Combat Mission unrealistic

[Vanir Ausf B]

I always try to play on huge maps so that players cannot rely on "safe" flanks. Players who like to concentrate forces can then worry about being shot in the side.

Something thing we have in common.

[LJFHutch]

I always try to play on huge maps so that players cannot rely on "safe" flanks.

I want to do a 3kmx3km+ battle with only a company or smaller even so that scouts and flanking become important, I was never good enough in SF at creating polished scenarios so never finished it. In fact while on the topic of realism that would be my biggest gripe, "wall hugging".

[user38]

Games don't need to be fun, in fact I think the whole "games must be fun" is detrimental to the medium as a whole. "Engaging" is more appropriate.

LFJHutch, we are actually in agreement here (and arguing semantics). A lot of things that people do for "fun" resembles work. For example, people spend hours on back breaking labour gardening or restoring cars or building furniture as a hobby.

Pawter is correct that it is unrealistic to see the entire battlefield. In a real battle a commander has limited knowledge of the terrain or of events as they unfold. They don't micromanage their troops. I imagine they spend most of the battle waiting and trying to find out what is happening so that they can give critical orders. I imagine they don't find out what has actually happened until they read the after action reports.

I guess you could play CMBfN with the computer in another room. You could have a friend working the computer and you could yell instructions to him through the door. Afterwards he could tell you what happened. He might even say "You should have seen that Panzer IV knock out those three Shermans: it was spectacular". And you might think "Yes, I would like to have seen that." That would be realistic. I doubt it would be fun.

[Magpie_Oz]

LFJ In a real battle a commander has limited knowledge of the terrain or of events as they unfold. They don't micromanage their troops.

True enough for sure but the crux is that in Combat Mission you are everybody, not just the commander.

[JonS]

I want to do a 3kmx3km+ battle with only a company or smaller even so that scouts and flanking become important, I was never good enough in SF at creating polished scenarios so never finished it. In fact while on the topic of realism that would be my biggest gripe, "wall hugging".

Ironically, 'wall hugging' is entirely appropriate in Normandy since the force densitites were so high. A battalion might have a frontage of only a few hundred metres, with another bn on either side meaning they can't stray left or right. In that sense, the artificial constraints of the CM battlefield are quite appropriate.

What isn't, though, is that units on the edge can't receive flanking fire from notional units off the edge on either side of the map.

I'm not sure what the fix to that is. I suppose you could make your 3km x 3km map, then designate the central 1km strip as the AO for a battalion, 'freeze' the bns on either flank, then have at it down the central AO. That'd incur a pretty huge performance hit though.

[dieseltaylor]

The point you mention is entirely fair and I spent considerable time weighing up the evils of solid flanks and open flanks in game play. And as you point out terrain makes a considerable difference in what is accepatble. Closed flanks in the Western Desert or steppes of Russia are a complete no-no to me.

Bocage is interesting as density is higher and the short visual range could work well. The big drawback remains that you should not be able to guarantee a safe flank. Which does mean I think larger maps but with the VP's central so that there is a tension between flanking and getting to the action - which would tend for prople to play straight up the middle. BUT it just leaves the faint possibility that your flank is NOT secure ever.

In RL terms it is a fudge as other units would be there but the gain in FoW outweighs this caveat. And to be fair I should have said aother unit SHOULD be there as in RL in the bocage knowing exactly where your unit was in relationship to another in a fluid situation was hardly guaranteed. So again open flanks is a justifiable scenario device to give players.

There is another reason and possible work around to consider. Using outer areas of a map - in a reduced detail - as places for troops to commence the game rather than arriving on turn 2 or 3 as if dropped in by magic. This also means that the overhead for wide but fully detailed maps is reduced.

I thought of this originally for CM*1 where reinforcements arriving higgeldy-piggeldy on a map-edge could be an organisational nightmare. Particularly if it were conscript trucks dropped just off a road!!

[Lt Belenko]

The game is just a representation of a real life event. When you are sitting in front of your computer trying to get in to the spirit of the battle just close your eyes and imagine there following scenario:

1. Steve, Charles and all the BFC folks, sitting around a table or in front of their computers using a virtual meeting program, discussing the penetration values of a Sherman 75 on the lower hull armor of a panzer MK IV at 800 yards.
   
2. Then imagine the artist using photoshop adjusting the color values to get a shadow affect under the gun as the turret slews.
   
