shift8

What is not being understood here is that "murdering" the enemy force IS NOT the objective in war. Neutralizing the enemy force is. 
 
And no, that is not just semantics. Like Bill pointed out earlier, unless you have a massive advantage in firepower or manpower, you cannot ignore terrain in a fight, and even then doing so would be wasteful in most circumstances. In reality, all battles are won by achieving and advantage of some kind. Whether that is through troop concentration to achieve mass for assault, or bombardment reduce the enemy's ability to resist, or through maneuver to force the enemy into a disadvantageous position that enhances your own forces ability to fight. 
 
Attacking the enemy with cookie-cutter fire and movement is a recipe for suicide. It is very much akin to clearing  a room. NOBODY in their right mind stacks up and breaches a room through weight of bodies if your rules of engagement would have allowed you to satchel the entire building instead. Room clearing or building clearing tactics  are a basis for clearing a structure with the fewest possible casualties by attempting to mass bodies into a room before the enemy can cut you all down. Somebody is going to die though if your enemy is not caught unawares. Same goes with platoon or company fire and maneuver. Im not going to initiate an assault involving suppressive fires and bounding movements when I could just sneak around the back of a hill and come up inside the enemies flank. 
 
That being said, the terrain objectives on a map have to be assumed to have some sort of strategic/operational/tactical significance. Lets just look at another historical example shall we? 
 
During the Mortain Counter-Attack in August of 44, Hill 317 Could not be bypassed because it was an important spotting point for artillery and air support. IE: Terrain dictated the focal point of an entire offensive, and successful defense of that objective impeded the entire advance (among other things.)
 
Bastogne, possessed a road network that was important to maintaining the German advance in the Bulge. Not taking it tied down units that could have been doing other things. 
 
We could also mention the cities of Caen or Saint Lo, or the Rhine as important pieces of Terrain that influenced how battles were fought and their outcomes. 
 
If a mission designer puts a box around a town, it only makes sense that on some level it is necessary. Going beyond that objective, and attempting to destroy the enemy beyond what you were ordered to do would in most cases be stupid. For example, lets say you are orders to seize a high point that overlooks a bridgehead. You successfully do that. So are you now going to assault the bridge on your own into enemy forces that might now have a defensive advantage? What your force even set up for such an operation? Are you authorized to go on wanton assaults you were not ordered to? 
 
It therefore makes sense to push into or closely around Terrain objectives as (as the terrtain allows) because if I get there first, then I can be on defense for the rest of the match. If I ignore the "stupid designers objectives" I will most likely fight myself having to fight and offensive battle that I might have entirely avoided. Commanders issue limited terrain objectives FOR A REASON. By taking important pieces of terrain, I  might force the enemy to retreat to some other place where the battle for the rest of my army will be easier. Its alot like how in  game of chess, you sometimes move pieces into certain spaces just so you can get the enemy to move his pieces somewhere else, some where when you can reap far greater rewards than if you had committed totally on the spot. 
 
So in short: If there is a terrain objective, it is there for a reason. Maybe not for the tactical battle you are fighting, but for the larger war you are fighting in. If I fight for a road junction and lose far more men than my opponent, that is just fine, because at the end of the day holding the junction (perhaps not useful for me tactically) might mean the difference between between resupply or reinforcements arriving. 
 
I cannot emphasize enough that there is no single paramount military objective. In certain circumstances, a terrain feature may be a means to and end. In others, maneuver might be, or in others simple reduction of the enemy force. A nation fights to defeat another nation: not the nations army. If I can blockade you and starve you out, then Id rather do than than fight a pitched battle. If killing the enemy was the only thing that mattered, then any time you came across a superior force you would just retreat. But eventually you would run out of places to go, and would have to make a stand somewhere. So in effect, seizing terrain produces increasingly less realistic options for your opponent. If you do that well enough, they might just give up without a fight. 

This gets more at the heart of the issue, but your blaming wrong mechanic. 
 
The omniscient presence of the human player, and his ability to micro the battlefield is inherently not realistic. This is something that ALL RTS games have in common to some extent. You are managing a battle on a level that nobody does in actuality. A company commander rarely, if ever, tells a specific tank to face a certain direction. He also does not micro the movements of squad fire teams, or does a litany of other things that the player does in combat mission. The only true way to rectify this in a game would be to have it played like a first person shooter, with players issuing orders to other units and then those human units carrying them out, each unit only seeing what he can see from where he is at. 
 
In combat mission, we already have the most realistic approach you can probably get in a RTS, and it still be a RTS. WEGO. Wego limits specific orders to only occurring every minute, which in my opinion is a decent way to make C2 more realistic, as it makes it less possible for you to instantly micro units. If you want something else, then you wont get that from a strategy game, period. They are by nature exercises in theory, not C2 simulations. 
 
