Kaunitz

Regarding sounds, it would be nice if the devs could include sound in the "fog of war". I.e. if you have no contact on a unit at all, you should not be allowed to hear its fire sounds and pinpoint the location of otherwise hidden enemy units very accurately just by listening (because the volume of the firing sound decreases very quickly over distance, so you just need to figure out where the sound is the loudest). I suppose that this sound-pinpointing is unintended?  It could be fixed elegantly if the volume of the sounds would stay at maximum for a longer distance from its source, so that players could only locate the origin of the fire sounds more roughly ("MG fire is coming from this village!" NOT: "MG fire is coming from this house!").

By the way, regarding fighting in woods, this might be interesting (the channel also features a video on us. rifle squad tactics which is highly recommendable): 
 

Twelve is correct in an Armored Panzergrenadier Battalion.
Remember, the other three Panzergrenadier Battalions in a Panzer Division are motorized, and they don't have Stummels.
I think the Armored Recon Battalion in a Panzer Division had thirteen Stummels, but CMRT gives them six. I don't have CMFB, so I can't comment on how the TOE  shows there. If you are seeing too many Stummels maybe play with the foot slogging PzGrenadiers more.

By the way, in case you haven't seen it, here is an interesting video on Soviet fortifications (starting at ca. 42:35): https://youtu.be/44KzYWq_3gw?t=2555
 

I'm sorry but the main problem with trenches remains that they hardly provide any protection, especially against artillery. Also, as they protrude from the ground, they tend to "catch" direct fire HE shells which would otherwise pass harmlessly above a well placed trench (no wall/hill immediately behind it)? This is also where low velocity guns (infantry support tanks/howitzers) should have a slight edge over high velocity guns.
The networks of fortifications you mention are impossible in CM quickbattles. All fortifications except for TRPs and wooden bunkers (all soft factors set to a minimum to reduce points - an oversight?) are horribly overprized. It is as if they have been deliberately taken out of the game. Why should I buy so many broken and overprized assets? While fortifications should cheaply funnel the opponent into your troops' kill zone, it's the other way round in CM: securing an area with a half-way functionable wire obstacle (1 line or wire + 1 line of mines; which is still less than what you would see in reality) costs more points than securing the same area with troops. To make fortifications (and related stuff, like engineers!) viable options in quickbattles, I think their point cost would be reduced to a third at minimum! Who buys an AT mine for 25 points that covers a single square (8x8m) and doesn't even trigger reliably?! It's a much better investment to spend the points of 3-4 mines (covered area: 24-32m - lol) on an anti tank gun. Generally speaking, I'd also like to point out that properly priced mines would also help to make H2H quickbattles less (anti)tank-dominated.
Of course it's true that trenches should not be invincible against artillery. Especially mortars with their steep trajectories are dangerous for trenches. But I'd argue that the hit rate in the game is over the top. It would take more shells/longer to score hits into a trench. Here is a little diagram I've made for modern mortars: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/123157-improvement-suggestions/?do=findComment&comment=1763553
In his book "On Artillery", Gudmundsson quotes some interesting data from an article in the US. field artillery journal from 1916, which mainly helps to show how howitzers with their more arced trajectories were better at hitting into trenches. Of course it's hard to properly evaluate such tests (what is a "standard trench"?), but I haven't been able to find any other data on this topic.  

Generally speaking, I think the game would profit a lot if you actually had to suppress enemy positions and assault them, rather than sit it out while your FO calls pinpoint arty on them and knock them out. Also, you will never see infantry in trenches getting rolled over by tanks (letting the tanks "pass"), as it seems to have happened quite often on the Eastern Front. Instead, tanks are able to shell infantry in trenches into oblivion.
 

