscuration with smoke just in front of the Foxhole also the squad leaders can pop smoke to aid in the positioning of the Brens. Don't use the Brens for direct fire at the MG42 but area fire at the Foxhole to make sure he stays pinned down. The assault party with the Sten and hand grenades finishes him. Easier said than done but it works. Good scenario is CW 18 Patrol in Battle of Normandy to get the hang how to handle a British platoon. This scenario doesn't have Germans in Foxholes but *SPOILER* 2 MG42's the two green sections are the ammo bearers for the Brens. The third regular section as the assault with sten and hand grenades you can also split the leaders from the Green sections to use their Stens at close range. 

I'll throw in a shameless plug on this one as well:
https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html
Look at the map from the enemy point of view. What looks like obvious avenues of approach, and how would you cover/counter them if you were the enemy? This is sometimes referred to as "flipping the chessboard."
Be very careful with smoke. It is often thrown around as the tactical solution to everything, and most of the time it isn't. As a rule of thumb, never advance through your own smoke, never drop smoke directly in front of your axis of advance or defense, and never blind yourself with your own smoke, even if you blind the enemy as well. 
For now my advice would be to come up with your plan for the battle, and then post it here for others to analyze for you. That way you can try it yourself, get some feedback on it, and then give it a go based on that feedback. 
 

How much smoke do you have ? Whats the wind like ? Would it not be possible to smoke KT2 out of the picture entirely during the initial assult on the village. Attacking from AA2 or AA3. Ones you have a foothold in the village you ought to be able to gain fire suppeority against KT2 from there and suppress any enemy units on that hill. There cant be that many of them if the entire enemy force is belived to be at platoon strenth.
Ones the reinforcements arrive thoose guys could either try to clear KT2 if needed while that possition is being suppressed from the village or simply follow in the steps of the intial assult to help clearing the rest of the village..
I currently do not have CMFI installed so its a bit tricky to see the battlefield from a few pictures...But what i'm woundering...Do you really need to clear KT2 before assulting the village...Could it be smoked out of play ? 😎
 
 
 
 

I'd look at the enemy in a bit more detail before you leap into a plan.  You say it is platoon strength - so go and 'place' a German platoon on that map and think about it from the German defender's point of view.

Wrong forum - it's for Red Thunder 😂 my bad

I haven't played this one (didn't get F&R), but from the looks of it, it seems the designer wanted you to use the mobility of your halftracks and armour. You have one hour, so it should be possible to flank around, and then concentrate on taking just enough of the objectives to secure a win. You probably don't need to take all of them, and sometimes, limiting the scope is part of the plan.

Okay found it in RT not FB so maybe the wrong thread 😆.  Never mind, I'll have a look...
EDIT:  We are crossing in the ether so to speak.

So initial thoughts - it's a Fire and Rubble scenario but no clue as to who produced it.  Description has a few typos and is a little short on detail, but anyway...
On the map at setup it seems I have no ability to re-position, which is always desirable.  I'll continue, but maybe tomorrow...

I love the east front, but one of the reasons RT gets somewhat of a bad rap is because of the timeframe BF choose to use in this game. I think most people would have preferred a 41-43 timeframe for the game, including myself. That being said, RT is a great game, there are a ton of good scenarios and campaigns. 

Kind of like a scripted scenario to be used as a demonstrator? Sure I'll lend my time.
Tell me how to die, sir. 
Jokes aside PM sent. 

Yeah that makes sense, and is cool with me

Don’t have time to participate in the actual game, but I would be happy to jump in your thread and give some words of wisdom when I can. 
This is a great idea.
Bil

I *also (Bil beat me to it)* think this is a great idea, will look out for it.  Also I have played and lost to Artkin, so the best of luck 😉.

Ok it sounds like there's some interest. That's great. Artkin has generously offered to be my opponent. I'll have a think and chat with him how best to set this thing up 🙂

Yes very much like that but not necessarily scripted. Similarly to the AAR threads that Bil etc do whereby the opponent doesn't go into that thread, this would be the same except rather than someone showcasing how good they are, I would set out my thoughts and people could chip in with corrections / advice on the best way to proceed vs my plan if that makes sense?

I primarily play Combat Mission in order to build up my knowledge and practical implementation of tactics. It's a sandbox unparalleled in this way in my opinion.
What I struggle with is taking the superb advice from @Bil Hardenbergerin his blog and @Combatintman's planning thread, @Hapless's videos or @domfluff 's helpful tips, and applying it to my own play. I find it very easy to read and understand the principles, but when I sit and look at the map I still find myself with difficulties setting out and then following through with a plan. I guess i'm more of a visual learner.
I wanted to scope out the interest in my setting out a game, either a SP game or a PBEM game against an experienced player, and using it as a basis for talking through my approach to the game. A little bit like a tactical decision game you might look at from an old army journal. I would set out what I think I should do, others could comment and improve my suggestions, and then we could see how it plays out. An exercise in group think if you please.
Obviously this would mainly benefit me at the expense of some hard earned time from others which I would be extremely grateful for, but perhaps it would help others and be a resource for other people in the future. It could always be the basis of a video AAR if there was any interest too.
I can't promise a turn a day, I have a 6 week old son who is determined to limit my PC time currently 😁 but it's something I'm keen to do if there are any willing CM Rommels to get involved.  
 
 
 

Wargaming is stochastic, so nothing will ever give you perfect information.
The question then falls to you - if you look at your scheme of manoeuvre, see a piece of terrain and think "gee, it'd really suck if there was an atgm team hiding in there", then you really have a few choices:
 
You can get eyes-on and try to spot something in there.
You can arrange for a recon by fire, exposing your scout position, but perhaps forcing a response.
You can send a scout element into the terrain piece to actively clear it
You could arrange for indirect fires to proactively deny this terrain feature.
 
Each option involves accepting a different level of risk, and each provides a different level of information and result. Which is best is part of the Art of the thing - the probabilistic basis of wargaming decisions means that there usually won't be a best answer, just a least-worst one, and which one is correct for you will differ.
 
Ultimately, you can't spot everything, so the trick is to engage with the things that really matter - to read the terrain and identify the areas that are going to cause you issues, so that your limited resources can be leveraged to the greatest effect.

Area fire goes all over the action spot. Targeted fire will only happen when they can physically see someone to shoot at, and they will stop firing when they cower out of sight.
 
In all things there's a degree of wiggle room and variance, and if they spot something whilst area firing they might target it, but that's essentially the distinction.
Worth noting that with any targeted fire you're telling them to open up with everything (if you let them find their own targets they'll be more conservative), so inevitably area fire will consume ammo faster, since they're opening up, and won't lose sight of the target.

Best to treat enemy held buildings like landmines:

If you can go round it, go round it.
If you can't go round it... blow it up before you go near it.
If you can't blow it up... shoot the crap out of it in the hope that you'll hit something important that stops it going off.

Clearing the building is the equivalent of stepping on the landmine- don't do it unless you literally have no other choice.

sounds like someone has discovered why ww1 was a meat grinder.