Kaunitz

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.

As I've been comparing CM's quickbattle-maps with actual landscape/maps, I couldn't help but notice that the scale of many quickbattle-maps is off (this issue doesn't apply to many scenario-maps which are more often based on real maps). Generally speaking, quickbattle-maps are too crowded and too small. It's a bit like the landscape of a model railroad. It’s extremely compartialized. Often there are tiny patches of trees ("woods") all over the place, the fields are tiny, there are little bumps in the terrain everywhere ("hills"). And even the houses in villages often seem to be placed too close to each other. A map of 2km² often contains several fields, villages and woods in Combat Mission, whereas in reality, you could probably only fit in only a few fields.
I'm not saying that this is bad, mind you. In a weird way, our computer-gamer-eyes are accustomed to the look of it. And also in terms of gameplay, it does certainly make sense as it leads to a lot of close quarter action, forces tanks and vehicles into point blank to each other and into the range of infantry and generally speaking offers more (and more diverse) terrain to play with. So, to some extent, you could say that miniature-terrain guarantees "action packed" engagements and revamps infantry against vehicles (balance-issue). But the geeky wargamer voice in me kept pestering me, asking that seemingly innocent question: "Yeah, Kaunitz, but it is realistic?".   
So here we go. In order to silence that nagging voice in my head, I decided to make my own map. I've been trying that before, mind you (my Gerbini project is on hold until the patch comes out). This time though, the map will not be based on an actual battle and will not even be based on a real location. This simply gives me much more freedom and speeds up things.
Here are some of my guiding principles for map design: 
realistic scale - even though the map is not based on a real location, the map will be based on a plausible scale. After a few short tests, the results are certainly interesting. You can actually set up MGs (without getting them killed the moment they can theoretically be sighted by an enemy unit) and attacking infantry needs to work a bit in order to get within rifle range!  as few "cutoffs" as possible -  A problem I have with many QB-maps is that they're so small that the more reasonable positions for vehicles, support weapons and FOs are simply cut off. Most of the time, I'm asking myself: Why would I place this tank/MG so close to the frontline? Nobody would do that! The weapon is not supposed to be used like that! Surely, there would be some small hill 1km to the rear where it would make much more sense to set up the weapon/vehicle? Also, do I really have to peek over that ridge at point blank range? Is there no hill in the rear area that would allow me to take a look from a safer distance? Admittedly, there can be situations in which there simply is no better position available, but QB maps constantly seem to force a deadly point blank ranges onto me. To prevent that, maps need to have a certain minimum size, and observation and long-range positions need to be taken into account when designing the map. Of course engagements were not static, and if you do take into account that the battle might move on a bit in this or that direction, the required map-size multiplies very quickly (irregular shaped maps would be interesting here…). To tackle this problem, I want to experiment with the “exit” objective (see below).   if possible, I’d like to pay special attention to micro-cover - I do think that infantry is a bit too vulnerable in the open. I will see whether it is possible to add a few more small bumps in the ground and some props to give infantry more cover (if prone). But I'm not sure yet if and how that will work out. I suppose one would need very tiny differences in height which would provide some cover to infantry without blocking their LOS. I don’t think it’s possible in CM, but I see if I can somehow recreate the effect. Small preview of the current status (obviously not much yet, but it is a beginning): 
https://imgur.com/a/imul3HX (the map is 1456x1920m)
https://imgur.com/a/5dX5B5s
https://imgur.com/a/SahWEan
 Further ideas: 
Allow the defender to retreat to prevent implausible blood baths:  As this is a little experiment, I do want to make the battle realistic, even at the cost of game play. Therefore, I want to give the defender the option to retreat to cut down his casualties. I’ve not taken a closer look if and how I can get it to work yet. The problem I see is that all units (tagged to be destroyed) that have not left the battlefield by the end of the battle are counted as destroyed, which is not really what I want. There needs to be a difference between "did not leave the battlefield because the battle was going well and there was no reason to do so" and "did not leave the battlefield because the player decided to make a desperate suicide last stand". I'm not sure if the editor allows me to differentiate between those two. Generally speaking, the option to retreat should also be interesting from a gameplay perspective as the defender will need to move and cover his retreat (with longer ranges, this is much more reasonable as you won't get killed the very moment you stand up and move...). ------------------------------------
Feel free to discuss and contribute! What are your thoughts on map design and particularly map-scale? Also, how many troops would be fighting over the map? I was thinking of at least 2 companies up for the attacker (the width of the front is 1456m). Do you have any comments on the retreat-idea?
Right now, I'm stuck a little bit as I can't make the cornifer-woods look pretty and functional (lack of cornifer-trees that come with a short tree-trunk/low tree crown). I think I will have to go for mixed forests. 
I will also be looking out for volunteers to test the map once it is ready!