Bear with me. I know next to nothing about WWII artillery. But I was hoping that maybe someone here could help me understand a few things?
From what I understand, the distinction between "howitzers" and "guns" was already becoming blurred during WWII. The difference is that howitzers fire at higher angles (curved trajectory) at lower velocities (shorter barrel), while guns fired at lower angles (flater trajectory) at higher velocities (longer barrel). This gave the gun a longer range (usefull for counter battery fire) at the cost that it could not hit enemy positions in defilade  that well (because of the flat trajectory). This applies to larger scale obstacles (hills), but also to the smaller scale (hitting into trenches). Also, I've read that howitzer shells had more explosive power than similar calibre gun ammunition. Simply because gun shells needed a thicker case in order to bear the stress from being fired at higher velocities. 
So I was wondering if there is any difference in Combat Mission between howitzer and gun artillery? From what I can tell, both types use the same trajectory (the shells roughly come flying from the "friendly side" of the faction, which is set by the mapmaker). Do howitzer shells pack more punch than gun shells? Also, perhaps one type is more accurate than the other? What's your experience/opinion?
Another interesting aspect is that WWII saw the rise of self propelled artillery. Obviously, the benefits are operational and/or related to counter-battery fire evasion and thus have no place in Combat Mission. But it seems as if sp. artillery formations often come with more ammunition? 
---------------------------------------
Last but not least, I also want to point out that assault guns/close support artillery (including the sp. artillery pieces that can be placed on map in CM) are in a bad spot in Combat Mission H2H quickbattles. Partly it's understandable, as it really was in a bad position and was adapted to fill a broader role during the war. Russian and German assault guns got their longer barreled guns to be usefull in the infantry support as well as the anti tank role. Nevertheless, traditional assault guns (e.g. StuHs) were used in the war. Currently, there is no incentive at all to pick these proper - howitzer armed - assault guns in H2H battles. I think they're in need of a price reduction. They're good at collapsing buildings and knocking out strong points (hardly anyone uses bunkers anyway...) and hitting enemy infantry. But the fact that they can't deal with enemy tanks makes them next to useless in H2H quickbattles. Reducing their cost may help? It's a pity that they are limited to scenarios. The same can be said for (manhandled/towed) infantry support guns and tanks, by the way. The H2H quickbattle is a very tank- and anti-tank heavy environment unless you agree on restrictions that usually include AGs/sp. artillery though. For this reason, I think that AGs (not including those that also act as tank destroyers) and sp. artillery should be much cheaper (compared to tanks). 
There are just so many vehicles you rarely ever see. This includes the early StuGs and later the StuHs, earlier SUs & ISUs, Sextons and Priests, Wespes and Hummels, StuPa/Brummbär, PzIIIN, Churchills - the coolest looking tank! , Howitzer Motor Carriages and also all sorts of flamethrower tanks, by the way! As their main use is against enemy infantry, they should be in a different, lower price category than tanks and anti tank guns.  But maybe it's just up to the community to find new house rules for force composition. Limiting armored fighting vehicles or tracked vehicles is not the solution. Rather (or in addition to that) we'd need to limit the number of guns with AT capability (long barrel/high velocity), which naturally includes not just mounted guns (tanks etc), but also ordinary "infantry" ATGs.

Here is a video showing how a 76mm tank shell flies to target. Captured with a high speed camera.
The movement of the shell is not exactly what you might expect.
https://youtu.be/xpJ8EoGmLuE?t=348
Later after this experment they shoot water melons with a 152mm gun.
 

I was going to state about that any unit or vehicle is always more expensive when purchased "singularly" compared to when its included as part of the "formation" anyway.
The Lloyd (60 pts, standard) can tow guns. The Bren/Universal (71 pts, standard) cannot tow guns. I dare say that's the answer. The reason to choose the Lloyd over the Bren/Universal is because you want to drag some guns about. So role wise your sort of comparing apples and oranges here. Now compare the Lloyd against the other vehicles that can tow guns such as the Jeep (48 pts, standard), Morris (42 pts, standard) and M5/M9 (73 pts, uncommon or limited). Does not seem so expensive in that context now does it?
Disclaimer: values taken as examples from the "single vehicles" on the quick battles force selection screen, your values may differ.

