Kaunitz

Small (easy to oversee) ridges bare of concealment that cannot be flanked/evaded are the worst kind of thing, especially if there are no hills around to take a look what's behind them. A few ideas:
Have a TRP - my latest game reminded me of that. If there are reverse slopes on the map, buy that TRP. 30 pts is still cheaper than the squad you're going to loose if you crest that ridge without smoke. As far as I know, onmap mortars can also target reverse slopes, so if the ridge/hill is not too steep, you should at least be able to lay down a smoke screen that lets you crest the ridge even if you don't have a TRP.   The problem when going over the ridge with infantry is that the enemy usually is waiting for you - he's prone and stationary (good spotting, hard to spot), while your guys are moving upright (bad spotting, easy to spot).This is especially true if there is no concealment on the ridge. With vehicles, you have a very similar problem (hidden + stationary versus moving). With infantry, consider crawling over the ridge if some concealment is available. Even if you suffer casualties, they will be more limited. The big downside is that it will slow you down horribly, which increases the danger of an artillery strike if you're detected. In modern titles, this is obviously more risky as better spotting devices are available (IR/heat detection). PS: Don't fire!!! (unless you're already detected by many enemy positions). Soldiers are spotted individually. Even if one gets spotted and shot, the rest of the squad might be safe - by firing, they give away their position. When you really have to push, I think it's a good idea to take a look first. Crawl some infantry up the ridge, use the hide command to stay low, un-hide your infantry for a few turns so that they can just look over the ridge (some guys will kneel). Crawl a bit further and unhide to risk another look, etc. This increases the area you're exposing yourself to and you can observe in little increments. At some point you will have gained a picture of what's awaiting you in the dead ground on the other side. Needless to say that this takes lots and lots of time. Next, share this information (via C2) with the troops who are going to push. For the actual push, make sure that all assets crest the ridge at the same time to throw the enemy's fire into chaos (that's why I find crawling is not the method for infantry to push over a ridge) and reduce your units' total time of exposure. Area fire at the targets that you've been scouting. Try to get to the depression on the other side of the ridge fast - often the top of the ridge is exposed to many enemy positions.   With vehicles, shooting and scooting can be usefull. First scout for targets with infantry as described above. Then drive up your tanks/vehicles in hulldown positions for 10 seconds or so, either with a target arc on an identified target or an area fire order. After 10 seconds, your vehicles need to reverse back behind the ridge. Unless the enemy is very close and experienced, 10 seconds should give you a chance to retreat back into cover before the enemy can spot and zero-in on you. This is especially true against ATGMs who travel at relatively slow speed. For your next shoot & scoot, pick a different spot (the enemy will still have a suspected contact on your former position). As with infantry scouting, fight as little of the enemy at any time, expose yourself little by little. Again, fighting like this takes a lot of time. More time than many scenarios would give to you.

True in theory, but we rarely see these tactics work out in the game, for several reasons. Not to argue against you, but reading your post inspired me to write a couple of reflections about the limits of infantry tactics in Combat Mission:
First of all, the subleties of infantry tactics tend to fade to the background once there's armour on the field, and generally there's always plenty of tanks and AFVs in CM scenarios. Once you have armour support, I think it mostly becomes a game of using infantry to probe, then blast pockets of resistance with the tanks, then advance and repeat it.
  The second reason is that overwatch is arguably less effective in the game as compared to real life. The maneuver element takes a lot of incoming fire before dropping down, and the overwatch element takes a quite long time to spot and engage the enemy. Once it opens up, the overwatch element then stops firing again as soon as it loses sight of the enemy. In real life, (trained) troops would be intelligent enough to keep suppressing the enemy position while the maneuver element either continued on or broke contact.
  Thirdly, one MG can only reliably suppress one floor of one building. If the enemy squad is split into two sections and they are in two adjacent small modular buildings, you need two machineguns to target and suppress both, even though from the outside, it just looks like one building.
  Also, it takes a lot of fire to suppress anyone, and the effect disappears quite quickly.

The detail that went into all those vehicles. Nobody would have complained if the interiors of the vehicles were not modeled. And yet they're there and they're very detailed (in some cases stunningly so!). It tells a lot about CM being a work of love.
And then you get that vehicle hit text on your armored car "RICOCHET INTO: Opening / PENETRATION" and you realize that the detail is not just there visually and aesthetically, but also functionally. 💗

I for one would rather stick to the current engine. It is very solid! Why change a winning horse? Why throw so much that has been achieved over board (even if some aspects can be carried over, it would definitively mean a big cut?). And there are still patches coming out. Sure aesthetics could be nicer measured by today's standards, but they're okay for me.  What matters more is gameplay. With a few tweaks here and there (fortifications?  ), I think I will stay a happy subscriber of the current engine for a long time to come.  

