[MajorDisaster]

ha ha .. yeah .. but I can still see you ;-) That only underlines the issue - it's a chocking huge area of featureless grassland with a single ten foot tall lump in the middle of it. I guess you could cover it in foilage or disguise it as haystack - wouldnt stand out at all. Has anyone seen Monty Python sketch - "How not to be seen"? I've seen photos of camo'd AFV's deployed in woods and you wouldnt see them until you walked into them; I've read about Russian infantry lying motionless under carefully dug turf etc, but even very lumpy bumpy tufty grassland isn't going to hide an 88' and its crew.
I think the real problem for some players (me included) isnt so much scale, (though that admittedly takes some getting used to), but expecting the AI to deploy on reverse slope or in a forest or behind/in buildings etc,(anywhere sensible), but instead it parks a couple of flak guns in the middle of a huge field, (and we're not talking tall grass or wheatfields), and even stationnary infantry "cant see", (in the age of binoculars?). I mean, there's COVER and there's err... cover - where you really gonna put a large gun/tank? If a plain grassland hex actually means mini hillocks and furrows, then something not quite right with some of the terrain representation? The opposite problem is that aircraft seem especially good at finding tanks in forests or heavily built up areas where they'd be nigh on impossible to see at 150 mph in the first place let alone fire rockets at.
They're not huge deals but happen a fair bit. Mind you, other games Ive tried have a similar (or even more serious) issue especially with static AT weapons. Maybe that's a way to balance the game a bit? It has certainly made me value recon units - but maybe that's the point...