I've posted these observations some time ago in my Gerbini scenario-topic, but I think they deserve a better spot and some discussion, so here we go!
Some short notes on dust in Combat Mission 
I have not conducted serious tests, just some quick hotseat-experiments in Combat Mission: Fortress Italy.
What raises dust?
Vehicle movement over "dusty terrain". The faster the vehicle goes, the more dust is thrown up. Firing large calibre guns (AT guns, tank guns, etc) from "dusty terrain". MGs are okay. Shell impacts on "dusty terrain" Whether a terrain is dusty or not depends on the ground condition (no dust if wet, eg.) and on the type of terrain. E.g. the ploughed field tiles don't raise any dust, most crop tiles do. Also consider different road types.
Who can see dust?
Dust generated by shell impacts can be seen by the opponent. Dust generated by firing or moving can only be seen by the opponent if he has spotted the unit generating the dust (confirmed contact required). Note that the enemy can only see the dust that is created from the moment on at which he has spotted the source (i.e. "older" dust generated by the source is not shown to the opponent retrospectively). On the other hand: once you've spotted dust, it stays even if you lose sight of its source. Effects of dust?
Dust reduces/blocks LOS. For example, if you have 5 tanks on a sanddune fire, they will literally disappear in a cloud of dust. This is a two-edged sword and something to consider if you want to area-fire. Fire --> dust-cloud --> No LOS --> no area fire until the dust dissipates. This also raises an important question: Do dustclouds that my enemy can't see (because he has not spotted the source) still handicap his LOS? In order words: Is it possible that he can't see me because he's looking at a dust-cloud of which he is totally unaware?  Can you be fooled by an invisible dust cloud? Another highly interesting question: I don't know whether dust raises the chance of getting spotted (as an unconfirmed contact at least, even if you're shrouded in your own dust-cloud?).  Behaviour of dust?
Dust travels with the wind (scenario condition) and dissipates at some point.

Good question on Graviteam ways on doing the mesh alterations. Haven´t launched it (GTOS) for very long time but I´d guess they somehow "bake" integrate their foxholes and trenches maybe at a higher resolution into the base ground mesh. If they´re using the eyeballing method between units and stuff i don´t know. Another method I know of is in the ARMA/Iron Front 1944 FPS games. They use seperate 3D objects for foxholes and trench segments that then can be fix-placed individually into prepared depressions or pits in the base maps ground mesh. Quite similar to what can be done in CMX2 by using ditch locked tiles. Can´t recall on FOW and spotting on these objects ingame though.
Since weapon pits were mentioned here I found ditch locking AS in various variations works fairly well for protected placing i.e of guns or vehicles. I´d created some nice 88mm position where the gun and crew fit fairly nicely into a full AS -1m depression and bits of surrounded by 1m high berms. I could fine tune the depth of the pit by placing a X or + shaped cross section of foot path into the same AS. Final result was that the guns silhouette was fairly low when compared to flat on the gound and the gun tube was just high enough to enable shooting flat above ground level. Bits of trickier for PAK/AT-guns for their generally lower silhouettes and terrain height/ditch lock of +-1m does not allow much headroom for protection and same time preserve ability to shoot out of this position.