3. Then think about all those little 1s and 0s travelling across the room via WiFi to your computer to form a PBEM turn.

When viewed at this level you can fully comprehend how CMBN is only a representation of real life.

[The_Capt]

OK OK I am maybe not the single best player I’ve ever met. Merely competent which point is what I tried to start from: I’ve learned how to use this system effectively.

Consistently people are posting comments regarding the cause I posit ie: perfect advanced map knowledge (maybe this is not the cause; several posts have suggested others). Repeatedly they fail to address the ahistoric (sp?) way it manifests itself.

THE OVERCONCENTRATION OF ATTACKING FORCE.

This is not a discretionary judgment call as regards what maps, aerial recon (you must be joking?), trustworthy & brave local knowledge etc is realistic. It is a black and white assessment of: do the battles produced by this game system accord with recorded history? If not then we are all refining our aptitude for a computer game. As meaningful as Total Annihilation or Doom or whatever young people play on their Iphones or suchlike disintermediated post-post-modern devices theseadays.

I will be blunt as you seem to have no problem in this regard; your postion is what happens when amateurs make the mistake of thinking they are professionals.

Not only are you off the mark as to what is unrealistic, you are way off the mark as to why it occurs in game.

Overwhelming concentration of force on weak point of an opponent isn't an abstract unrealistic in-game effect...it is a freakin fundmental principal of war in just about every military back to Alexander. Congratulations you are doing what real world commanders have been preaching for roughly all of recorded history.

Now your central complaint is that because you can see the map and deduce thru your superior tactical reading of the ground you are able to consistently do this in game, making for unrealistic result. You further compound this by requesting some sort of Civ cloud based FOW as a better way to go.

Again, dead wrong. The reason you can "over-concentrate" in-game is not being able to see the ground, which has already been pointed out be others as realistic..it is called a map. The reason you can over-concetrate force is based on the C2 model of the game.

In the real world the central problem of getting everyone to do something at the same time while someone is trying to kill them is THE problem in military operations. We have spent billions in the modern era to try and crack this one. The CM commander has C2 capabilities we may see in the next century and even then unless the troops are robots the RL commander will still have less control.

So where does that leave CM? Well first off it is a game. Any thoughts that playing it well makes one ready for the real deal is absolute nonesense. In CM you are catching that last .000001% of what it takes to put troops in the field, get them into the same place and time as the enemy and engage them effectively. It is like saying you can fly an airplane because you can turn off the fasten seatbelt sign. The good news is that it is the most fun .000001%.

But none of this solves you immediate problem...the crushing reality that you have broken the code of the game (not to mention warfare in general) and how on earth can you be more challenged without having to totally re-design the game engine.

Well first off buy CMBN. The new engine has some very effective counters to over concenration of force that were not in CMx1. The arty model alone should force you to change your ways and provide added challenge. If you cluster you infantry in some massed charge, linear barrages will quickly strip them from your tanks.

Second, find better opponents. The great thing about CM is it is a level playing field. What effects one side has an equal effect on the other. In short, what is stopping your opponent from doing the same thing. The trick is putting that concentration in the right place and time...and will always will be.

Third, try harder maps, like big urban area assaults. Urban areas make large troop concentrations less effective as individual weapon systems are difficult to mutually support due to LOS issues.

After this you can always try unblanced scenarios, crazy Iron rules where you are stuck at a certain level of view. Hell try drinking heavily before playing.

In conclusion you are right about one thing; CM is an unrealistic abstraction of warfare that will not yield identical historical results. The good news is that it is the most realistic unrealistic-absraction-of-warfare-that-will-not-yield-historical-results game on the market and it is a lot of fun to play.

[sburke]

Third, try harder maps, like big urban area assaults. Urban areas make large troop concentrations less effective as individual weapon systems are difficult to mutually support due to LOS issues.

In conclusion you are right about one thing; CM is an unrealistic abstraction of warfare that will not yield identical historical results. The good news is that it is the most realistic unrealistic-absraction-of-warfare-that-will-not-yield-historical-results game on the market and it is a lot of fun to play.

As a second to that try playing LongLeftFlanks Ramadi scenario. I think you will find that knowing the map is about as helpful as head lice. Hell I am not even sure where the objective is. Just one example of what creative design can do to alter what the OP perceives as a problem.

