ncc1701e

There is no solid consensus for OOB size vs map size. There have been a handful of threads discussing it over the years but it very much depends on what you want to do. A scenario where the fighting has already started or is about to start would not need as much room as one where you have to find the enemy first.
For sure - if you want there to be manoeuvre between forces or recon to find the enemy then yes extend a way.

I'd say extend the map. Even in WW2, I think that map would be too small for 2x180 men.
There's no general guideline, but when playing H2H, I tend to choose "tiny" forces on a "medium" map size.
It also depends on how much dense terrain there is, and if there are vehicles or just infantry etc. But in general, I think it's best to have the map be a little too big than a little too small.

My pleasure, proost! 🍻
With regards to the troop experience: I actually enjoyed the fierce battle due to the quality troops. My troops were mostly around crack level, about which I don't know if that's fully realistic, I do enjoy their resilience. Decent AI troops are required to put up a fight against the players forces.
BTW; Yes I know Syrian troops have a plenty experience over the last years, but I don't know about training and how good they are at retaining experienced soldiers. How do they compare to Spetznatz, for example? 😉
Anyway I think the scenario was quite well balanced and the quality troops provided some intense fighting, so I don't complain! Was just interested in the rationale behind it.
I will add some screenshots, including Abu Aurelius, to show the points talked about (atgm pos & inf attack). 

Screens looking good!
And for sure interested in the campaign!

Last night I finished the Al Hamamiyat scenario with an enemy surrender.
AAR:
After I scouted towards the hill, a tough battle for the outskirts ensued. After preparatory strikes I moved up the Tiger infantry while taking positions on the hill. With all guns in support and the plenty of mortar/arty rounds I was able to smash the enemy defenses, although  I didn't have much time left. My tanks were quite low on HE rounds too.
My losses were minimal, half a dozen casualties and 1 bmp lost. Had some luck though, with the ATGM and arty. Probably another 10+ yellow base on my infantry. Took precautions after the preparatory enemy shelling at turn 1, and was expecting ATGMs.  Firefights were intense, AI defense tight. Fell back a couple of times due to enemy mortars. Noticed most troops of veteran and above quality. Enemy defenses seemed stubborn and fanatic, nobody ran or surrendered even under extreme fires.
The AI did mount an infantry offensive, but it just walked into my direct & indirect HE, topped of with MG fires. That's were I discovered an US m240 MG team and some Dutch infantry team. The AI offense was blunted and from there I moved slowly forwards. With 40 minutes left I just barely held the outskirts, so I worried a bit for time but after effective resistance was broken I could push easily towards the town objective upon which the AI surrendered @25min left. 
One thing I noticed after the battle is the TOW team and a AT-3 sagger were not in position to strike. It might be because I shelled the AT-4C team that uncovered itself, but I'm quite sure neither the TOW or AT-3 was able to get any shots off during the scenario. 
Another thing I noticed was the AI infantry attack towards the West Side; they sort of crawled towards me in the open, although that too might be because of shelling. I don't know the intention, but it seemed to me that had they chosen position in/around the outskirts, the strike force would been much more of a challenge. 
Although I still had 25 min left, I would probably be pretty short on time to methodically swipe the town towards east side. I think a little bit of extra time wouldn't hurt, especially if you up the challenge. On the other hand I probably could have been quicker, so it's not really short I think. Munition wise I didn't really have a problem (I used supply trucks for PKM rounds bug and some RPG rounds), only my tanks had low HE. I still had plenty of mortar/arty rounds left and I fired of a lot of rounds. the 5min call time on the 120mm mortars (3min with TRP) is great for supporting the infantry. Preparatory strikes with the 122mm and the hind. 
Ok, I just played a football match followed with 3rd half (beers), sorry if my AAR is a bit chaotic. lol. I will add some screens.
Thanks for the nice scenario!

Thanks guys! I really appreciate the support. 🙂
I've learned a lot since I laid the first tile down on Tal Malah. All of my maps are going to reflect this in the campaign, and stand alone once the campaign is done. Here's an in-progress shot from the west side of Kafr Nabudah in the meantime:

Thanks!

I just did a quick playthrough of the Tal Malah battle, as a sunday casual. Didn't give too many orders, just spread out the troops and hide them with short cover arcs. When the enemy came close (<200m), unhide and fire at will.
Nice battle! A lot of mayhem. My forces held out, although I've taken quite some casualties. Mainly from enemy tank direct fires. The T-90 mopped them up though. Could have probably reduced casualties by moving my infantry out of LOS from the tanks. But I was having fun just ordering the T-90 and a couple BMPs around and watch the havoc unfold.
Enemy surrender at 27min left. 
The AI attack was quite nice, if their artillery smoke could be more towards the front it could have been perfect.