As I've been comparing CM's quickbattle-maps with actual landscape/maps, I couldn't help but notice that the scale of many quickbattle-maps is off (this issue doesn't apply to many scenario-maps which are more often based on real maps). Generally speaking, quickbattle-maps are too crowded and too small. It's a bit like the landscape of a model railroad. It’s extremely compartialized. Often there are tiny patches of trees ("woods") all over the place, the fields are tiny, there are little bumps in the terrain everywhere ("hills"). And even the houses in villages often seem to be placed too close to each other. A map of 2km² often contains several fields, villages and woods in Combat Mission, whereas in reality, you could probably only fit in only a few fields.
I'm not saying that this is bad, mind you. In a weird way, our computer-gamer-eyes are accustomed to the look of it. And also in terms of gameplay, it does certainly make sense as it leads to a lot of close quarter action, forces tanks and vehicles into point blank to each other and into the range of infantry and generally speaking offers more (and more diverse) terrain to play with. So, to some extent, you could say that miniature-terrain guarantees "action packed" engagements and revamps infantry against vehicles (balance-issue). But the geeky wargamer voice in me kept pestering me, asking that seemingly innocent question: "Yeah, Kaunitz, but it is realistic?".   
So here we go. In order to silence that nagging voice in my head, I decided to make my own map. I've been trying that before, mind you (my Gerbini project is on hold until the patch comes out). This time though, the map will not be based on an actual battle and will not even be based on a real location. This simply gives me much more freedom and speeds up things.
Here are some of my guiding principles for map design: 
realistic scale - even though the map is not based on a real location, the map will be based on a plausible scale. After a few short tests, the results are certainly interesting. You can actually set up MGs (without getting them killed the moment they can theoretically be sighted by an enemy unit) and attacking infantry needs to work a bit in order to get within rifle range!  as few "cutoffs" as possible -  A problem I have with many QB-maps is that they're so small that the more reasonable positions for vehicles, support weapons and FOs are simply cut off. Most of the time, I'm asking myself: Why would I place this tank/MG so close to the frontline? Nobody would do that! The weapon is not supposed to be used like that! Surely, there would be some small hill 1km to the rear where it would make much more sense to set up the weapon/vehicle? Also, do I really have to peek over that ridge at point blank range? Is there no hill in the rear area that would allow me to take a look from a safer distance? Admittedly, there can be situations in which there simply is no better position available, but QB maps constantly seem to force a deadly point blank ranges onto me. To prevent that, maps need to have a certain minimum size, and observation and long-range positions need to be taken into account when designing the map. Of course engagements were not static, and if you do take into account that the battle might move on a bit in this or that direction, the required map-size multiplies very quickly (irregular shaped maps would be interesting here…). To tackle this problem, I want to experiment with the “exit” objective (see below).   if possible, I’d like to pay special attention to micro-cover - I do think that infantry is a bit too vulnerable in the open. I will see whether it is possible to add a few more small bumps in the ground and some props to give infantry more cover (if prone). But I'm not sure yet if and how that will work out. I suppose one would need very tiny differences in height which would provide some cover to infantry without blocking their LOS. I don’t think it’s possible in CM, but I see if I can somehow recreate the effect. Small preview of the current status (obviously not much yet, but it is a beginning): 
https://imgur.com/a/imul3HX (the map is 1456x1920m)
https://imgur.com/a/5dX5B5s
https://imgur.com/a/SahWEan
 Further ideas: 
Allow the defender to retreat to prevent implausible blood baths:  As this is a little experiment, I do want to make the battle realistic, even at the cost of game play. Therefore, I want to give the defender the option to retreat to cut down his casualties. I’ve not taken a closer look if and how I can get it to work yet. The problem I see is that all units (tagged to be destroyed) that have not left the battlefield by the end of the battle are counted as destroyed, which is not really what I want. There needs to be a difference between "did not leave the battlefield because the battle was going well and there was no reason to do so" and "did not leave the battlefield because the player decided to make a desperate suicide last stand". I'm not sure if the editor allows me to differentiate between those two. Generally speaking, the option to retreat should also be interesting from a gameplay perspective as the defender will need to move and cover his retreat (with longer ranges, this is much more reasonable as you won't get killed the very moment you stand up and move...). ------------------------------------
Feel free to discuss and contribute! What are your thoughts on map design and particularly map-scale? Also, how many troops would be fighting over the map? I was thinking of at least 2 companies up for the attacker (the width of the front is 1456m). Do you have any comments on the retreat-idea?
Right now, I'm stuck a little bit as I can't make the cornifer-woods look pretty and functional (lack of cornifer-trees that come with a short tree-trunk/low tree crown). I think I will have to go for mixed forests. 
I will also be looking out for volunteers to test the map once it is ready!