[LongLeftFlank]

Awww, thanks! (I think )

[sburke]

Awww, thanks! (I think )

LOL yes that would be appropriate. Am having a blast with it. What I really like is now that I do have a better understanding of the objective, it is still playable. The first time around though was just awesome for the immersion level. Trying to figure out what the ammo situation was, how to regroup my forces to consolidate for a push and then realizing "oh crap, an hour is gone and I am just finding out where my guys are holed up." Nice job.

And seeing as you just posted you have nothing to do......... Surely there is room in Ramadi for another scenario :-D

[futon river crossing]

Let me start out by saying I'm unconvinced that a "realistic" representation of WWII tactical C3 and forcing the player to rely on the chain of command would result in an enjoyable game or eliminate gamey tactics at all.

I'm going to defend the OP against some of the modern military types who are suggesting that an almost complete lack of terrain knowledge and intel on enemy forces was unlikely in WWII. We live in a world of instant communication, where GPS and satellite imagery are taken for granted, and most developed countries would view the casualties from a battle like Tarawa as a national catastrophe.

WWII was fought on a titanic scale where a lot of the leadership were "90 day wonders", radios were lacking or dodgy and the idea using lives to lubricate the gears of the big machine wasn't as repulsive as it is now.

As was posted earlier...

"So we are trying to replicate a world where the commander:

- doesn't have a map;

- hasn't been given any aerial reconnaissance photos;

- hasn't spoken to any of the locals;

- hasn't sent out any of his own reconnaissance to tell him what the ground is like beyond what he can actually see, and

- hasn't got a set of binoculars to look for himself."

I'd say that a lot of the time most of the above was true for a company commander. His map probably lacked details, he rarely if ever saw any aerial recon photos, the locals were either not forthcoming, untrusted, absent, limited by language problems or could give information that was of questionable value anyway.

The info he got from patrols was limited to what the patrols could see and hear, and was subject to human error and basic fear, and personal recon even with binoculars gives only so much information depending on the terrain and the presence of the enemy.

My father, a WWII infantry vet, told me that they got a Division intel officer to come check out reports that were being made of German activity in his sector. The guy showed up clean and shined with a tie. When he said doubtfully that he heard and saw nothing at the Company HQ, he was told that patrols were making these observations, and he should accompany one.

This involved a night time river crossing in a small boat, since daylight crossings were too dangerous. When they got to the opposite shore and went a few yards into the woods he told the patrol he'd seen enough, and didn't listen when the men of the patrol (he outranked them all) insisted that the German positions were still some ways off. When he got back to Division he reported that the men in that sector were jumpy and probably overestimating German activity. This was the 28th Division in the Ardennes in early December of 1944.

I don't think every staff officer was incompetent or more concerned about his own skin than acquiring information, but I do think this sort of stuff was fairly common. The vast draftee armies of the time were quickly raised and trained, and would probably seem somewhat strange to the highly trained, high tech volunteer soldiers of today.

The best post of the thread.

Ah yes military intelligence - surely an oxymoron if ever there was one!

[GonzoAttacker]

I will like to buy The_Capt a keg of beer or bottle of scotch and drink it with him!

[Greup]

Why would anyone want to ruin a perfectly good bread by toasting it? :confused:

Because where these guys get their bread they mostly (or possibly "only") get pre-sliced white floppy bread devoid of any substance or nutritious values. The only way to prepare this so "bread" for eating is to toast it.

In the US they even have a saying that pre-sliced bread have some inherent quality! ("The greatest thing since sliced bread"). As if...

I'd say that that bread is FATALLY FLAWED.

Now, let's talk about this our beloved game (or simulation if you will) where one guy moves all individual virtual soldiers and vehicles around the map and carry on the discussion to what extent knowing the exact layout of the map is realistic or not.

[stikkypixie]

Let me start out by saying I'm unconvinced that a "realistic" representation of WWII tactical C3 and forcing the player to rely on the chain of command would result in an enjoyable game or eliminate gamey tactics at all.

I'm going to defend the OP against some of the modern military types who are suggesting that an almost complete lack of terrain knowledge and intel on enemy forces was unlikely in WWII. We live in a world of instant communication, where GPS and satellite imagery are taken for granted, and most developed countries would view the casualties from a battle like Tarawa as a national catastrophe.

WWII was fought on a titanic scale where a lot of the leadership were "90 day wonders", radios were lacking or dodgy and the idea using lives to lubricate the gears of the big machine wasn't as repulsive as it is now.