With that said, it is totally unfair to single out the "area fire" mechanic and claim it being abused. If you wanted to alter this in some physically unrealistic way to ostensibly reflect some C2 conundrum, you would still be left with a imperfect solution (as you said). But worse, you would have altered one specific mechanic unevenly when there are loads of other things you do in this game that benefit from the nature of the players abilities. If we tried to alter all mechanics like this, pretty soon there wouldn't be much for the player to do anymore, except watch the battle unfold. 

This gets more at the heart of the issue, but your blaming wrong mechanic. 
 
The omniscient presence of the human player, and his ability to micro the battlefield is inherently not realistic. This is something that ALL RTS games have in common to some extent. You are managing a battle on a level that nobody does in actuality. A company commander rarely, if ever, tells a specific tank to face a certain direction. He also does not micro the movements of squad fire teams, or does a litany of other things that the player does in combat mission. The only true way to rectify this in a game would be to have it played like a first person shooter, with players issuing orders to other units and then those human units carrying them out, each unit only seeing what he can see from where he is at. 
 
In combat mission, we already have the most realistic approach you can probably get in a RTS, and it still be a RTS. WEGO. Wego limits specific orders to only occurring every minute, which in my opinion is a decent way to make C2 more realistic, as it makes it less possible for you to instantly micro units. If you want something else, then you wont get that from a strategy game, period. They are by nature exercises in theory, not C2 simulations. 
 
With that said, it is totally unfair to single out the "area fire" mechanic and claim it being abused. If you wanted to alter this in some physically unrealistic way to ostensibly reflect some C2 conundrum, you would still be left with a imperfect solution (as you said). But worse, you would have altered one specific mechanic unevenly when there are loads of other things you do in this game that benefit from the nature of the players abilities. If we tried to alter all mechanics like this, pretty soon there wouldn't be much for the player to do anymore, except watch the battle unfold. 

What is not being understood here is that "murdering" the enemy force IS NOT the objective in war. Neutralizing the enemy force is. 
 
And no, that is not just semantics. Like Bill pointed out earlier, unless you have a massive advantage in firepower or manpower, you cannot ignore terrain in a fight, and even then doing so would be wasteful in most circumstances. In reality, all battles are won by achieving and advantage of some kind. Whether that is through troop concentration to achieve mass for assault, or bombardment reduce the enemy's ability to resist, or through maneuver to force the enemy into a disadvantageous position that enhances your own forces ability to fight. 
 
Attacking the enemy with cookie-cutter fire and movement is a recipe for suicide. It is very much akin to clearing  a room. NOBODY in their right mind stacks up and breaches a room through weight of bodies if your rules of engagement would have allowed you to satchel the entire building instead. Room clearing or building clearing tactics  are a basis for clearing a structure with the fewest possible casualties by attempting to mass bodies into a room before the enemy can cut you all down. Somebody is going to die though if your enemy is not caught unawares. Same goes with platoon or company fire and maneuver. Im not going to initiate an assault involving suppressive fires and bounding movements when I could just sneak around the back of a hill and come up inside the enemies flank. 
 
That being said, the terrain objectives on a map have to be assumed to have some sort of strategic/operational/tactical significance. Lets just look at another historical example shall we? 
 
During the Mortain Counter-Attack in August of 44, Hill 317 Could not be bypassed because it was an important spotting point for artillery and air support. IE: Terrain dictated the focal point of an entire offensive, and successful defense of that objective impeded the entire advance (among other things.)
 
Bastogne, possessed a road network that was important to maintaining the German advance in the Bulge. Not taking it tied down units that could have been doing other things. 
 
We could also mention the cities of Caen or Saint Lo, or the Rhine as important pieces of Terrain that influenced how battles were fought and their outcomes. 
 
If a mission designer puts a box around a town, it only makes sense that on some level it is necessary. Going beyond that objective, and attempting to destroy the enemy beyond what you were ordered to do would in most cases be stupid. For example, lets say you are orders to seize a high point that overlooks a bridgehead. You successfully do that. So are you now going to assault the bridge on your own into enemy forces that might now have a defensive advantage? What your force even set up for such an operation? Are you authorized to go on wanton assaults you were not ordered to? 
 
It therefore makes sense to push into or closely around Terrain objectives as (as the terrtain allows) because if I get there first, then I can be on defense for the rest of the match. If I ignore the "stupid designers objectives" I will most likely fight myself having to fight and offensive battle that I might have entirely avoided. Commanders issue limited terrain objectives FOR A REASON. By taking important pieces of terrain, I  might force the enemy to retreat to some other place where the battle for the rest of my army will be easier. Its alot like how in  game of chess, you sometimes move pieces into certain spaces just so you can get the enemy to move his pieces somewhere else, some where when you can reap far greater rewards than if you had committed totally on the spot. 
 