CMRT: Winter '44 - Compilation mod

I present to you a modification for the game in the winter scenarios.
I present to you a modification for the game in the winter scenarios. Mod contains winter textures of the earth, buildings, uniforms of soldiers, cars and guns as well as sounds and interface.
The following mods were taken as a basis:
Mod structure:
Test map with all units
Test map with Hungarian units
How play Hungarian? Just add tags [vengr] in scenario. Dont work in QB. For QB need unpack BZR with Hungarian skins and tags [vengr] in file names.
Maps for this mods:
Downloads:
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4mg4/XxCCi2HWy
Total size 7.33 Gb
Place in Data\Z folder
Offical site
FAQ.
1. Soviet tanks?
Later
2. Hungarian truck and tank?
Later
3. Can I use parts of your mod in mine mod?
sure you can.
4. How many you  work in ths mod?
40% (Aris and other great peoples) 20% Me. Other Battlefront.
Screenshots:

Still I think that this issue is probably surmountable in the current engine if you would allow soldiers to clip through the ground mesh? Not pretty but it could solve problems functionally? I don't know anything about the inner workings of the engine so I can't tell.
I'm not denying that there are issues/things that could be better (fortifications, crew-served weapons can't be remounted, urban warfare, targeting the ground for area fire) but I think many of them could be solved/improved with some effort within the current engine? The engine seems to be quite flexible (just take the "look around the corner" thing that got patched into the game).
 
@Erwin:
Blame it on "Saving Private Ryan" (1998). And Band of Brothers (2001).

You're certainly right that in the case of artillery, "suppression" refers more to forcing the enemy into their dugouts/trenches. Why do you think we can't replicate this in CM? For infantry (unfortunately, crew-served guns can't be re-manned....) I think it's possible once the panic-issue will be fixed with the upcoming patch?
Right now, I often defend in that way in villages or cities: I only man the actual fighting positions once the attacker's artillery barrage is over and the enemy is coming close. Wooden shelters could be used in a similar way if there are no houses close by. Perhaps those wooden shelters need a point reduction, but they do offer some protection against artillery (better than foxholes and trenches...). More generally, I think that fortifications should be part of the force-structure of regular infantry formations, so that you can get them at a reduced price. Digging in was just such a common thing. 
---------------------------
Probably too late and not relevant for a larger audience, but it keeps bugging me out (these are specific to CM:FB/editor):
Treetrunks are too thick in general.  The crowns of all the deciduous trees (G,D,A,C) are located very close to the ground. I really miss a tree version with a higher trunk (no dirty jokes guys ^^). The lack of such a tree means that any deciduous wood will allow only very limited LOS, especially if the ground is slightly uneven. Also, it doesn't look good if you want to create a proper wood (as opposed to thickets)   For the conifers (B,E,H) it is the other way round. Here, I lack a tree with a low crown. That means that you have no means to create a graduated edge/a rising canopy for a cornifer wood. The conifer-bush (bush B ) does not fill the gap and isn't voluminous enough. Combining deciduous (low crowns) with conifer (high crowns) trees looks very strange in the autumn-setting. I'd love to see more terrain like the light and heavy wood that come with some foliage on them. Some kind of "forest-edge"/undergrowth terrain would be nice, with many thin young "trees" (not actually represented as trunks). For comparison:
With deciduous trees, you can create nice thickets. By placing the trees in their proper order (from small to high), using bocage fences and heavy wood terrain at the edges, you can get a nice canopy. However, what you can see here is also the maximum height for a deciduous wood. All the tree crowns/foliage is very close to the ground. It's a thicket, not a proper wood.
https://imgur.com/a/51x4cFU
With cornifers, it is the other way round. Note the large gap in between the ground-foliage and the tree crowns. The bushes and the few deciduous trees I have placed so helplessly look quite out of place. The lack of low-crown-cornifers enables you to look very deep into the wood from the outside. I suppose that this can be used (for great effect, if you add tree stumps) to represent a very well kept commercial timberland, but you cannot build a slightly more naturally looking wood-edge. 
https://imgur.com/a/bm0eMf8
 

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.  