A couple of you asked about the map I mentioned making. I didn't ignore or forget those comments, I was swamped with some unpleasant stuff and was only able to reply to posts while at work, where I don't have CM. 😝
I never uploaded the map anywhere. I don't have a login for uploading sites; I never thought anyone would care about my maps. Here are a couple of screenshots - they don't do it justice, the topography is tricky, with gentle and steep rises and folds in the land, vegetation variation, impassable terrain, and towering over the village, a mountain, hence the map's name, "Black Mountain"

Quite off topic, but these days are exactly the right time to commemorate Erich Maria Remarque.
Another German writer in the ranks, though he wrote more about lost battles and souls.

It was tongue in cheek   I haven't read the book. Thought the story was interesting.

As I've mentioned you can make use of the already exisiting pause-feature to give your units time to rally. I suggested it because it would be the easiest way to get the desired results (letting players decide if they want to move fast or deliberately with stops AND giving them close control over the path of movement) without adding new switches and buttons and whatnot to the game. 

Here's a short extract from Günter K. Koschorrek, Blood Red Snow. The Memoirs of a German Soldier on the Eastern Front. I found it interesting as it describes a situation in which an enemy attack could be observed from a large distance. The autor was a heavy machine-gunner, defending a position (bunker with MG, autor's HMG in foxhole on the right side of the bunker, the "light" (rifle) platoons in trenches on the left side of the bunker, 1 ATG behind a heap of earth).   
As I improve the field of fire in front of my HMG with Franz Kramer, the first enemy artillery rounds scream in towards us. The barrage is not directed at anything in particular – “A bit of disruptive fire,” says Waldi, who is standing in a foxhole to my side and behind me and is scanning the rolling hills in front of us with his field glasses.
After a little while I hear him yell, “Bloody hell! They are coming at us like a swarm of ants!”
I look through the telescopic sight and see them too. The Soviets are moving towards us like an army of termites, hell-bent on destruction. Waldi estimates that the range is still three or four kilometres. They’re moving slowly, at an almost leisurely pace, but they are making progress at a constant speed. They could be on us in about an hour’s time. After a few minutes, however, we decide that the mass of troops is not moving directly at us, but rather towards our right.
“Looks like they might actually pass by us,” I say.
“I don’t think so,” says Waldi. “We’ll probably just catch his right flank.”
In the meantime the Russian guns are firing further ahead, pounding the vacant terrain immediately in front of their slowly moving infantry. Waldi is right: if they continue in this manner, we will brush their right flank. The first thing is that we mustn’t move, but when they get dangerously close we should open fire. Waldi agrees. The Leutnant sees it differently. He calls over to us and says that both machine guns should open fire now.
“That’s crazy! At a range of one and a half kilometres it is a total waste of ammunition – and we will give away our position,” says Waldi, annoyed.
So I wait. But then the other weapon opens up, so I fire off a belt too. The brown mass in front of us doesn’t stop for a moment, but continues forward as if nothing has happened. Then my gun jams.
The autor then made his way to the nearby bunker to fetch replacement barrels and when he was on his way back to the foxhole, the German position was attacked by 3 tanks. The ATG fired one shot and was taken out. The light platoons and the crew of the bunker paniced and took to their heels (from other memoirs, it's interesting to note that these instances of "tank shock/panic" seem to have been quite common...). The Soviet tankers opened hatches to toss grenades into the bunker. The autor made its way back to the HMG foxhole, where the barrel was constantly jamming, while the Soviet infantry was getting dangerously close and laying rifle fire on the MG foxhole. In the last moment, the autor gets the MG working again and pins down some 60 Soviet infantrymen at a distance of just 50m and, as the German infantry had rallied and returned to its positions (after the Soviet tanks had somehow been taken out by ATGs...), these Soviet infantrymen then surrendered and the engagement was over.