I largely agree with RockinHarry. Some (mostly young and/or undeducated) people are naive, uncritical and easily manipulated because they don't know it any better. But then there are others who should know it better and still stick to/work for (even if they don't believe in it) whatever ideology/set of belief makes them feel better, give them self-esteem or any other material or social benefit. Depending on which ideology they adhere to, and how much they're really prepared to act on its principles*, the results can be what I'd describe as "evil". What's evil? Incompatible with natural law, live and let live, and some basic "liberal" standards (this is the ideology I worship, this is my standard). I guess it largely depends on the freedom that these ideologies give to the individual. Some ideologies - including the NSDAP's (--> "Lebensraum") -  are just inherently evil in this respect. Worst of all, of course, are those people who deliberately propagate such ideologies and take special proud in it. If many people turn a blind eye on or actively stick to such an ideology, thoughts can turn into actions at some point.  
Regarding changing one's mind, I think it's a matter of "giving up" (if I give up this ideology, I give up parts of my self-esteem and something that makes me special in the eyes of others) and "mental lazyness" (I don't care if what I think can be proven wrong, or has logical flaws, --> cognitive dissonance). Neither of these two points are a valid excuse in my opinion. I don't know whether these "decisions" are made subconsciously. I doubt it.
To me, the strange smirk of the interviewee was a tell-tale sign that he was enjoying his being "special", "shocking". Take that away from him and he'd just be an old man. So many evils come from the desire of admiration. Ideologies create admiration in many ways and forms (all ideologies have their martyrs). You don't kill (primarily/exclusively?) because your want him dead. You also kill because you want everyone to see you kill. 
* When it comes to actual behaviour, the psychology and the situational factors come into play too. Just take a look at the famous Milgram experiment which allied psychologists conducted to understand Nazi-ism (the "authoritarian personality").

For CMx3: 
Crouched run. Some way of moving faster than the crawl while keeping a relatively low profile.  A new target order exclusively for throwing grenades (while staying prone/in cover, if possible). In close assault situations, you don't want your riflemen to stand up and go "peng, peng, peng!". You want them to go "boom!" An easier way (requiring fewer clicks) to make soldiers stay prone but NOT withhold their fire. Right now, the way to go is to use a "hide" command in combination with a 360° target arc (which in turn, means that you can't fine tune the facing/usage of cover). Also, the hide command reduces spotting capabilites (soldiers go through "hide" tasks, not just idle and spotting).