I said I'd make an illustrated guide, and I did!  Hopefully it helps some of those who were asking me about it  
Step Zero is to download the Reshade distribution at the bottom of the page here: https://reshade.me/
Steps 1 through 8 are in my guide here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LG9Og33Re95sPx4KyKtk98DjyUyK-Qcn
And my preset is here https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dQ5zgLkyS5RRI559yJG929QFs2YqnRdb
Hopefully the archive works, I didn't really do extensive testing on it.

See me reacting!  The AI-tank-commander announces the targets and override-points the turret in the right direction for me (the gunner).  
https://youtu.be/ubncD6I1SqM?t=181
 

1. Guys, Pericles is *not* making stuff up; everyone who's played CM has had WTF! moments like this. So no need to jump on him so hard. He's trying to help. OTOH, Ian et al are also trying to help, so do let's keep it civil.
2.  In CMSF, where BLUEFOR is (or should be) casualty-sensitive (to offset their massive FP advantages), losing half a squad to sporadic kamikaze behaviour may mean losing a game on vp. So this matters more than ever.
3.  But it doesn't sound like a straightforward AI 'bug' fix either. The cover-seeking AI has always been a bit of a black box, but clearly:
a. We *do* want unpinned squaddies to get out of a killzone, stat, not go to ground in place by default to get hosed down more.
b. But we also *don't* want them overdoing it by dashing pell mell for the nearest 'safe' place that happens to be 100 yards away across a beaten zone.
4. My personal view (fwiw) is that abstracted hard 'micro' cover seems undermodeled in general, even though that hunch is tough to confirm empirically.
In RL, it's unusual (and a memorable horror, think Omaha) when an infantryman doesn't have anything at all solid within a few paces that he can put between himself and bullets. That's why modern battlefields look 'empty.'  Incoming fire should normally encounter sharply diminishing returns after the first few shots, even in 'open ground'.
By boosting the number of perceived 'refuges' available to pixeljoes, it seems you could then reduce the chances of the TacAI choosing to run for a safe spot far away.

Like already mentioned map size and the quicker communication and command play a key role why everything plays out faster here.
Also most of the time in real combat operations there are no air or cavalry conveniently around the corner to provide support. You may stir up a hidden nest, call in support, and then hit the deck for several hours before they come to solve your problem.
Also many things in CM die alot faster, especially infantry in buildings or other cover.
To visualize this:
There was a night where nearly an complete operation was hold up because of incoming small arms from a five-story compound in high density urban territory. Hours of shooting at nothing and dark spots that may be somebody peeking or just NOD shenanigans, thousands of round were put into this building but they simply denied to stop shooting. Cavalry was called in and also put another pack of heavy ordnance into that building (many buildings don´t collapse that easy), even calling further support was considered. Silence. Then order to enter the building, enemy gunshots erupted on one of the higher floors. Again on hold. Took another half on an hour to find a solution in order to pacify it and nearly another half hour to clear the rest of the building and situation (which takes seconds in CM).
Turned out that this building was occupied by only two individuals armed just with one AK and one RPG and alot of ammo.
They´ve managed to hold up company sized elements, cavalry support, and futher to delay the operations of other elements for half of the night.
Imagine this in urban environment where you have dozen of such buildings.
Real warfare can also involve an unbelieveable amount of waiting and also "camping" to put it in video game terms.

See me reacting!  The AI-tank-commander announces the targets and override-points the turret in the right direction for me (the gunner).  
https://youtu.be/ubncD6I1SqM?t=181
 

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. 💗

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. 💗

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. 💗

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 think that you'd need a "reverse slope" on a tile to see anything (up to "very tall vehicle") on a square. 
To put it simple: 
reverse slope / no aimpoint: Your unit can't see the ground of the square (and thus is not allowed to area-fire), but has a chance to spot enemy units that "protrude" from the ground (depending on the angle between your unit and the enemy unit and their actual height). As they "protrude", enemy units offer your unit an aimpoint, so to speak. E.g. In a field of crops, if you get a reverse slope aimpoint, you might be able to see standing enemy infantry, but still have no chance to spot crawling enemy infantry (until it is very close and can be spotted "through" the micro-terrain). So when you have a reverse slope aimpoint, you have a chance to spot enemies under certain conditions (you don't really now how tall the enemy must be in order for you to get a chance to spot it). no LOS: You can't see anything (even tall vehicles) here My theory (on how micro-terrain affects spotting):  
 

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.

I can't find the quote right now, but I think the info comes from Vanir Ausf. B - reverse slope occurs whereever you have a potential LOS on a "very large vehicle" (so in my diagram, "a man's height" would need to be replaced by "very tall vehicle"). Reverse slope does not tell you whether you can see anything shorter than that tall vehicle. You might be able to see shorter units or not. There is no certainty except for your eyes' judgement.
 