So in short: If there is a terrain objective, it is there for a reason. Maybe not for the tactical battle you are fighting, but for the larger war you are fighting in. If I fight for a road junction and lose far more men than my opponent, that is just fine, because at the end of the day holding the junction (perhaps not useful for me tactically) might mean the difference between between resupply or reinforcements arriving. 
 
I cannot emphasize enough that there is no single paramount military objective. In certain circumstances, a terrain feature may be a means to and end. In others, maneuver might be, or in others simple reduction of the enemy force. A nation fights to defeat another nation: not the nations army. If I can blockade you and starve you out, then Id rather do than than fight a pitched battle. If killing the enemy was the only thing that mattered, then any time you came across a superior force you would just retreat. But eventually you would run out of places to go, and would have to make a stand somewhere. So in effect, seizing terrain produces increasingly less realistic options for your opponent. If you do that well enough, they might just give up without a fight. 

What is not being understood here is that "murdering" the enemy force IS NOT the objective in war. Neutralizing the enemy force is. 
 
And no, that is not just semantics. Like Bill pointed out earlier, unless you have a massive advantage in firepower or manpower, you cannot ignore terrain in a fight, and even then doing so would be wasteful in most circumstances. In reality, all battles are won by achieving and advantage of some kind. Whether that is through troop concentration to achieve mass for assault, or bombardment reduce the enemy's ability to resist, or through maneuver to force the enemy into a disadvantageous position that enhances your own forces ability to fight. 
 
Attacking the enemy with cookie-cutter fire and movement is a recipe for suicide. It is very much akin to clearing  a room. NOBODY in their right mind stacks up and breaches a room through weight of bodies if your rules of engagement would have allowed you to satchel the entire building instead. Room clearing or building clearing tactics  are a basis for clearing a structure with the fewest possible casualties by attempting to mass bodies into a room before the enemy can cut you all down. Somebody is going to die though if your enemy is not caught unawares. Same goes with platoon or company fire and maneuver. Im not going to initiate an assault involving suppressive fires and bounding movements when I could just sneak around the back of a hill and come up inside the enemies flank. 
 
That being said, the terrain objectives on a map have to be assumed to have some sort of strategic/operational/tactical significance. Lets just look at another historical example shall we? 
 
During the Mortain Counter-Attack in August of 44, Hill 317 Could not be bypassed because it was an important spotting point for artillery and air support. IE: Terrain dictated the focal point of an entire offensive, and successful defense of that objective impeded the entire advance (among other things.)
 
Bastogne, possessed a road network that was important to maintaining the German advance in the Bulge. Not taking it tied down units that could have been doing other things. 
 
We could also mention the cities of Caen or Saint Lo, or the Rhine as important pieces of Terrain that influenced how battles were fought and their outcomes. 
 
If a mission designer puts a box around a town, it only makes sense that on some level it is necessary. Going beyond that objective, and attempting to destroy the enemy beyond what you were ordered to do would in most cases be stupid. For example, lets say you are orders to seize a high point that overlooks a bridgehead. You successfully do that. So are you now going to assault the bridge on your own into enemy forces that might now have a defensive advantage? What your force even set up for such an operation? Are you authorized to go on wanton assaults you were not ordered to? 
 
It therefore makes sense to push into or closely around Terrain objectives as (as the terrtain allows) because if I get there first, then I can be on defense for the rest of the match. If I ignore the "stupid designers objectives" I will most likely fight myself having to fight and offensive battle that I might have entirely avoided. Commanders issue limited terrain objectives FOR A REASON. By taking important pieces of terrain, I  might force the enemy to retreat to some other place where the battle for the rest of my army will be easier. Its alot like how in  game of chess, you sometimes move pieces into certain spaces just so you can get the enemy to move his pieces somewhere else, some where when you can reap far greater rewards than if you had committed totally on the spot. 
 
So in short: If there is a terrain objective, it is there for a reason. Maybe not for the tactical battle you are fighting, but for the larger war you are fighting in. If I fight for a road junction and lose far more men than my opponent, that is just fine, because at the end of the day holding the junction (perhaps not useful for me tactically) might mean the difference between between resupply or reinforcements arriving. 
 
I cannot emphasize enough that there is no single paramount military objective. In certain circumstances, a terrain feature may be a means to and end. In others, maneuver might be, or in others simple reduction of the enemy force. A nation fights to defeat another nation: not the nations army. If I can blockade you and starve you out, then Id rather do than than fight a pitched battle. If killing the enemy was the only thing that mattered, then any time you came across a superior force you would just retreat. But eventually you would run out of places to go, and would have to make a stand somewhere. So in effect, seizing terrain produces increasingly less realistic options for your opponent. If you do that well enough, they might just give up without a fight. 

What is not being understood here is that "murdering" the enemy force IS NOT the objective in war. Neutralizing the enemy force is. 
 