Okay, so I’ve made my last summary of this thread on 27th September here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/123157-improvement-suggestions/?do=findComment&comment=1763655
Since then, a lot of new suggestions were brought up by the community, so it’s time for another summary. Note that I try not to repeat anything from the old summary (fortifications, fortifications! ^^) and I’m not listing title-specific stuff that only applies to a single particular title. There is no particular order, no detailed reasoning - it's just a quick list. I also included the more radical/crazy ideas. 
 Force selection/quick battle set-up
Let us input the point budgets freely Scroll(wheel) function in force selection screen “random anything but night” option for daylight selection The ability to attach smaller formations to larger ones  The ability to set all vehicles as either genuinely dismounted or as ammo dumps across all the games  Aesthetical/graphical
Fix the light/shadow issue where terrain has light/shadow on opposite sides of the shading for houses and troops. (especially occurring under dusk/dawn conditions?) More movie modes (although they don´t necessarily need having a movie style touch) from the ALT-M key combo.  User Interface
A wind direction indicator on the compass tooltip - Ground type is displayed alongside mouse pointer when plotting movement/fire orders. Further possible options from the ALT+I key combo could  be "only show enemy AFV", "only show enemy ARTY" and similar when things on the map become somewhat confusing. Would be nice if they would let us toggle [the visual indicators of] all fire orders on/off like we can with movement orders. Would make it much easier to remember to stop area firing units. Gameplay/Aircraft
Anti Aircraft: Some kind of indication (animation, onscreen message) whether you have shot down, damaged, forced away, or missed enemy aircraft. (MOS:96B2P has andwered that there is some kind of feedback) Aircraft shadow flying over the battlefield.   Editor/map, scenario and campaign creation (also see Force Selection)
Ability to import map states from saved games. Ability for map states to carry over to the next battle in the same campaign. Shortcut/functions Ctrl-S (save) & Ctrl-Z (undo) If/then triggers for the AI Random map generation Better interface for flavor objects Let us place minefields/foxholes/barbed wire etc. in the 2D view of the editor Let us lay out AI plans in the 3D view of the editor A script (or something) that allows a map designer to quickly create a ruined version his map. A brush tool that randomly assignes craters and damages buildings it goes over?  Reserves arrive on map when position on map is reached. Opens up possibilities for designers both in terms of when friendly/enemy units arrive but also narratively like position reached = prisoners located. New Victory Condition - Objective Held/Taken within 'X' period of time.  32 Ai groups instead of only 16  Dynamic weather that can change during the course of a battle. (Pre-set by Scenario Designer). High chainlink fence. A fence you can see and shoot through but infanry can not climb over/move through. Ability to place dead soldiers on the map in the editor Treetrunks are too thick in general.   Gameplay/vehicles
Make vehicles take longer to fire off the first shot (a loading task prior to rotating/taking aim; linked to the issue that vehicle crews have magically pre-loaded the appropriate type of round for their target) Functional fire-ports, crews should be able to toss hand grenades out of slits etc. Tank-riders should be allowed to area-target “directionally”, i.e. not aim at a fixed point but instead fire in a certain aspect/direction (that stays the same while the vehicle moves). Gameplay/soldier behaviour
Have infantry stay on one side of a low wall when running along it. Right now, they jump back and forth over it. Also often affects hedges etc. infantry behaviour under any kind of shelling (even if in perfect cover, units decide to leave their cover to run around in the open and get killed like headless chicken) - this really is a major issue Squads should stay within say 3x Action Spots max (1x Action-Spot per Team), and not spread out half-dozen Action Spots when moving  Gameplay/LOS related
A visual display/overlay of the LOS map in-game, so that you can tell which spots can be seen from this spot, unambiguously. Improved line of sight so the squads see through the woods exactly what the player can see from the same spot would be great to have. And improved line of fire so the squads can shoot at what they see even if they are further into the woods. Gameplay/new features & commands
Road/formation following Fires Un-acquire command Ability to sync up commands between units. For example - Unit Y does not try to complete waypoint A, until Unit Z reaches waypoint B.  Off map support - "Repeat last mission" option for off map artillery and mortars. ROE-toggle for units: fire-at-will, return fire and hold fire 'checkbox' that could be ticked when placing any kind movement order wich would instruct the selected unit to NOT halt at the waypoint but rather move straight through to the next one Cellars, staircases Camouflage for vehicles, guns, men, fortifications Another speed mode [i.e. movement order], called mixed speed or jinking  via a colored line armor or soldiers can do it, should throw the AT gunners aim off nicely. Crouched run. Some way of moving faster than the crawl while keeping a relatively low profile.  A new target order exclusively for throwing grenades (while staying prone/in cover, if possible).  An easier way (requiring fewer clicks) to make soldiers stay prone but NOT withhold their fire.  for improved fortifications, esp. bunkers: shutters (might work similar to open up/button up orders for vehicles) Gameplay/general
The assignment of soldiers to “split” units: The binocular-equipped squad leader should rather stay with the MG/gun group rather than with the rifle/assault group. Assault-orders: the gun group should be doing the overwatch. If only one unit sees incoming enemy fire, and that unit gets destroyed during the turn, then those enemy bullets/shells should not be visible to the player during turn playback. make tank commanders other people sticking out of vehicles harder to hit while vehicle are on the move,  The crew of a tank or halftrack should be able to operate any vehicle of the same kind (tank for tank crew and halftracks for halftrack crew) Any crew or squad unit should be able to drive a lorry. Smaller = more action spots: The square areas where to move units (men and technical equipment) could be smaller as a way to have more variation in where to position them Ability to use destroyed buildings as concealment for vehicles and guns while waiting for enemy vehicles and troops to come close enough. Other
“Achievements”: For battles and campaigns a way to determine if you beat it or not a check mark or dot and for which side. Locking the cam to friendlies in first person view, as well as an automatic zoom (6x) for units having a binoc with just one key press. Maybe adding a special view for AFV gunners would be equally nice. This is to enable seeing of what you´d see in real life, without having a free flight cam or any the view modes above 1 to your avail in the game. To ease movement plotting in such a mode I´d add the same time sort of bitmap map layer (similar or equal to the one loadable in map editor) covering the real 3D terrain, but let you use any the view modes (1-9), inluding free flight./// Would be nice if such a mode could be enforced by a scenario maker, maybe with the addition of a bonus to victory points. Sound improvements fog of war improvements: no tracers option, no sound-pin-pointing of units, option to disable enemy icons completely, no fire impact effects (tiny fires, explosions when bullets hit trees, splashes of dirt when they hit the ground, etc) generated by the fire of unspotted units contacts shared via C2 are never updated ( http://community.battlefront.com/topic/126539-test-indicates-c2-contact-sharing-is-broken-when-enemy-moves/?tab=comments#comment-1739798 )  