That's the reason why I don't play meeting engagements and prefer clear attack/defend roles. I don't think that meeting engagements make plausible CM scenarios, as they're something for the operational, not the tactical level. 
Yes, there are certainly more and less interesting slices of real terrain when it comes to gameplay. Which brings me back to my question what makes a good map. Like Bulletpoint said, it's about creating meaningfull decisions for the player. Obviously,  the compartialisation (does this word even exist?) of a map, i.e. its break-up into several smaller "theaters" or compartments, plays a major role here as it forces the player to make decisions: Which one of the small theaters will he choose for his advance, how many troops to assign to each of the smaller theaters, Will it be easy to shift troops/reinforcements from one theater to the other once the battle has started, etc.
The obvious way to achieve compartialissation is to separate theaters by using line-of-sight-blocking terrain features.  On the other hand, one could argue that the limits on effective weapon ranges can also create (fluid) theaters. If you position this unit over here, it will not be effective over there. This kind of compartialisation by unit or weapon systems rather than by map is something that players can rarely experience in CM because the maps/compartments are not large enough. It turns the "approach" into a distinct phase of the battle, dominated by MGs, artillery and other long range fires.
Also, compartialisation by terrain does automatically tell us anything about the size of the individual compartments. A single compartment can be 100x200m or 400x800m. And the size of compartments will play a major role on how the engagements play out, especially on their intensity and lethality (also: chance to withdraw) and the usefullness of different weapon systems. Unless we’re speaking about special regions like mountains, cities or extended woods or marshes, the “compartments” of your standard european countryside landscape are of course very variable, but generally speaking relatively large. That's why I've started this map-experiment. To create a map with (neccessarily fewer, as I want to finish the map at some point) but larger compartments, simply because I think that such maps are blatantly underrepresented in CM. I think it might even open up some new decisions for players, or at least put more emphasis on them: At which (of the many) targets to fire? How many units should fire? At what range should they open fire? 
And on a more general note, I also think that larger compartments are a bit easier on the players' minds. Small compartments put a lot of stress on the players (and the pixeltruppen, of course). It's the typical Combat Mission anxiety, claustrophobia or paranoia: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133561-bit-of-a-ramble-on-how-cm-works-on-the-mind/ . At short ranges, any wrong step (or bad luck at spotting) is instantly lethal. If longer ranges are involved, the game is a bit less about ambushing. In more generously scaled compartments in the more typical, gently rolling countryside, the number of keyhole positions that can overwatch at short ranges should is a bit smaller. At least that's my conviction after driving through the Luxemburg countryside for a few hours on google maps streetview, measuring distances.  Obviously for infantry it's easier to create ambush situations - simply because it can hide much better even in otherwise relatively open terrain than vehicles, But here, concealment (low to the ground, not blocking LOS at other parts of the map) is sufficient. 
 

That's the reason why I don't play meeting engagements and prefer clear attack/defend roles. I don't think that meeting engagements make plausible CM scenarios, as they're something for the operational, not the tactical level. 
Yes, there are certainly more and less interesting slices of real terrain when it comes to gameplay. Which brings me back to my question what makes a good map. Like Bulletpoint said, it's about creating meaningfull decisions for the player. Obviously,  the compartialisation (does this word even exist?) of a map, i.e. its break-up into several smaller "theaters" or compartments, plays a major role here as it forces the player to make decisions: Which one of the small theaters will he choose for his advance, how many troops to assign to each of the smaller theaters, Will it be easy to shift troops/reinforcements from one theater to the other once the battle has started, etc.
The obvious way to achieve compartialissation is to separate theaters by using line-of-sight-blocking terrain features.  On the other hand, one could argue that the limits on effective weapon ranges can also create (fluid) theaters. If you position this unit over here, it will not be effective over there. This kind of compartialisation by unit or weapon systems rather than by map is something that players can rarely experience in CM because the maps/compartments are not large enough. It turns the "approach" into a distinct phase of the battle, dominated by MGs, artillery and other long range fires.
Also, compartialisation by terrain does automatically tell us anything about the size of the individual compartments. A single compartment can be 100x200m or 400x800m. And the size of compartments will play a major role on how the engagements play out, especially on their intensity and lethality (also: chance to withdraw) and the usefullness of different weapon systems. Unless we’re speaking about special regions like mountains, cities or extended woods or marshes, the “compartments” of your standard european countryside landscape are of course very variable, but generally speaking relatively large. That's why I've started this map-experiment. To create a map with (neccessarily fewer, as I want to finish the map at some point) but larger compartments, simply because I think that such maps are blatantly underrepresented in CM. I think it might even open up some new decisions for players, or at least put more emphasis on them: At which (of the many) targets to fire? How many units should fire? At what range should they open fire? 
And on a more general note, I also think that larger compartments are a bit easier on the players' minds. Small compartments put a lot of stress on the players (and the pixeltruppen, of course). It's the typical Combat Mission anxiety, claustrophobia or paranoia: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133561-bit-of-a-ramble-on-how-cm-works-on-the-mind/ . At short ranges, any wrong step (or bad luck at spotting) is instantly lethal. If longer ranges are involved, the game is a bit less about ambushing. In more generously scaled compartments in the more typical, gently rolling countryside, the number of keyhole positions that can overwatch at short ranges should is a bit smaller. At least that's my conviction after driving through the Luxemburg countryside for a few hours on google maps streetview, measuring distances.  Obviously for infantry it's easier to create ambush situations - simply because it can hide much better even in otherwise relatively open terrain than vehicles, But here, concealment (low to the ground, not blocking LOS at other parts of the map) is sufficient. 
 