And no, that is not just semantics. Like Bill pointed out earlier, unless you have a massive advantage in firepower or manpower, you cannot ignore terrain in a fight, and even then doing so would be wasteful in most circumstances. In reality, all battles are won by achieving and advantage of some kind. Whether that is through troop concentration to achieve mass for assault, or bombardment reduce the enemy's ability to resist, or through maneuver to force the enemy into a disadvantageous position that enhances your own forces ability to fight. 
 
Attacking the enemy with cookie-cutter fire and movement is a recipe for suicide. It is very much akin to clearing  a room. NOBODY in their right mind stacks up and breaches a room through weight of bodies if your rules of engagement would have allowed you to satchel the entire building instead. Room clearing or building clearing tactics  are a basis for clearing a structure with the fewest possible casualties by attempting to mass bodies into a room before the enemy can cut you all down. Somebody is going to die though if your enemy is not caught unawares. Same goes with platoon or company fire and maneuver. Im not going to initiate an assault involving suppressive fires and bounding movements when I could just sneak around the back of a hill and come up inside the enemies flank. 
 
That being said, the terrain objectives on a map have to be assumed to have some sort of strategic/operational/tactical significance. Lets just look at another historical example shall we? 
 
During the Mortain Counter-Attack in August of 44, Hill 317 Could not be bypassed because it was an important spotting point for artillery and air support. IE: Terrain dictated the focal point of an entire offensive, and successful defense of that objective impeded the entire advance (among other things.)
 
Bastogne, possessed a road network that was important to maintaining the German advance in the Bulge. Not taking it tied down units that could have been doing other things. 
 
We could also mention the cities of Caen or Saint Lo, or the Rhine as important pieces of Terrain that influenced how battles were fought and their outcomes. 
 
If a mission designer puts a box around a town, it only makes sense that on some level it is necessary. Going beyond that objective, and attempting to destroy the enemy beyond what you were ordered to do would in most cases be stupid. For example, lets say you are orders to seize a high point that overlooks a bridgehead. You successfully do that. So are you now going to assault the bridge on your own into enemy forces that might now have a defensive advantage? What your force even set up for such an operation? Are you authorized to go on wanton assaults you were not ordered to? 
 
It therefore makes sense to push into or closely around Terrain objectives as (as the terrtain allows) because if I get there first, then I can be on defense for the rest of the match. If I ignore the "stupid designers objectives" I will most likely fight myself having to fight and offensive battle that I might have entirely avoided. Commanders issue limited terrain objectives FOR A REASON. By taking important pieces of terrain, I  might force the enemy to retreat to some other place where the battle for the rest of my army will be easier. Its alot like how in  game of chess, you sometimes move pieces into certain spaces just so you can get the enemy to move his pieces somewhere else, some where when you can reap far greater rewards than if you had committed totally on the spot. 
 
So in short: If there is a terrain objective, it is there for a reason. Maybe not for the tactical battle you are fighting, but for the larger war you are fighting in. If I fight for a road junction and lose far more men than my opponent, that is just fine, because at the end of the day holding the junction (perhaps not useful for me tactically) might mean the difference between between resupply or reinforcements arriving. 
 
I cannot emphasize enough that there is no single paramount military objective. In certain circumstances, a terrain feature may be a means to and end. In others, maneuver might be, or in others simple reduction of the enemy force. A nation fights to defeat another nation: not the nations army. If I can blockade you and starve you out, then Id rather do than than fight a pitched battle. If killing the enemy was the only thing that mattered, then any time you came across a superior force you would just retreat. But eventually you would run out of places to go, and would have to make a stand somewhere. So in effect, seizing terrain produces increasingly less realistic options for your opponent. If you do that well enough, they might just give up without a fight. 

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There isn't any reason that a weapon directed at a piece of terrain should be less accurate simply because you cannot see the "target" that is presumably occupying said terrain (but cannot been see by the shooter.)
 
To build upon the church tower example posted by Rinaldi, if I told a MG to fire a object like a church tower than is concealing a target that is either suspected or spotted by a unit other than the shooter, there is no reason what so ever that the shooter should be "less accurate" in his attempts to hit the spot he is directed to shoot. The Machine gun in question should not be made artificially inaccurate just because it cant see the target. The fact that it might not hit anyone in the tower because it cannot see them, but is in fact saturating the tower in hopes of hitting them, is already modeled. Once directed to shoot at a specific area, a unit would not just randomly start shooting something 15 feet to the right of that area. In other words, If someone orders a tank to blast a bell tower, than tank should not be randomly missing right or left of the tower or shooting some place other than the tower outside of ballistic limits of the weapons or skill limits of the shooter.
 