As was posted earlier...

"So we are trying to replicate a world where the commander:

- doesn't have a map;

- hasn't been given any aerial reconnaissance photos;

- hasn't spoken to any of the locals;

- hasn't sent out any of his own reconnaissance to tell him what the ground is like beyond what he can actually see, and

- hasn't got a set of binoculars to look for himself."

I'd say that a lot of the time most of the above was true for a company commander. His map probably lacked details, he rarely if ever saw any aerial recon photos, the locals were either not forthcoming, untrusted, absent, limited by language problems or could give information that was of questionable value anyway.

The info he got from patrols was limited to what the patrols could see and hear, and was subject to human error and basic fear, and personal recon even with binoculars gives only so much information depending on the terrain and the presence of the enemy.

My father, a WWII infantry vet, told me that they got a Division intel officer to come check out reports that were being made of German activity in his sector. The guy showed up clean and shined with a tie. When he said doubtfully that he heard and saw nothing at the Company HQ, he was told that patrols were making these observations, and he should accompany one.

This involved a night time river crossing in a small boat, since daylight crossings were too dangerous. When they got to the opposite shore and went a few yards into the woods he told the patrol he'd seen enough, and didn't listen when the men of the patrol (he outranked them all) insisted that the German positions were still some ways off. When he got back to Division he reported that the men in that sector were jumpy and probably overestimating German activity. This was the 28th Division in the Ardennes in early December of 1944.

I don't think every staff officer was incompetent or more concerned about his own skin than acquiring information, but I do think this sort of stuff was fairly common. The vast draftee armies of the time were quickly raised and trained, and would probably seem somewhat strange to the highly trained, high tech volunteer soldiers of today.

It is true that maps weren't good or intel incomplete. But don't forget that the player is NOT playing as the CO HQ or something higher up, but dozens of roles at the same time. The decision making ability of any person is much more advanced than that of the CM AI game, so the advantage of knowing the terrain in detail is usually negated by AI limitations.

[MarkEzra]

Your view of CM, Wargaming, and Real World Tactical Problems are spot on.

1. CM= A Game about War tactics

2. Wargamers= People who play Games about War seriously

3. Real World Tactical problems= Of Course I can fly this plane, just give me a minute to get organized (and find a freakin' manual)

Thanks, Capt

[BloodyBucket]

It is true that maps weren't good or intel incomplete. But don't forget that the player is NOT playing as the CO HQ or something higher up, but dozens of roles at the same time. The decision making ability of any person is much more advanced than that of the CM AI game, so the advantage of knowing the terrain in detail is usually negated by AI limitations.

Are you saying the AI opponent knowing the terrain is negated because it's not as "smart" as a human? Or that the player is handicapped by his AI underlings?

Both are points worth considering, as well as the flip side of the coin. I think any WWII commander would be sorely tempted to choose a group of underlings as dumb as the AI, provided they were as predictable.

The list of things that CM doesn't simulate or abstracts is astounding. What's more astounding to me, at least in the older games, is how simulative and evocative it is given the limitations it has to labor under as a simulation, all while being addictive and fun. I'm sure things will only improve in CMBN.

I think of a game as a painting. Pigments on canvas aren't really what they portray, but they can capture the essence pretty damn well, I'm sure creating both is more art than science, and you're not going to make everybody happy with a single style of painting or approach to a war game.

[WineCape]

The list of things that CM doesn't simulate or abstracts is astounding.

The list of things that CM simulates and abstract, compared to other tactical wargames, is astounding.

[stikkypixie]

Are you saying the AI opponent knowing the terrain is negated because it's not as "smart" as a human? Or that the player is handicapped by his AI underlings?

Both are points worth considering, as well as the flip side of the coin. I think any WWII commander would be sorely tempted to choose a group of underlings as dumb as the AI, provided they were as predictable.

Well say you obscure the map from the player. In the real world you could just say go there and try not to be seen. In CM what would happen is, the little guys walk to the map see that there is some sort of cover, but they won't be smart enough to use it, forcing you the player to micro manage them to take the smart route. So obscuring the map doesn't work well in the game.

[Broken]

The new engine has some very effective counters to over concentration of force that were not in CMx1. The arty model alone should force you to change your ways and provide added challenge. If you cluster you infantry in some massed charge, linear barrages will quickly strip them from your tanks.