I created this floating icon mod based on modern tactical symbology.  If you try it out, any feedback would be appreciated.
Download link:  CMFB Modern Style Icons

I for one would rather stick to the current engine. It is very solid! Why change a winning horse? Why throw so much that has been achieved over board (even if some aspects can be carried over, it would definitively mean a big cut?). And there are still patches coming out. Sure aesthetics could be nicer measured by today's standards, but they're okay for me.  What matters more is gameplay. With a few tweaks here and there (fortifications?  ), I think I will stay a happy subscriber of the current engine for a long time to come.  

This would explain what we're observing.  However, this makes things "complex" as one often wants TARGET LIGHT vs buildings that are being assaulted by friendly infantry.  The 25mm will kill em.
 
 

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

@Kaunitz
An example of WW2 US Cavalry doctrine ...
http://cdm16040.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll9/id/708/rec/6
There is a fair amount of picking around the above but both screen and guard missions are in there, even if they are not explicitly stated in terms of the wording of the current doctrine.
With regard to front lines, I would agree that the Western front from 1944 onwards was mostly characterised by front lines but there are still plenty of examples of fluid situations. Some examples would be:
The Allied breakout across France and up through Belgium.
The advance north from the beach heads following Operation Dragoon.
Advances across Germany in the last couple of months of the war.
The Eastern front is a very different picture following the initial breakthrough of pretty much any of the major operations the situation was extremely fluid, with Operation Bagration being the best late war example.
The map is scaled 1:1 and yes of course there are differences. This is down to what can be achieved in the map editor and this part of the map involved a road curve that was straightened out to avoid too many road zig zags. As a result some buildings got shifted further North or South to compensate for this rather than me painting the house right on the exact location. It is inevitable that the distance and space ratios will never exactly work out, if for no other reason than houses are 'locked' to action spots and can only be oriented, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W and NW.
The 'woods' on the right are not woods, it is a combination of a line of trees handrailing the road and trees in the gardens of various properties along that road.
With regard to use of bocage tiles in woods - not my thing I'm afraid and my view is that some mapmakers over egg cover in woods. One thing I can guarantee about this map is that LOS is not what it looks at face value as I have discovered when looking for fire positions during scenario testing.
My view on map making has always been, go for realism up to the limitations of the editor which includes thinking about frame rates and processing time (so I don't go mad with flavour objects, foliage or endless fiddling with contours). Close enough for government work is more than good enough in my view, so if the player recognises the CM representation as being close to the real ground I have done my job.
I admire people who strive to get things exactly right but there is a point where the law of diminishing returns comes into play. Remember that the map is only one part of a scenario and players play CM primarily for the action/tactical problem solving aspect of the game. If you've got the most accurate/beautiful map in the World but a stinker of a scenario narrative/a massively unbalanced battle or a poor AI plan then all you have is a nice map which nobody will thank you for.

Kaunitz, your assumptions are correct.
Sturm - quick dash to the enemy
einbrechen - entering enemy Position.
Niedergekämpft - defeated.
Sorry for reacting so late, was very busy.