I'm aware that weapons will sound very differently depending on the "atmospheric" situation (humidity, echo, etc). However, that does not change my opinion that the stock sounds are rather "meh" and there is a reason why practically every CM game found on youtube uses a soundmod. And as mentioned, it would be nice if - in a future new engine - there were at least a "close to camera" and a "distant to camera" (cutting down the higher frequencies a bit?) sound for a shot/explosion. 

Soooo....first time I launched a V 4.01 CMBN game and started my siegfried line mission. What happens in very first game turn? First US mortar round hitting a concrete pillbox penetrates and kills 6 out of 7 german guys in there. So the patch didn´t fix my main issue and instead it even got worse. Here´s save file. Check game time 20 seconds before end of turn. (file requires all modules incl. Vehicle Pack)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d70cl5yaj2toi9j/You enter Germany - Introduction - for CMBN V TST.bts?dl=0

I had hoped this bug had been fixed in the 4.01 patch, but mortar teams mounted in halftracks still fire at a very slow rate of fire when given indirect fire orders.

Few updates
 
What brings to life terrain and flora is overlay setting in "War Movie" shader but it affects vehicles and uniforms to become too dark, or garish. So regarding all of the suggestions and obvious shortcomings of this edited "War Movie" shader I tried to take it further.
  This involves editing of bump mapped shaders, but also in consequence means that normal CM look will also be affected and out of balance. With editing only "War Movie" shader You affect only the "alt-M" special mode so you can easily switch back to defaults. Now it's impossible — unless You move shaders from "z" folder.   - Dark shadow/garish areas in vehicles and uniforms are more pleasing. - edited haze/sky gradients and clouds textures so they are not "burned". - messing with shadows has performance impact. - still didn't managed to tweak the fog.   Important is that Combat Mission still manage to retain a distinctive look. All of this was already "under the hood". I just tweaked the settings. - It would be great if community up vote this, to came on priority list for next update (if it's possible; engine v4.0?) so players can enable/disable, something like "advanced shaders" option. - to leave Battlefront to finalize this job. They know best what's more in the pipeline and how to make this official without breaking anything (at least for PC/Mac's with decent graphic card). - Of course we can continue to play with the settings (please upload those screenshoots!) so they can make better decisions and see what works, what doesn't in different conditions.  - and finally I must resume social and work life back to normal   What I also achieved while messing with shaders is to hard crash iMac. Need to check everything carefully before uploading this mode so it not became Combat Mission - A Shader Too Far   Cheers!   It's not bloody war, it's postcard (Who can now say that Combat Mission has outdated graphic!)   Garish is gone, sky is back - Let's smash! (daily scenarios can take even more "shine" — after all its metal on the shiny day)   Don't look at me, I'm ugly in the morning (@CarlWAW will be pleased I hope so)   peaceful trenches of Eastern Front (night and early morning scenarios probably needs "lighter" settings for playability reasons)   smoke is in the air, action is coming (fog still not there)   To the glory or… (grass is not affected by shadows — probably too much even for the fastest computers)    

UUh. I've never paid attention to it either. Nice. 