Second, find better opponents. The great thing about CM is it is a level playing field. What effects one side has an equal effect on the other. In short, what is stopping your opponent from doing the same thing. The trick is putting that concentration in the right place and time...and will always will be.

Even in CM1, the solution to highly concentrated infantry is a highly concentrated arty barrage.

Concentrated armor is a realistic and effective tactic against opposing armor, at least in CM1 and the earlier versions of CM2.

[Broken]

The list of things that CM simulates and abstract, compared to other tactical wargames, is astounding.

Agreed.

I don't get the kevetching about WEGO from some of the "Realtime" players. The claim is WEGO allows too much micro-management. Just the opposite in my experience. If something unexpected happens in Realtime, you can instantly react. Not so in WEGO: you have a minutes worth of agony before you can issue new orders. A "realistic" chain of command should have delays.

[Battlefront.com]

Good points and another example of how this community can take a chip off someone's shoulder and turn it into a useful discussion.

Wargames, on the whole, have several long standing problems. We've discussed them with you guys over the past 12 years many, many times before. The reason why we keep discussing them is there is no way to truly fix them. There's not even very good ways to reduce them, though we try. Here are the primary problems with wargames:

1. Map Edges - in real life there were very, very rarely hard edges to a battlefield. Even a strip of beach could allow for fire from over the water. This can, but not always, affect planning. I say not always because it really depends on the circumstances of the map, forces, what you're asked to do to win, etc.

2. Force Boundaries - similar to Map Edges, rarely is a Battalion or smaller force completely on its own and perfectly matched up with an enemy force that is on its own. The best place, tactically, to attack was usually the "seam" between two different higher level organizations because the reaction would be weaker due to poorer C2 and other factors. But in a standard 2 player game neither player has anything else to worry about but what the other player is doing.

3. Player as God (or Player Borg) - if someone wants to realistically recreate being a Battalion Commander in WW2, go outside and pitch a smelly canvas tent. Then have the neighborhood kids come running in with bits of paper describing what's going on in the neighborhood. Then try to coordinate a pickup game of baseball or soccer while looking at a hand drawn map of the area. Trying to recreate that sort of detachment from the action is exactly the opposite of what players want in a wargame, so NOBODY wants an entirely realistic C2 model. Which means the player always gets more information than is realistic.

4. TacAI as God (or TacAI Borg) - this was known as the Yellow Lines of Death problem back with CMx1. Basically, the AI sees an opportunity to do something with entirely too much battlefield wide knowledge because of information sharing. This is slightly different than Player as God because either and/or both can exist separately from each other.

5. Artificial Game Environment - you know you have x minutes to play, you have no reason to not fully commit (at least with non-Campaign), you have no incentive to give up (except if you need to stop playing for some reason), it's possible to deduce what the player has based on game balancing considerations (real life doesn't have such assurances!), 1st hand experience with playing the other side's forces, etc. The latter is very important. If I'm playing as the Americans, I know VERY well what my capabilities are AND what the Germans' are from a very low level because I've commanded both in virtual battle many times. Any American commander that could say that would have been called a Traitor and shot at sunrise It's a huge advantage to have that sort of first hand experience from both sides.

6. Perfect Map Knowledge - the map is exactly as you see it now and throughout the battle (less damage effects). You know this will happen before you even see the map. Major assumptions can be made and that translates into an affect on planning.

7. AI Player Limitations - if you play single player, the AI won't compare to a good Human opponent. And since a real Human won't act like a real world commander, because of the above issues, the AI has even less of a chance to give you a "realistic fight".

Bottom line here... wargamers need to recognize and accept these issues or there is NO POINT in playing a wargame. Things like Relative Spotting, CoPlay, better AI, etc. can help diminish these limitations, but it there's not enough time or CPU cycles available to address them all. Well, unless we just have players sit around parsing PMs and VOIPs from people actually playing the game. That makes for an excellent CPX (Command Post Exercise), but a terrible commercial wargame experience.

Steve

[Franko]

That was, of course, the point of Franko's True Combat Rules. Those mocking the idea might want to ponder the popularity of FTCR.

Thats exactly why I created them...it lead to lots of fun solitaire games. Also, adding weather elements and well designed terrain tended to limit the all-seeing affects you seem to have issue with.

[Praetori]

Good points and another example of how this community can take a chip off someone's shoulder and turn it into a useful discussion.