When I was in Afghanistan in 2011, the FOB I was at came under attack from a 3 story building just outside the ECP. The shooters occupied the roof, and were using it to fire over the walls and into the base. A patrol came back during the attack and was directed to shoot the rooftop with its 50 cals. The troops firing could not see the enemy because of the height of the building. So they were guided to shoot the roof by people in higher up locations. The people manning the 50's did not start randomly hitting things other than the roof area. They ONLY shot the roof area. Not the second floor, not some other building. Not seeing the enemy did not suddenly reduce their mental capacity to fire at a directed point.
 
There is no such thing as "abuse" of area fire. There are no rules in war. It is completely possible, and was a historically common occurrence, to saturate areas with fire.

What is not being understood here is that "murdering" the enemy force IS NOT the objective in war. Neutralizing the enemy force is. 
 
And no, that is not just semantics. Like Bill pointed out earlier, unless you have a massive advantage in firepower or manpower, you cannot ignore terrain in a fight, and even then doing so would be wasteful in most circumstances. In reality, all battles are won by achieving and advantage of some kind. Whether that is through troop concentration to achieve mass for assault, or bombardment reduce the enemy's ability to resist, or through maneuver to force the enemy into a disadvantageous position that enhances your own forces ability to fight. 
 
Attacking the enemy with cookie-cutter fire and movement is a recipe for suicide. It is very much akin to clearing  a room. NOBODY in their right mind stacks up and breaches a room through weight of bodies if your rules of engagement would have allowed you to satchel the entire building instead. Room clearing or building clearing tactics  are a basis for clearing a structure with the fewest possible casualties by attempting to mass bodies into a room before the enemy can cut you all down. Somebody is going to die though if your enemy is not caught unawares. Same goes with platoon or company fire and maneuver. Im not going to initiate an assault involving suppressive fires and bounding movements when I could just sneak around the back of a hill and come up inside the enemies flank. 
 
That being said, the terrain objectives on a map have to be assumed to have some sort of strategic/operational/tactical significance. Lets just look at another historical example shall we? 
 
During the Mortain Counter-Attack in August of 44, Hill 317 Could not be bypassed because it was an important spotting point for artillery and air support. IE: Terrain dictated the focal point of an entire offensive, and successful defense of that objective impeded the entire advance (among other things.)
 
Bastogne, possessed a road network that was important to maintaining the German advance in the Bulge. Not taking it tied down units that could have been doing other things. 
 
We could also mention the cities of Caen or Saint Lo, or the Rhine as important pieces of Terrain that influenced how battles were fought and their outcomes. 
 
If a mission designer puts a box around a town, it only makes sense that on some level it is necessary. Going beyond that objective, and attempting to destroy the enemy beyond what you were ordered to do would in most cases be stupid. For example, lets say you are orders to seize a high point that overlooks a bridgehead. You successfully do that. So are you now going to assault the bridge on your own into enemy forces that might now have a defensive advantage? What your force even set up for such an operation? Are you authorized to go on wanton assaults you were not ordered to? 
 
It therefore makes sense to push into or closely around Terrain objectives as (as the terrtain allows) because if I get there first, then I can be on defense for the rest of the match. If I ignore the "stupid designers objectives" I will most likely fight myself having to fight and offensive battle that I might have entirely avoided. Commanders issue limited terrain objectives FOR A REASON. By taking important pieces of terrain, I  might force the enemy to retreat to some other place where the battle for the rest of my army will be easier. Its alot like how in  game of chess, you sometimes move pieces into certain spaces just so you can get the enemy to move his pieces somewhere else, some where when you can reap far greater rewards than if you had committed totally on the spot. 
 
So in short: If there is a terrain objective, it is there for a reason. Maybe not for the tactical battle you are fighting, but for the larger war you are fighting in. If I fight for a road junction and lose far more men than my opponent, that is just fine, because at the end of the day holding the junction (perhaps not useful for me tactically) might mean the difference between between resupply or reinforcements arriving. 
 
I cannot emphasize enough that there is no single paramount military objective. In certain circumstances, a terrain feature may be a means to and end. In others, maneuver might be, or in others simple reduction of the enemy force. A nation fights to defeat another nation: not the nations army. If I can blockade you and starve you out, then Id rather do than than fight a pitched battle. If killing the enemy was the only thing that mattered, then any time you came across a superior force you would just retreat. But eventually you would run out of places to go, and would have to make a stand somewhere. So in effect, seizing terrain produces increasingly less realistic options for your opponent. If you do that well enough, they might just give up without a fight. 

Any doctrine that views "murdering the enemy" as a objective that occurs within a vacuum is also rubbish.
 
Terrain is more than just cover to defend your troops or block your opponents movement. To treat terrain like a side note is pure fantasy. You are placing a cookie cutter concept  (destroying the enemy force) on a pedestal and ignoring any other possible considerations. Talking about a game of basket ball stating "you only goal is to score points" and ignoring the effect that controlling sections of the court has on that, is crazy.
 