Here is my clumsy translation of the first few pages, more to follow: 
The assault-platoon in the grenadier-company
 I. General remarks
Based on the experiences in the war, a new structure and new armament is required for the grenadier-companies, both for the attack and the defence. The partition of grenadier companies into assault-platoons allows their unitary and flexible/swift employment. [? pretty general remark]  With its new structure, namely two assault-squads and a fire-squad, as well as with its new armament, the assault-platoon will fulfill a very clearly defined role. The uniform armament of the squads facilitates their lead, so that even young and inexperienced squad leaders who have not finished their full training, can lead them into battle more readily. The adoption of the assault rifle 44 [Sturmgewehr 44] increases firepower and the manoeuverability of the squads. The withdrawal of grenade-launchers and sharpshooters from the squads relieves them of specialists. It allows the grenade-launchers to be concentrated on the platoon-level and the sharpshooters on the company-level.  II. Structure of the assault-platoon [you can compare it to the diagrams on p. 15 of the electronic document]
5. The assault platoon consists of:
 the platoon leader  the platoon HQ team, including the grenade launcher team 2 assault squads (7 men each) 1 fire squad (7 men) 2 infantry carts (Jf. 8), coupled, 1 horse, 1 operator/rider 1 backup/reserve/supply [?]  cart (“Feldwagen oder Panjewagen”), two-horse, 1 operator/rider  6. The platoon HQ team consists of:
2 messengers/runners 1 litter bearer/medic 1 Grenade-launcher-team (3 grenadiers) [probably this means 3 tubes], one of the greandiers is teamleader; The concentration of the grenadiers at the platoon-leader increases the effectiveness of fire and allows them to be used in a concentrated/focused manner  7. The assault squad consists of 1 squadleader and 7 soldiers. The soldiers are equipped with assault rifles 44. They are to engage in close combat and are equipped with plenty of ammunition and grenades. One of the soldiers is second-in-command of the squad leader.
 8. The fire squad consists of 2 light MG teams. The squad leader is in command of the squad as a whole and one of the MGs in particular. His second-in-command commands the other MG. Each MG is crewed by a gunner (“Schütze 1”) and two ammo-bearers (“Munitionsschützen”).
The first [=standard?] ammunition-allotment is 720 rounds for each assault-rifle 44. On them, the soldiers are to carry 6 magazines for a total of 180 rounds (30 rounds per magazine).
 III. The assault platoon in combat
 General principles
 9. In the attack, it’s the assault platoon’s task to wipe out the last resistance of the enemy. In the defence, the assault platoon defeats the final assault of the enemy.
 10. The assault platoon can accomplish any task, both in the defence and in the attack.
 11. The assault platoon is best used for the following tasks:
For assault and recon missions, for combat in rough/difficult (lit. hard to oversee) terrain, for missions during night or in foggy weather In the defence as a mobile reserve for the counter-attack and the protection of open flanks For the pursuit of the enemy and as an advance guard, riding on Stugs, trucks/cars or tanks; As rearguards in retreat actions, or for combat “im Zwischenfeld” (?) as a hunter-platoon of a ski-unit or as a ski-equipped part of a winter unit [… I don’t know how to translate all the special terms – generally it refers to their usage on skis]  12. The assault platoon is the smallest tactical combat unit of the grenadier-company. The individual deployment of assault squads or the fire squad is an exception.
 Attack
13. In all combat conditions, the completely hidden, hunter-like (“jägermäßige”) approach into the rear or a flank of the enemy and the sudden, overwhelming and surprising employment of fire at short distance is the key to success.
14. When approching, the platoon leader leads his assault platoon close to the enemy, evading fire combat. 
15. Proper assessment of the terrain is required prior to any action. Every opportunity of concealment needs to be taken. It’s not that important to reach the forming up point for the final assault as fast as possible, [but – is missing] to reach it undetected by the enemy and without any casualties.  
16. The assault platoon opens fire as late/close as possible and needs to make even more use of the support fire of heavy weapons [to cover its movement, obviously] than before. It’s not the assault-platoon’s task to use [it’s own] suppressive fire to get/manoeuvre within large or medium distance to the enemy.  
17. To advance, the assault platoon evades enemy fire zones, exploits even the smallest cover, and crosses areas observed by the enemy in a trickling manner (“Vortröpfeln”). Very narrow but deep formations as well as spreading out a lot helps reduce casualties. Any method of advance that does not offer good targets to the enemy is suitable.  
18. When crossing open areas in a trickling manner (“Vortröpfeln”), the intervalls between the men (or pairs of men) are to be set between 0.5 and 5 minutes. The objective area for the manoeuvre needs to be determined beforehand. An energetic squadleader should be picked to be “Schießender” (lit. firer). He oversees the manoeuvre, and ensures that the men move from one waypoint to the next in irregular intervals. (see example attachment 3) 
19. Only if all other means (support by heavy weapons, terrain, fog/smoke, darkness) fail, the assault platoon may stop its forward movement and advance by fire [so that means providing its own suppressive fire]. 
20. Concentrated fire by all supporting weapons needs to be exploited for a swift and cohesive advance.  
21. When assaulting, one or both assault squads are to be deployed in front/attack. The fire squad  and the grenadier-team are following closely. They provide fire-support wherever the enemy is still resisting. 
Assault squads roll up enemy trenches (“stoßtruppartig”). See the details about rolling up trenches in “Merkblatt 25/3: Instruction for close combat and grenade-training”, Nr. 73-86)
22. If the fire support delivered by the company or battalion proves insufficient for the assault, the platoon leader needs to employ his fire squad and the grenadier-team for fire support or suppressive fire. 
23. The platoon leader needs to plan the attack according to H.Dv.130/2a Nr. 458-463.
24. The combat-plan needs to consider the following questions:
 Where do I need to go? What/who is preventing me from going there? How/where do I launch the assault? From where and when can the assault be supported by the fire squad?  25. The combat-plan then needs to be broken down into individual orders:
a) To the fire squad: Fireposition – where?, Target – where? Fire support – how? (time to open fire, duration of fire); Follow up – when? Where? b) To the assault squad: Target of the assault – where? How to approach? How to assault? c) For the grenadier-team: Follow up – to whom? (advance together with the assault squad or stay with the fire squad?) – fire position – where? Target, where? Ammo-consumption  26. This is how the assault squad is to be used on the attack:
a) When conducting a two pronged attack [“zangenförmiger Angriff”], the fire squad and both assault squads are to be used in a way so that they don’t lose their communication with each other b) The grenade-launcher team follows the assault squads to support them in the attack and in the assault against targets that pop up surprisingly c) The assignment of the grenade-launcher-team to the fire squad is an exception and depends on the terrain and the distance to the target d) Holding back one of the assault squads as a reserve of flank-guard to support the fire squad is the exception  27. Assault and fire squads complement each other even if there is no explicit order for it. The light MGs of the fire squad always need to cover the assault squads, even when they [the MGs] are advancing in alternate bounds. The assault platoon’s squads act upon signals or shouts.
 28. The platoon leader takes in hand all the preparations for the assault. He is the first to charge forward, motivating his soldiers to do the same, and assaults with the assault squads.
During the assault itself, a lively fire of all of the platoon’s weapons is employed, as well as loud and continous cheering. The assault-rifle 44 is fired on the move, the enemy needs to be drowned in fire. In the first phase of the assault [? not sure; “beim Sturm”], the soldiers are to fire aimed single shots in quick succession, in the second phase [?  not sure; “beim Einbrechen”] bursts (2-3 rounds).
29. The big effect that  the assault rifle 44 has on morale needs to be exploited for a quick assault sprint into the enemy line/position. When approaching close to the target, going prone and throwing grenades often leads to unneccessary casualties and threatens the success of the action.
30. After the successful assault, the fire squad and the grenade launcher team follow up without orders.
31. After the successful assault, the platoon-leader reorganizes his platoon for the next assault. Any success needs to be exploited further. The enemy must not be given time to reorganize his defences.
32. If the assault was directed at a limited target [so the platoon is supposed not to exploit a success with continous attacks?], the platoon leader sets up a defence of the conquered position with the two light MGs of the fire squad and the grenade-launcher team. They (the MGs + grenade launchers) ensure that the position is not lost to a counter attack, even if no explicit order is given.
33. Due to its quick readiness to fire and its high firepower, the assault rifle 44 is of particular use in the night attack. Assault-platoons are to be used in the first line. Moonlit nights and snow are favourable conditions for a night attack.
 34. A night attack requires a very detailed attack- and fire plan. The attack needs to proceed according to the very strict plan. It is impossible to redirect the attack on the fly.
 35. Night attacks are always conducted against a limited target. The enemy position is taken by a surprising dash/assault by the asssault squads in line [? “in breiter Front”, on a broad front], with continous fire of all soldiers. The fire squad follows up closely.
Defence
a) The assault platoon in the main defensive line ("Hauptkampflinie")
 36. When the assault platoon is used in defence at the front line, it deploys in a way to defend the position.
 37. For defending a large front, the light MG from the reserve [? “Gerätereserve” - the diagrams at the end of the document show it being transported on the horse cart] is to be used [in addition to the other MGs, obviously]. It is to be manned by the ammo-bearers of the fire-squad. The platoon leader decides where to position the fire squad, either deploying it in individual nests over the platoon sector, or, depending on the terrain, he might use concentrations of the light MGs and the assault squads. All MG positions need to be fortified as “fighting nests” and equipped with anti tank weapons. Additional anti tank weapons (Panzerfausts, blinding devices, mines, Molotov cocktails) are to be distributed all over the position, readily available for every man.
38. The grenade-launcher team needs to cover those folds in the terrain that cannot be reached by the fire of the light MGs and the assault rifles 44. It supplements the effect of grenades to cover the dead angles in front of the position. The grenade-launcher team has to be mobile.
39. The counter-attack-reserve of the platoon leader consists of one assault squad. If the sector is very large, however, the counter-attack-reserve only consists of the platoon leader and a few soldiers. Counter-attacks in various situations/in different directions need to be preplanned and practiced.  
40. On the defence, one needs to consider daytime and nighttime positions (setup of pickets, organization of the sentry duties, coordination with other observation posts close-by).
 b) The assault platoon as a counter-attack-reserve
 41. Usually, a battalion’s or regiment’s counter-attack-reserve is made up of its assault platoons (fire extinguisher!).
 42. The assault platoons that are deployed in the rear area of the front (“in der Tiefe des Hauptkampffeldes”) need to be set up in a way so that their fire squads can destroy any breakthroughs by the enemy and support the assault squads’ counter attack.
 43. If the whole assault platoon counter-attacks, the fire squad is to be used as the fire-reserve of the platoon leader in the re-conquered position. [?]
 44. Counter-attacks have to be conducted against the flanks or rear of the enemy, along the main line of defence (“Hauptkampflinie”). The faster/earlier the assault platoons counter-attack, the better their chance for success, even if the enemy is in superior strength. Therefore, the platoon-leader needs to make his own decision [on his own initiative] if/when to counter-attack.
 45. Fire by all weapons and any means available are applied in order to destroy an enemy breaktrough and overrun it with a swift counter-attack.  The counter-attack is to be carried out with all guns blazing, reckless personal commitment, and continous cheering.