(I would need to test if the target-arc might be usefull here? It seems to be set at the height of the unit and "cuts" through the ground mesh. In any case it helps to judge the lay of the land)
 
PS: Also, for anyone interested in spotting in general, lots of valuable official info can be found in the answers here: 
 PS: Oh and someone actually tried to come up with some calculation to judge better at what point you'd be able to see shorter units in a reverse slope area: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/114689-just-for-fun-determining-direct-fire-range-to-a-large-target-instead-of-the-ground/?tab=comments#comment-1526818
 

Some additional info: In the link posted as post scriptum in my previous post, MOS:96B2P quoted official sources that there are 5 heights in the game: prone, kneeling, standing = small vehicle, tall vehicle, very tall vehicle. According to Vanir Ausf B's addition, reverse slope height extends to "very tall vehicle" height (so it's taller than a man). LOS aimpoint height is 1m above the ground.
I've also rediscovered my own video, showing some MG grazing fire action: 
The MG can only area-target a spot at 180m distance. Tiles at greater distances are in reverse slope areas (LOS gets blocked by cumulative tall grass tiles that at some point act like a wall that casts a LOS-shadow/dead zone) and therefore can't be area-targeted. However, as the angle between the muzzle (prone height) and the area-targeted tile's aimpoint (height = 1m) is suitable and the terrain beyond the area-targeted tile is flat, the MG's bullets travel on much further at a dangerous, effective (suppress/kill) height.

The problem is that the game would need to differentiate between an "area that can't be seen because it's behind a hill or a house" and an "area that can't be seen because it's behind 10 tiles of 50cm high grass or a single bush". In other words, the targeting point used for determining LOS needs to be set at a higher altitude. If you get a reverse slope (can see a point up to ca. a man's height "above" the targeted tile), you should be allowed to area-fire. There are probably good reasons why it's not that simple, but it really affects gameplay in a bad way. It's ridiculous that an MG or a an infantry gun cannot fire behind/through a bush. If your infantry came and told you "There is an enemy MG nest giving us a hard time, 50m short of the barn" with a hand singal in the direction and you ordered your gunner: "50m short of the barn, straight ahead!" you wouldn't expect him to answer "Sir, I can see the barn, but I can't see that particular spot 50m in front of it. It's obscured by a bush!" 
Already the AI doesn't know how to area-fire. But who cares! This game is meant to be played against human opponents anyway!

Yes, onmap crew-served infantry guns can fire indirectly in Combat Mission games. 
The big problem with infantry guns and assault guns is that - like all other troops - they can't target an action spot unless they can draw a LOS to the ground of the tile. If your unit is at the same height as the target-tile, you can't fire at it. So for example, if you'd like your infantry-gun to fire "50 meters in front of that barn", they can't because grass might block their LOS on the ground of that particular action spot. While this affects all troops, it particularly weakens support weapons, whose purpose should be to knock out targets quite accurately with their strong HE ammo. It's a shame really, because I have a soft spot for those non-tank vehicles. But right now, they seem to be quite useless.  You can still attempt to shoot at some spot in front of the desired target-spot and hope that some shell might at some point land somewhere close to the target due to random inaccuracy, but nedless to say this wastes ammo (those support weapons don't have that much to begin with...) and gives away their position.
Yes you're right. Also, I figured out that the kind of indirect fire I had in mind (shooting over larger obstacles) is rather impossible for the self propelled howitzers on CM maps. Even when elevated as far as possible, they would probably "overshoot" the standard CM-map sizes. The infantry gun, on the other hand, has really astonishing gun elevation (see video linked by Wicky).