Terrain effects nearly every facet of combat, tactical/operational/strategic. It determines engagement ranges, choke points, avenues of approach, mobility, etc, etc, etc. In many ways it is like having a 3rd army on the battlefield, which opposes both sides. A lot like the weather actually. It is a heck of a lot more than simply defense for your units and places your can block the enemy.

Agreed - CM is so good sometimes at depicting the battlefield that we forget that it is a wargame and as such, the "player as god" issue cannot be eliminated without removing almost all the player's control which makes it not-fun ( or at least, not a wargame ).
 
When you're playing another human PBEM, you are both capable of the same somewhat unrealistic behaviour and that at least, keeps the field level. Against the AI the human has an advantage, but then you always will against AI ( at least until Skynet  )

This gets more at the heart of the issue, but your blaming wrong mechanic. 
 
The omniscient presence of the human player, and his ability to micro the battlefield is inherently not realistic. This is something that ALL RTS games have in common to some extent. You are managing a battle on a level that nobody does in actuality. A company commander rarely, if ever, tells a specific tank to face a certain direction. He also does not micro the movements of squad fire teams, or does a litany of other things that the player does in combat mission. The only true way to rectify this in a game would be to have it played like a first person shooter, with players issuing orders to other units and then those human units carrying them out, each unit only seeing what he can see from where he is at. 
 
In combat mission, we already have the most realistic approach you can probably get in a RTS, and it still be a RTS. WEGO. Wego limits specific orders to only occurring every minute, which in my opinion is a decent way to make C2 more realistic, as it makes it less possible for you to instantly micro units. If you want something else, then you wont get that from a strategy game, period. They are by nature exercises in theory, not C2 simulations. 
 
With that said, it is totally unfair to single out the "area fire" mechanic and claim it being abused. If you wanted to alter this in some physically unrealistic way to ostensibly reflect some C2 conundrum, you would still be left with a imperfect solution (as you said). But worse, you would have altered one specific mechanic unevenly when there are loads of other things you do in this game that benefit from the nature of the players abilities. If we tried to alter all mechanics like this, pretty soon there wouldn't be much for the player to do anymore, except watch the battle unfold. 

This gets more at the heart of the issue, but your blaming wrong mechanic. 
 
The omniscient presence of the human player, and his ability to micro the battlefield is inherently not realistic. This is something that ALL RTS games have in common to some extent. You are managing a battle on a level that nobody does in actuality. A company commander rarely, if ever, tells a specific tank to face a certain direction. He also does not micro the movements of squad fire teams, or does a litany of other things that the player does in combat mission. The only true way to rectify this in a game would be to have it played like a first person shooter, with players issuing orders to other units and then those human units carrying them out, each unit only seeing what he can see from where he is at. 
 
In combat mission, we already have the most realistic approach you can probably get in a RTS, and it still be a RTS. WEGO. Wego limits specific orders to only occurring every minute, which in my opinion is a decent way to make C2 more realistic, as it makes it less possible for you to instantly micro units. If you want something else, then you wont get that from a strategy game, period. They are by nature exercises in theory, not C2 simulations. 
 
With that said, it is totally unfair to single out the "area fire" mechanic and claim it being abused. If you wanted to alter this in some physically unrealistic way to ostensibly reflect some C2 conundrum, you would still be left with a imperfect solution (as you said). But worse, you would have altered one specific mechanic unevenly when there are loads of other things you do in this game that benefit from the nature of the players abilities. If we tried to alter all mechanics like this, pretty soon there wouldn't be much for the player to do anymore, except watch the battle unfold. 

Luke, it'll never happen. From reading Jason's stuff I bet he has never played a human opponent.

Oh and what theories? There are no theories here, only an over simplification of an end state, "kill the enemy". No $hit, that is always the goal, but as Shift8 stated, ignore the other aspects of the battlefield including time and terrain, etc. at your peril. Rarely is it so simple to just go out and kill the other force, unless you always play with a far superior numerical or firepower advantage.

What, are you afraid of putting your theories to the test?

Any doctrine that views "murdering the enemy" as a objective that occurs within a vacuum is also rubbish.
 
Terrain is more than just cover to defend your troops or block your opponents movement. To treat terrain like a side note is pure fantasy. You are placing a cookie cutter concept  (destroying the enemy force) on a pedestal and ignoring any other possible considerations. Talking about a game of basket ball stating "you only goal is to score points" and ignoring the effect that controlling sections of the court has on that, is crazy.
 
Terrain effects nearly every facet of combat, tactical/operational/strategic. It determines engagement ranges, choke points, avenues of approach, mobility, etc, etc, etc. In many ways it is like having a 3rd army on the battlefield, which opposes both sides. A lot like the weather actually. It is a heck of a lot more than simply defense for your units and places your can block the enemy.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There isn't any reason that a weapon directed at a piece of terrain should be less accurate simply because you cannot see the "target" that is presumably occupying said terrain (but cannot been see by the shooter.)
 