Another scenario...
 
Assault Position v1.0
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d85cs6w3xeeg0oi/AD%20Assault%20Position.zip?dl=0
 

 
Our forces are counterattacking. Having detrained merely days ago, your Regiment has been pushing around the flank of the Soviets, looking for an opportunity to halt the Russian juggernaut. Your panzergrenadier company has been tasked with securing the flank of our regiment's counterattack by taking a town overlooking an important road highway. Located on the reverse slope of a ridgeline, you determine that a wooded grove just NW of the town (and SE of your assembly area) would be the perfect place to form up your company before it's final attack on the main Soviet defenses. The morning of your attack, you begin to move your company to take your assault position. Axis vs AI only.

Hi all,
 
I've been working on a whole bunch of scenarios for CMRT, and finally got around to finishing a couple. I'll use this thread to post whatever I manage to finish. I have 4 for today (though one has already been posted before, just tweaked it a little), and hopefully I can put the finishing touches on 1 or 2 for tomorrow. Most of these have had barely any playtesting, beyond what I could do by myself. That's where I need feedback from you guys. These are not 100% tested. Please let me know what I can change to make it better!
 
I like small, company sized engagements. All of these have 2 companies or less. These may be suitable for H2H, do not have anyone to test them with though. All my maps are "hand made" originals. They look best with my terrain mod IMO!
 
Interlock OP v1.0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bs581b72xj6n96s/AD%20Interlock%20OP.zip?dl=0
 

 
You are in command of a German Grenadier platoon in Estonia. Soviet forces have secured an interlocking tower overlooking our forward positions and are calling artillery on our forces. You have been tasked with securing the tower by force and securing whatever intel you can. Axis vs AI only
 
 
Pastureland v1.0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pq48lgx5c1tokfe/AD%20Pasture%20Land.zip?dl=0
 

 
The Germans are falling back in confusion. Our tank corps and mehanized infantry have pushed far foward, leaving us, the dismounted infantry, behind to mop up the remnants and widen the corridors. Your company was doing exactly that when you came out of a small copse of trees and immediately started taking machinegun fire. A large, open pastureland sits between you and the incoming fire. On the far side, a group of buildings on the outskirts of a village. You determine that is where the enemy fire is coming from, and you immediately decide to attack. Allied vs AI only.
 
 
Gorbatzewich Roadblock v1.0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zsmkvq4hfcr09ms/AD%20Gorbatzewich%20Roadblock.zip?dl=0
 

 
You are in command of a Soviet Cavalry Squadron southwest of Babruysk. After several long days of fighting, we have finally managed to capture the vital city and open the road to Minsk. Remnants of German forces still remain around the city, occupying blocking positions and doing their best to prevent our forces from rushing into Minsk. One of these blocking forces is located in the village to your immediate front. Allied vs AI only
 
 
Amongst the Ruins v1.0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wo11fj4zcq3h2au/AD%20Amongst%20the%20Ruins.zip?dl=0
 

 
You are in command of a German Pioneer Company somewhere within a large city inside Belarus. We have been fighting with the Soviets for control of this vital city for several days now. Your company has been tasked with taking back a bombed out industrial area. Axis vs AI only
 
 
 

Thanks for the compliments, guys! They are much appreciated and motivate me to keep my nose to the grindstone.
I don't want to give too much away yet, but here is one detailed shot, along with the corrosponding google map area that inspired it:


 
I've lowered building heights in some places to reduce the modern look. There are a ton of balconies on the map, but only a tiny number of them are actually functional. Almost all are cosmetic -- the door removed to prevent troops from becoming more vulnerable by going out on the balcony.
Yeah, I hope folks take this and do interesting things with it. It won't be everyone's cup of tea, though. SMG troops or no SMG troops, you really gotta' split teams and put in detailed orders for coordinated micro-tactical play. Otherwise, attacking troops just evaporate. And, pretty much every inch of the map is tube guy paradise. The attacking Soviets will have T-34/76 as base and they're gonna' need every round of that HE loadout for area fire. Keeping them alive to use it, though...😈

Necroed but on topic! (A video worth watching!)
Footage mainly of the Hürtgenwald, filmed by the US signal corps. The commentary is in German, but the footage should be interesting on its own for you grognards! The production was an extra-material to a german documentary on the battle ("You enter Germany").
 

Necroed but on topic! (A video worth watching!)
Footage mainly of the Hürtgenwald, filmed by the US signal corps. The commentary is in German, but the footage should be interesting on its own for you grognards! The production was an extra-material to a german documentary on the battle ("You enter Germany").
 