Wargames, on the whole, have several long standing problems. We've discussed them with you guys over the past 12 years many, many times before. The reason why we keep discussing them is there is no way to truly fix them. There's not even very good ways to reduce them, though we try. Here are the primary problems with wargames:

1. Map Edges - in real life there were very, very rarely hard edges to a battlefield. Even a strip of beach could allow for fire from over the water. This can, but not always, affect planning. I say not always because it really depends on the circumstances of the map, forces, what you're asked to do to win, etc.

2. Force Boundaries - similar to Map Edges, rarely is a Battalion or smaller force completely on its own and perfectly matched up with an enemy force that is on its own. The best place, tactically, to attack was usually the "seam" between two different higher level organizations because the reaction would be weaker due to poorer C2 and other factors. But in a standard 2 player game neither player has anything else to worry about but what the other player is doing.

3. Player as God (or Player Borg) - if someone wants to realistically recreate being a Battalion Commander in WW2, go outside and pitch a smelly canvas tent. Then have the neighborhood kids come running in with bits of paper describing what's going on in the neighborhood. Then try to coordinate a pickup game of baseball or soccer while looking at a hand drawn map of the area. Trying to recreate that sort of detachment from the action is exactly the opposite of what players want in a wargame, so NOBODY wants an entirely realistic C2 model. Which means the player always gets more information than is realistic.

4. TacAI as God (or TacAI Borg) - this was known as the Yellow Lines of Death problem back with CMx1. Basically, the AI sees an opportunity to do something with entirely too much battlefield wide knowledge because of information sharing. This is slightly different than Player as God because either and/or both can exist separately from each other.

5. Artificial Game Environment - you know you have x minutes to play, you have no reason to not fully commit (at least with non-Campaign), you have no incentive to give up (except if you need to stop playing for some reason), it's possible to deduce what the player has based on game balancing considerations (real life doesn't have such assurances!), 1st hand experience with playing the other side's forces, etc. The latter is very important. If I'm playing as the Americans, I know VERY well what my capabilities are AND what the Germans' are from a very low level because I've commanded both in virtual battle many times. Any American commander that could say that would have been called a Traitor and shot at sunrise It's a huge advantage to have that sort of first hand experience from both sides.

6. Perfect Map Knowledge - the map is exactly as you see it now and throughout the battle (less damage effects). You know this will happen before you even see the map. Major assumptions can be made and that translates into an affect on planning.

7. AI Player Limitations - if you play single player, the AI won't compare to a good Human opponent. And since a real Human won't act like a real world commander, because of the above issues, the AI has even less of a chance to give you a "realistic fight".

Bottom line here... wargamers need to recognize and accept these issues or there is NO POINT in playing a wargame. Things like Relative Spotting, CoPlay, better AI, etc. can help diminish these limitations, but it there's not enough time or CPU cycles available to address them all. Well, unless we just have players sit around parsing PMs and VOIPs from people actually playing the game. That makes for an excellent CPX (Command Post Exercise), but a terrible commercial wargame experience.

Steve

This TBH.

I've never felt that the CM games are war-simulations. The player doesn't take the role of a battalion or coy commander. It's battlefield-simulations and the player's presence is in every squad, vehicle and higher echelon commander's brain at once.

There's no simulation of preparation and mitigation of orders nor the resulting (and often flawed) feedback loop that is actual "command". And no mis-identification of friendly units (and therefore no realistic "blue on blue") and a lot of other things that makes coherent command necessary in the first place.

Therefore a FOW of the actual terrain would, in my eyes, feel a bit misplaced.

I would much rather see the C2 built upon further with "simulated" friendly fire due to bad ID (as this causes much more unrealistic results than anything else).

btw: playing against the AI always opens up for gamey solutions. The standard force concentration that works so well in single-player will get you slaughtered in PvP when the opponent calls in arty or manages to infiltrate your positions.

[JonS]

Well say you obscure the map from the player. In the real world you could just say go there and try not to be seen. In CM what would happen is, the little guys walk to the map see that there is some sort of cover, but they won't be smart enough to use it, forcing you the player to micro manage them to take the smart route. So obscuring the map doesn't work well in the game.

Not really. It just means you could only (or only safely) issue orders out to the limit of visibility. Then, once there and your limit of visibility has changed, you could order (or safely order) furhter order to the new limit of visibily.

That seems like it would be a feature, not a bug.