To build upon the church tower example posted by Rinaldi, if I told a MG to fire a object like a church tower than is concealing a target that is either suspected or spotted by a unit other than the shooter, there is no reason what so ever that the shooter should be "less accurate" in his attempts to hit the spot he is directed to shoot. The Machine gun in question should not be made artificially inaccurate just because it cant see the target. The fact that it might not hit anyone in the tower because it cannot see them, but is in fact saturating the tower in hopes of hitting them, is already modeled. Once directed to shoot at a specific area, a unit would not just randomly start shooting something 15 feet to the right of that area. In other words, If someone orders a tank to blast a bell tower, than tank should not be randomly missing right or left of the tower or shooting some place other than the tower outside of ballistic limits of the weapons or skill limits of the shooter.
 
When I was in Afghanistan in 2011, the FOB I was at came under attack from a 3 story building just outside the ECP. The shooters occupied the roof, and were using it to fire over the walls and into the base. A patrol came back during the attack and was directed to shoot the rooftop with its 50 cals. The troops firing could not see the enemy because of the height of the building. So they were guided to shoot the roof by people in higher up locations. The people manning the 50's did not start randomly hitting things other than the roof area. They ONLY shot the roof area. Not the second floor, not some other building. Not seeing the enemy did not suddenly reduce their mental capacity to fire at a directed point.
 
There is no such thing as "abuse" of area fire. There are no rules in war. It is completely possible, and was a historically common occurrence, to saturate areas with fire.

This gets more at the heart of the issue, but your blaming wrong mechanic. 
 
The omniscient presence of the human player, and his ability to micro the battlefield is inherently not realistic. This is something that ALL RTS games have in common to some extent. You are managing a battle on a level that nobody does in actuality. A company commander rarely, if ever, tells a specific tank to face a certain direction. He also does not micro the movements of squad fire teams, or does a litany of other things that the player does in combat mission. The only true way to rectify this in a game would be to have it played like a first person shooter, with players issuing orders to other units and then those human units carrying them out, each unit only seeing what he can see from where he is at. 
 
In combat mission, we already have the most realistic approach you can probably get in a RTS, and it still be a RTS. WEGO. Wego limits specific orders to only occurring every minute, which in my opinion is a decent way to make C2 more realistic, as it makes it less possible for you to instantly micro units. If you want something else, then you wont get that from a strategy game, period. They are by nature exercises in theory, not C2 simulations. 
 
With that said, it is totally unfair to single out the "area fire" mechanic and claim it being abused. If you wanted to alter this in some physically unrealistic way to ostensibly reflect some C2 conundrum, you would still be left with a imperfect solution (as you said). But worse, you would have altered one specific mechanic unevenly when there are loads of other things you do in this game that benefit from the nature of the players abilities. If we tried to alter all mechanics like this, pretty soon there wouldn't be much for the player to do anymore, except watch the battle unfold. 

Any doctrine that views "murdering the enemy" as a objective that occurs within a vacuum is also rubbish.
 
Terrain is more than just cover to defend your troops or block your opponents movement. To treat terrain like a side note is pure fantasy. You are placing a cookie cutter concept  (destroying the enemy force) on a pedestal and ignoring any other possible considerations. Talking about a game of basket ball stating "you only goal is to score points" and ignoring the effect that controlling sections of the court has on that, is crazy.
 
Terrain effects nearly every facet of combat, tactical/operational/strategic. It determines engagement ranges, choke points, avenues of approach, mobility, etc, etc, etc. In many ways it is like having a 3rd army on the battlefield, which opposes both sides. A lot like the weather actually. It is a heck of a lot more than simply defense for your units and places your can block the enemy.

Any doctrine that views "murdering the enemy" as a objective that occurs within a vacuum is also rubbish.
 
Terrain is more than just cover to defend your troops or block your opponents movement. To treat terrain like a side note is pure fantasy. You are placing a cookie cutter concept  (destroying the enemy force) on a pedestal and ignoring any other possible considerations. Talking about a game of basket ball stating "you only goal is to score points" and ignoring the effect that controlling sections of the court has on that, is crazy.
 
Terrain effects nearly every facet of combat, tactical/operational/strategic. It determines engagement ranges, choke points, avenues of approach, mobility, etc, etc, etc. In many ways it is like having a 3rd army on the battlefield, which opposes both sides. A lot like the weather actually. It is a heck of a lot more than simply defense for your units and places your can block the enemy.

Well shift8 nice post and utterly convincing. Seriously. I used a fictional what if, but this carries a lot more weight and makes the point better, thanks.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There isn't any reason that a weapon directed at a piece of terrain should be less accurate simply because you cannot see the "target" that is presumably occupying said terrain (but cannot been see by the shooter.)
 