Wow so much feedback! Thank you, guys!
Scenario vs. Quickbattle:
It's true that in order to implement the retreat-idea, I need to create a scenario rather than a quickbattle (@Bud Backer, @sburke). I think it's perfectly possible to create two versions of the map. One for quickbattles, one for H2H scenario-play (no AI!). I also wished that more (slightly modified, if neccessary) scenario-maps were available for quickbattles (@JulianJ), especially since most scenario-maps are really well done and often scaled realistically. It's just a pity that scenarios have a rather limited H2H appeal if both the forces and their deployment are pre-determined. With free deployment, it's more interesting. I think the appeal of scenarios could be greatly enhanced by adding more randomness: e.g. giving players the option to choose between sets of pre-selected troops, adding a random factor to the arrival time of reinforcements, etc. 
A scenario also gives me the option to select troops for the players. The selection of forces by the players is a good thing, but sometimes I think it really favors some set-ups while discriminating others. 
I'm also intrigued by the idea to add reinforcements for the defender. I can even imagine to make him start the battle with only infantry (against some armored support for the attacker). He would then get reinforcements (Panzergrenadiere in halftracks!  ) to relieve the infantry or launch a counter attack. But maybe a proper counter-attack is better represented as a separate mission on the map (as part of a tiny campaign).
Retreat-idea:
Indeed I think it will be tricky to set up the objectives in a way to make the defender ponder whether it is better to retreat or not. As you've mentioned, domfluff, It's easy to give the defender incentives to run away. You just need to give him exit objectives. Giving him some incentive to stay, however, is more complicated. In any case, I'd like to make a retreat an option once the defender knows he's going to lose the terrain objective. Instead of making a final suicide stand, I'd prefer if he could withdraw his forces to limit the extent of the defeat or perhaps even get away with a draw. So therefore, I think that the defender should not be awarded too many points for destroying the attacker's units - this would just reward the suicide-stand rather than the retreat. I assume it's more reasonable to create a balance between "preserve own troops/exit the map" and "terrain" objectives. In order to make the decision more interesting, there need to be several smaller terrain objectives, not just a single large one.
Another important aspect here is that I think players should be allowed to know how the outcome is calculated (by adding the info to the briefing...). They need to know that at some point, a withdrawal can be an interesting option for the defender. 
Scouting:
For me, scouting is just not within the scope of CM. In a H2H battle, it's rather boring to exchange 50 turns of doing "nothing". Rather, I would like to add the information that has been gained by recon before the battle to the briefing, or perhaps even on the map (by using "landmarks"). But this again cannot be done if you allow free deployment of forces. But then you can still set the "intel filter" in the scenario editor to give some information to the players.
Villages, sizes of fields:
It's certainly true that in the 1940s, field sizes were smaller in general. However, there is still a lot of room between the standard QB-map field sizes and a properly scaled field. And you can get a pretty good picture by looking at the paths that are displayed running along larger fields on contemporary maps and also by taking a look at photos of aerial recon.
As for the villages - maybe I'm confused by the maps. On many contemporary maps, houses seem to be spaced out quite a bit. But probably their footprints are displayed in an artificially distorted (also too big) way in order to make the layout of the village clearer. 
---------------------
Generally speaking, I need to point out again that I don't expect battles on a more realistically scaled map to be more interesting/tactical by themselves. I think they will just play out a bit differently and also a bit more "relaxed", with what I'd like to call a "soft" contact. Units will become aware of each other at longer distances which means that they're not knocked out instantly and can observe the enemy a bit more. And, for that reason, MGs can for example lay down fire when the enemy's rifles are still way out of their range. You will quickly learn how much of a "close range" weapon ordinary infantry really is. Casualties tend to trickle in more slowly and more "accidently". I also hope that the suppression-system will shine in a bit more nuanced way. If my units get suppressed, they're usually dead very soon anyway and their suppression bar is maxed out. I rarely see medium levels of suppression for sustained periods of time. WIth a larger distance between the contrahents, I hope to see more nuanced levels of suppression at work. In the same vein, I think that armor values will become more important (at point blank ranges, anything goes).
On the current QB maps, by contrast, contact is very "hard", spotting leads to immediate catastrophical results. This fosters a kind of un-relaxed (many people would say: more exciting! ) gameplay and inculcates the typical "paranoia" in CM-players. Every freaking ridge, every corner of a house is just a death trap that potentially leads not to 1 casualty, but to the wipe-out of the whole team. It's just so unforgiving. This is certainly realistic for the final stages of an modern fire-arms assault (if the defender does not withdraw!), but it misses out all the stages before the assault, where it's not as much down to instincts and reaction time, but to slightly more deliberate decisions.