Here is a quick and dirty translation:
Note that most of it is phrased in a very fragmented, brief way. Sometimes there are just catchwords, incomplete sentences. 
[title page]--------------
Combat training/instruction for Panzergrenadiers
A set of combat exercises for the armored as well as unarmored squad with 2 light MGs, to be used by the instructor of recruits in combat training
By Helmut von Wehren […]
Including 28 colored sketches
[p.67]------------------
Exercise 6: The armored squad in the attack
Goal of the exercise: Squad (armored) in the attack
Regulations [a list of regulations/field manuals that are refered to in the subsequent text very often; I have left out the citations in the text below]: Mounted combat (H[eeres]D[ienst]v[orschrift] 299/4a, Ziff. 36-47), Dismounted combat (H.Dv. 130/2a, Ziff. 268-285), Combat instruction (H.Dv. 472, Ziff. 57-91) with motor vehicle
 [p.68]--------------
II. Principles of training
a) Mounted combat
1. As much as the enemy’s fire, the terrain and the task allow it, the squad is to stay/fight mounted on the vehicle. 2. The primary purpose of the board-MG (either mounted on the swivel or resting on the shoulder of [another] soldier) is to fire during short fire-stops at ground or air targets. But it’s also possible to fire while the halftrack is moving. (especially if an enemy already deemed defeated comes to life again [“Wiederauflebender Feind”, term used below in one of the tasks]) 3. The riflemen may take part in the fire fight during an assault or against targets of opportunity at short ranges. They shall also contribute to the effect of the automatic fire by throwing smoke-grenades. Running the enemy over [with the halftrack] can also be effective. 4. Proper usage of terrain, quick transition between fast movements and short fire-stops. Coordination with heavy weapons, artillery and fire support from the own unit. 5. Accurate, effective fire is only possible from a halted halftrack. Firing from a moving vehicle (short bursts of fire at short ranges) forces the enemy to seek cover and prevents him from using his own weapons (exploit moments of weakness!). A subsequent fire-stop for aimed/deliberate fire (“Abgabe von Zielfeuer”), raises the morale. 6. Fire position (“Randstellung” – vehicle is masked from the enemy’s view) – frequent change of position – covered advance. If enemy presence is suspected in terrain that is hard to oversee (high grass, short trees, grain fields), a small corridor (e.g. two hand’s widths right of that bush) can be designated and be sprayed/taken under preemptive fire [“abstreuen”]. Enemy MG and rifle fire needs to be passed through/overcome at high speed. Anti tank weapons or minefields may force the squad to dismount or to cover the halftrack in smoke to allow it to retreat into cover.  b) Dismounted combat
1. Clever behavior of the MG and riflemen as part of the squad, especially proper usage of terrain, selection of fire positions, camouflage, recon, assessment of ranges, handling of the sight, point of aim, coordinated maneuvering between the MG and riflemen and adjacent/neighbouring squads. 2. Each individual soldier in the squad acts according to the task at hand, as an individual according to the intention of the squadleader. [p.69]----------------------
3. Constant observation of the battlefield needs to be the basis for leading the squad, directing fire, usage of munitions and resupply. Achieve fire superiority. Effective employment of fire is more important than cover. 4. Commitment of light MGs and riflemen. The latter can be assigned a limited amount of ammunition [“Munitionsaufwand”] if their effect can be predicted. [? I’m not quite sure about this one. Perhaps it is referring to a fire order, e.g. that the riflemen are supposed to fire X rounds each; one would need to look that up in H.Dv.130] 5. Transition from dismounted to mounted combat in coordination with dismounted parts of the squad. Combat training with the halftrack. 6. Always take the easiest and safest path -  the skill level of the driver will increase over time -  when the squad is fighting mounted on the vehicle or dismounted in coordination with the vehicle. 7. Combined efforts of the crew and the vehicle to overcome obstacles. III. Enemy – To set up the enemy, you need:
1. [This just tells the reader that everything should be prepared according to the tasks outlined below…] 2. Take note that it might be hard to hear the blanks fired by the [mock]enemy when the halftrack is moving. Therefore, an umpire may be used to signal the effect of enemy fire by waving a flag.  IV. Situation/Briefing
An enemy in prepared positions is defending along a general line (“allgemeiner Linie”) (point it out in the terrain). The company – its flanks are secure (“beiderseits angelehnt”) - attacks this enemy mounted, breaks through and takes the high ground (show them). Width of the company [misleading, the following information probably tells the participating squad its position within the company/platoon]: 1st platoon right, 1st squad in the center of the platoon  V. Special instructions, given by the instructor
The halftrack is in its starting position. The other halftracks are represented by sidecar-motorcycles or trucks. A sidecar-motorcycle equipped with a flag represents the platoon leader’s halftrack. The squad needs to orientate on it. The training starts with the blow of a whistle.  VI. Sequence of the exercise
The instructor needs to rehearse the tasks/situations with the recruit-private who will be leading the squad so that he will not make the wrong decisions whereby the objective of the training would be compromised. [so the main purpose here is to drill the members of the squad then, not decision making by the squad leader…] The training starts with the blow of the whistle. The squad leader gives the order “March!”. The tank rolls up.  [p.70]------------------
[…]
1st task
“Over there, at 1000m distance, you see smoke and small clouds of dust raise. You can hear projectiles/shells whistling by, hitting the tank.” Execution: Halftrack keeps going, makes a fire-stop, after calling out the target the squad leader orders the gunner to open fire, or, to fasten things up, the squad leader may fire himself [so this would leave out the complicated calling out of the target], followed by a wide leap/advance (200m), keep heads down. The squad leader and the gunner are observing the front. The grenadiers who are to be specially assigned to this task observe the flanks and the rear. The instructor checks whether the squad keeps up good observation of the battlefield. Observation must never be compromised even when in full cover. The halftrack makes fast leaps/advances, a short fire-stop and advances in bounds and mutual covering fire with the neighboring halftrack  2nd task
The first enemy positions taken, all of a sudden anti-tank projectiles are coming in. You can identify the AT gun further back, in the enemy’s rear area (“in der Tiefenzone”). Distance 700m. The company commander gives a signal, thrusting his arm upwards several times and points at a slight depression in the ground to your front. Execution: The squad leader gives the driver two bashes on the back and gives him the order “Quicker, forwards, into that hollow ahead of us” The instructor checks the driver’s shifting of the gears which ensures fast acceleration of the vehicle.  3rd task