To build upon the church tower example posted by Rinaldi, if I told a MG to fire a object like a church tower than is concealing a target that is either suspected or spotted by a unit other than the shooter, there is no reason what so ever that the shooter should be "less accurate" in his attempts to hit the spot he is directed to shoot. The Machine gun in question should not be made artificially inaccurate just because it cant see the target. The fact that it might not hit anyone in the tower because it cannot see them, but is in fact saturating the tower in hopes of hitting them, is already modeled. Once directed to shoot at a specific area, a unit would not just randomly start shooting something 15 feet to the right of that area. In other words, If someone orders a tank to blast a bell tower, than tank should not be randomly missing right or left of the tower or shooting some place other than the tower outside of ballistic limits of the weapons or skill limits of the shooter.
 
When I was in Afghanistan in 2011, the FOB I was at came under attack from a 3 story building just outside the ECP. The shooters occupied the roof, and were using it to fire over the walls and into the base. A patrol came back during the attack and was directed to shoot the rooftop with its 50 cals. The troops firing could not see the enemy because of the height of the building. So they were guided to shoot the roof by people in higher up locations. The people manning the 50's did not start randomly hitting things other than the roof area. They ONLY shot the roof area. Not the second floor, not some other building. Not seeing the enemy did not suddenly reduce their mental capacity to fire at a directed point.
 
There is no such thing as "abuse" of area fire. There are no rules in war. It is completely possible, and was a historically common occurrence, to saturate areas with fire.

Discussion about operational art in a tactical game....yes, this will go perfectly. Oh wait, its a complete mess, shocking!
 
Lets stop confusing terrain objectives at the tactical level for terrain objectives at the operational level, one is necessary, the other is only contextual next to the main body. Considering the 'main body' in a tactical scenario may be no more than a reinforced platoon of enemies, there's often serious considerations viz. force preservation to not break your neck trying to completely destroy them.
 
What, precisely, is the point of this thread if not to stroke some ego and take cheap shots at the design philosophy of these games? That's clearly what its devolved into. Also: regurgitating quotes from Guderian doesn't make you an expert on operational art, it simply makes you a good reader. Obviously going after the bulk of the enemy is always a sound option, but terrain, context (which despite your asinine wording, is neither stupid nor unrealistic)  and what your force is offensively capable of (which is dictated by so many factors that I'd rather not rival the length of your average post trying to jot them all down) may mean a more limited approach is necessary.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There isn't any reason that a weapon directed at a piece of terrain should be less accurate simply because you cannot see the "target" that is presumably occupying said terrain (but cannot been see by the shooter.)
 
To build upon the church tower example posted by Rinaldi, if I told a MG to fire a object like a church tower than is concealing a target that is either suspected or spotted by a unit other than the shooter, there is no reason what so ever that the shooter should be "less accurate" in his attempts to hit the spot he is directed to shoot. The Machine gun in question should not be made artificially inaccurate just because it cant see the target. The fact that it might not hit anyone in the tower because it cannot see them, but is in fact saturating the tower in hopes of hitting them, is already modeled. Once directed to shoot at a specific area, a unit would not just randomly start shooting something 15 feet to the right of that area. In other words, If someone orders a tank to blast a bell tower, than tank should not be randomly missing right or left of the tower or shooting some place other than the tower outside of ballistic limits of the weapons or skill limits of the shooter.
 
When I was in Afghanistan in 2011, the FOB I was at came under attack from a 3 story building just outside the ECP. The shooters occupied the roof, and were using it to fire over the walls and into the base. A patrol came back during the attack and was directed to shoot the rooftop with its 50 cals. The troops firing could not see the enemy because of the height of the building. So they were guided to shoot the roof by people in higher up locations. The people manning the 50's did not start randomly hitting things other than the roof area. They ONLY shot the roof area. Not the second floor, not some other building. Not seeing the enemy did not suddenly reduce their mental capacity to fire at a directed point.
 
There is no such thing as "abuse" of area fire. There are no rules in war. It is completely possible, and was a historically common occurrence, to saturate areas with fire.

Good, your lack on input here will help the conversation go somewhere useful. 
 
You do not have proof. Where has BFC stated they agree with you? Show us the writing on the wall if you have it. A CP by any logical process would be part of CMBN PP section. Any the lack of spalling being mentioned is completely meaningless. They werent doing a damage test, they were doing a ballistic one. 
 
Im not even going to dignify your last bit with the smiley with a response, simply refer to the first part of the this reply.

Good, your lack on input here will help the conversation go somewhere useful. 
 
You do not have proof. Where has BFC stated they agree with you? Show us the writing on the wall if you have it. A CP by any logical process would be part of CMBN PP section. Any the lack of spalling being mentioned is completely meaningless. They werent doing a damage test, they were doing a ballistic one. 
 
Im not even going to dignify your last bit with the smiley with a response, simply refer to the first part of the this reply.