Adding to what @IanL said, there is a small circle in the bottom right hand corner of every artillery or air asset representing the C2 level between the unit calling for the support and the artillery. The darker green the circle is, the shorter the call time will be. If the little circle is yellow, orange or red, expect very long call times. 

But apparently there were people who lived in the same time under the same circumstances who decided differently. Also, being in the Waffen-Schutzstaffel is not the same as being in the Wehrmacht. I'm not saying it was easy. But I don't buy the "You cannot judge anyone other than yourself, as you can't possibly understand their situation" argument. It's a killer argument that relativizes everything until it evaporates. I do think that people are alike and can empathize. Else how could our society judge any criminal? 
 
 

yep, for just some small things I wouldn´t bother with the shader files as well. IIRC BarbariCo got it all started here:
Found it sometimes good for broader screen changes, although I´m not using it (my own shader tweak) too often nowadays.

to me it sounds a bit like live sound conversion as operated by the OS and game engine maybe. I usually stick strictly to 44kHz 16 Bit mono as this is what the game uses for positional audio in the game. Background soundscape excluded, which is stereo normally. Sometimes some the same game sounds are triggered just miliseconds from each other causing a "phase out" effect, meaning that some the waves contents amplitudes cancel each other out. Another ugly effect is sort of "phasing" or "flanging", when the waves do not entirely cancel each other but just certain frequencies at variable times. Think one can avoid much of that when one has more than just one sound for a particular weapon, so the game engine can randomly pull different ones at very short intervals when required. Sound lengths also play a role. I´d found one better sticks with sound lengths well below 1 second, better yet 300 to 500mS at max.

IIRC one can also do a more general tweaking of this by modifying the (OGL) bump map shader files and related (*.frag, *.vert). We had quite some extensive discussions and user made tweaks going 2-3 years ago. I´d maybe try that first, before going into that laborous and time consuming detail modding. 

Oh quite, but I'm a lot less restricted, and free to speculate wildly
I think it's clear that this is not problem with bocage tiles themselves, since it doesn't occur on the flat test map. I suspect the bocage gap tiles are illustrating the problem more immediately than anything else, but other circumstances could cause this. I do not believe this is a question of player technique. Certainly putting units in the tiles adjacent to bocage gaps is a bad idea, but the punishment for that shouldn't be the pixeltruppen committing suicide. This isn't as simple as putting waypoints to select the correct entry point to a building - this evasion behaviour is out of player control. Certainly "don't put them next to gaps" is good advice in general, and that's the immediate player-fix, but it's still unexpected, unpredictable and uncontrolled behaviour, which you really don't want. I also don't believe it's a problem with the Roadblock map as such (or any other map with a similar situation) - more that the AI behaviour is interpreting the situation, and choosing that depression in Roadblock as the best available spot to retreat to. I do therefore believe we've shown that it's a consequence of the Engine 4 HE avoidance changes. It's worth pointing out that this behaviour is significantly better than it was in 4.00, but it looks like there are still tweaks that can be made in 4.01.
Without knowing how the AI is set up (again, I'm free to speculate wildly here, since I'm just a punter), this may be a question of messing with weighting, and giving greater priority to action squares which are closer to the friendly map edge. I also don't imagine that's a simple thing to "just" change, since any AI changes will have knock-on effects.
If the exact same behaviour occurred but resulted in the squad retreating backwards, I don't think anyone would notice this as a problem. It's that they're moving forwards, and specifically in the case of bocage gaps that means exposing the entire squad to fire, rather than one third of it, with disastrous results.
I think that the bocage is just bringing attention to the AI limitations in a not-elegant way.

Units tend to flee towards the friendly map edge regardless of enemy positions. Load the scenario in the editor and check the friendly map edge direction.