Now in a covered position in the hollow, the company commander gives the signal to dismount and orders an assault. Execution: The squad leader orders the squad to dismount. “We will assault the anti-tank gun” The instructor checks whether the squad dismounts quickly, takes weapons and ammo along, and forms up for the attack immediately. Mingling around the halftrack must be avoided. The co-driver immediately takes over the board-MG, visual contact to the “Kfz.-Staffelführer” [? motor car squadron leader], close the doors! He [the Staffelführer, the instructor?] explains that the platoon-leader-halftracks [note: in the next task, we get the information that these have larger caliber guns] will approach the high ground carefully to suppress the anti-tank gun and provide covering fire for the squad.  4th task
The attack is progressing well, the anti-tank guns of the platoon-leader’s halftracks [!] are engaged in a fierce fire fight with the enemy anti-tank gun. The attack against the anti-tank gun is successful, it is silenced/suppressed/knocked out [“niedergekämpft”]. A few rifle bullets are incoming. The company commander and the platoon leader give out the signal “halftrack, come here/approach”. Execution: The squad stays prone in its cover. Only the squad leader waves the halftrack nearer and gives the order to mount. The mounted squad will keep attacking. [p.72]---------------------
The instructor checks whether the halftrack approaches correctly. The co-driver opens the door (unless blocked by canisters and ammunition). The soldiers must never run backwards to mount the halftrack, instead, the halftrack drives forwards at a slow speed and the soldiers are to catch up to it and mount while it keeps going. The co-driver stays on the board-MG until the crew has fully remounted and is ready for action. Only then will he get back to his seat, and MG-gunner 1 take over the board-MG. Immediate 360° observation.  5th task
The mounted attack has reached more [enemy] positions, drives over/passes through trenches and obstacles. The enemy comes to life again behind the halftrack Execution: The squad leader orders “Fire at will!” and points in the direction. Everyone fires to his side of the vehicle/from his current position. The instructor checks the distribution of fire, the grenadiers are supposed to reload/chamber rounds in the cover [that the halftrack provides], pop up out of cover very fast and fire immediately and then get back down into cover quickly, etc. Enemy positions at close range are to be destroyed with grenades. Be aware of enemy grenades, block them with your hands [!]. If they fall into the halftrack, you will have troubles finding them in time. Casualties. Special attention/observation to the rear of the vehicle. By signals and squeezing the driver’s shoulder, the squad leader informs the driver about the driving direction: Squeezing the left shoulder – drive left; the right – drive right; Push on the head – stop; the neck – slow down. Push/tap on the back – speed up.
 6th task
The attack is stopped by a deep anti-tank ditch. The halftracks stop, you see how the company commander and your platoon leader are dismounting and giving out the signal “March!”. The second platoon is advancing dismounted over there. Execution: The squad leader orders “Jump off! [note: I’m not really sure whether the instruction differentiates “jump off” and “dismount”] We continue the attack! Halftrack get into cover, Co-driver establish contact to the Kfz. Staffelführer [? as above…], side-car (platoon-leader) [! makes no sense to me; remember that the platoon leader is represented by a side-car-motorcycle], Squad, march!” [Instructor-check: Dismounting procedure – same as above]  
7th task
The dismounted attack is progressing well. You see how the halftracks are catching up, the enemy anti-tank gun is no longer firing. By means of digging off and the usage of “Knüppelrollen” [obviously something to fill up the ditch…], the halftracks were able to cross the anti-tank ditch. The company commander is remounting, the platoon leader is waving his halftrack nearer. Execution: The squad stays prone in its cover, the squad leader signals the halftrack to approach and orders “Mount!”, the squad will continue the attack mounted. [Instructor-check: Re-mounting procedure – as above]  8th task
The mounted attack is progressing well. Over there you see your neighboring halftrack rocking over difficult, undulating terrain Execution: The squad leader orders “Halftrack, stop! Covering fire for halftrack on our right, fire at enemy MG over there in the bush!” (time leap) [!]  9th task
The mounted attack is progressing well. Then you encounter another anti-tank ditch. The company has dismounted and overcome the ditch. The Kfz. Staffelführer [? as above] is busy digging off the ditch to bring the halftracks across. “Your squad is close to another enemy position. Heavy enemy rifle fire. You see the halftracks advance, spread-out in line (“in breiter Front”). The co-drivers are firing their board-MGs over your heads. Now the halftracks are passing through your squad. The enemy’s fire fades. Your platoon leader gives you the signal “March!”. Execution: The squad leader orders: “Up – March! March! Huzzah!”. The halftracks and the dismounted squads assault. Mop/roll up the enemy position. The instructor checks whether the assault is quick, and the squad en bloc makes a determined sprint, MG readied at the hip, throwing of grenades, loud cheers. Break through the position, halftracks join in.  10th task
The enemy is defeated, all resistance has faded. Over there, the platoon commander is waving the halftracks nearer. Execution: [re-mounting procedure, as above…] [here, the training ends, short debriefing by the instructor] 
[p.74]---------
Besides the above-mentioned tasks, the following situations may be trained:
 Situation 1: Frontal fire from enemy MG position, distance 300m. / Execution: Suprress/knock out the MG from the stationary halftrack (“fire-stop”). / Check: Has the gunner identified the target and is his aim correct? Situation 2: Halftrack takes fire from the rear by a position of enemy riflemen. / Execution: The rear-MG opens fire immdeitately. / Check: Does the rear-gunner open fire immediately, on his own initiative, without order? Do the riflemen open fire if the MG jams? Is the jam fixed in the cover of the halftrack? Situation 3: Halftrack takes fire from an enemy MG position at 150m. / Execution: Race towards the enemy position, roll it over / Check: Has the gunner identified the target? Does the driver race to the target? Is the enemy position knocked out in close combat? Situation 4: While crossing a trench/ditch, the halftrack takes SMG and rifle fire from both flanks. / Execution: Fight the two enemy position with all weapons available. / Check: Does the crew on the right side of the vehicle target the enemy position on the right flank, the crew on the left the position on the left flank? Are the grenades on target? Is each soldier who is about to throw a grenade covered by a rifleman? It’s also important to check whether the co-driver, manning the board-MG, is adequately covering the jump-off/in and dis/re-mount manouvres of the squad.
 

@ Bulletpoint
Just a short note, as I'm in a hurry. You're right on the angles. Some calculations:
angle of impact on the ground (perfectly flat surface):
muzzle height = 1.5m
@50m --> 1.718° @100m --> 0.865° @500m --> 0.173° @1000m --> 0.0859° muzzle height = 2m
@50m --> 2.291° @100m -->1.146° @500m --> 0.229° @1000m --> 0.115° Effect of inaccuracy. Suppose that inaccuracy adds +/- 0.1 degree:
firing at target at 500m:
muzzle height 1.5m:  short (+0.1°) --> hits 186m long (-0.1°) --> hits 1177m muzzle height 2m: short --> hits 348m long --> hits 888m firing at target at 100m
muzzle height 1.5m:  short (+0.1°) --> hits 89m long (-0.1°) --> hits 112m muzzle height 2m: short --> hits 91m long --> hits 109m  
So you're correct that the difference in accuracy caused by the differences in muzzle height are probably not that big, or, more specifically, that a muzzle with higher elevation is not significantly more accurate (it will still hit closer to the target, but not close enough as even minor deviations lead to shots going far off the mark at those flat angles...).
And overall, these calculations also show that even slight deviations from the perfect gun-elevation will make the shells over- or undershoot by a lot. That's why I say that generally speaking, main guns have a hard time to hit flat target (no houses, trees) s if they're on the same height level. Firing upwards or downwards on a target, by contrast, gives guns more wiggle-room.
My feeling might be much more related to being allowed to area fire on = seeing the ground of squares. Here the higher elevation might matter indeed as your LOS will travel on above the level of most micro-terrain for longer distances. 
 
PS: All calculations were based on the assumption that main guns (unlike small arms) on "area fire" target the ground, not a point slightly above ground level.