Great info! Thanks for that. When I made that scenario, I tried to get those zushkas to be more effective. This is just what I was looking for. I'm trying it out now. FWIW, Tal Malah was my very first published scenario, so I have been revisiting it as time allows. It will tie in with Qalaat Al Madiq in the campaign.
Edit: I just checked the AI plan on that group. It is set to area fire into the town, just not the movement part. That will help them a lot I think. Thanks

Spontaneously generated maps was a feature I liked and missed in CMx2, but the maps we have now are all more meticulously drawn and detailed, and sometimes more historically accurate. So at the end of the day, I'd have to say we are better off now. Perfection would be spontaneously drawn maps as nicely done as todays...but that is probably not possible at the present time. So it goes into the distant wish bucket.
Michael

If I may suggest a small improvement, put those ZU-23-2 technicals of AI group 8 in another group than the T-55. And, use them to area fire your objectives. Same for AI group 2. Also this is important to move them so that their tubes are always toward the enemy. So, you must use the Retreat order so that the ZU-23-2 technicals are actually reversing toward the enemy. This is why this is not compatible to have a T-55 in the same AI group. 🙂
I am using this technique in the first scenario I am playtesting and I try to have a really cool AI behaviour in attack and defense.
A little example. Here is the setup of your technical. The green dot is the facing order so that the ZU-23-2 tubes are looking at the enemy. They already have an area fire order against the two buildings of my demo scenario:

The order 2 orders them after one minute to reverse towards the enemy and to continue the area fire...

The order 3 orders them, after 4 minutes, to again reverse toward the enemy while continuing the area fire on them:

Try it and let me know what you think. This really strengthens any AI attack (against me at least 🤣). I have attached the 002 try.btt test scenario. Play as Blue against Red AI in Scenario Author Mode to see everything.
Cheers
002 try.btt

If I may suggest a small improvement, put those ZU-23-2 technicals of AI group 8 in another group than the T-55. And, use them to area fire your objectives. Same for AI group 2. Also this is important to move them so that their tubes are always toward the enemy. So, you must use the Retreat order so that the ZU-23-2 technicals are actually reversing toward the enemy. This is why this is not compatible to have a T-55 in the same AI group. 🙂
I am using this technique in the first scenario I am playtesting and I try to have a really cool AI behaviour in attack and defense.
A little example. Here is the setup of your technical. The green dot is the facing order so that the ZU-23-2 tubes are looking at the enemy. They already have an area fire order against the two buildings of my demo scenario:

The order 2 orders them after one minute to reverse towards the enemy and to continue the area fire...

The order 3 orders them, after 4 minutes, to again reverse toward the enemy while continuing the area fire on them:

Try it and let me know what you think. This really strengthens any AI attack (against me at least 🤣). I have attached the 002 try.btt test scenario. Play as Blue against Red AI in Scenario Author Mode to see everything.
Cheers
002 try.btt

If I may suggest a small improvement, put those ZU-23-2 technicals of AI group 8 in another group than the T-55. And, use them to area fire your objectives. Same for AI group 2. Also this is important to move them so that their tubes are always toward the enemy. So, you must use the Retreat order so that the ZU-23-2 technicals are actually reversing toward the enemy. This is why this is not compatible to have a T-55 in the same AI group. 🙂
I am using this technique in the first scenario I am playtesting and I try to have a really cool AI behaviour in attack and defense.
A little example. Here is the setup of your technical. The green dot is the facing order so that the ZU-23-2 tubes are looking at the enemy. They already have an area fire order against the two buildings of my demo scenario:

The order 2 orders them after one minute to reverse towards the enemy and to continue the area fire...

The order 3 orders them, after 4 minutes, to again reverse toward the enemy while continuing the area fire on them:

Try it and let me know what you think. This really strengthens any AI attack (against me at least 🤣). I have attached the 002 try.btt test scenario. Play as Blue against Red AI in Scenario Author Mode to see everything.
Cheers
002 try.btt

The scenario is Battlegroup Attacks! by George MC. (Thank you Sir!).
A mix mechanized Syrian and U.K. force face off in Syrian hilly terrain in a PBEM with myself as Red force.
A BMP-2  seizes the opportunity to take a pot shot at a Challenger 2 with it's AT-5 ATGM.
N.B. The only orders I gave to the BMP-2 were as follows;
1.  Reverse out of the Wadi around 20m to gain LoS.
2. Face towards blue Challenger contact.
Everything else is the TACai's automatic orders.

 
 
http://
 
http://
 
http://
 
http://
 
http://
 
http://
 
http://
 
 
 
 

Oh man, what a battle! Tal Malah occurred during a time when the takfiri forces still had a lot of heavy equipment, unlike Al Hamamiyat. Their armored columns approached the frontlines with artillery support, behind VBIED attacks...
Thanks to everyone's invaluable feedback, this campaign is shaping up to be a real beast. We plan on also releasing the updated scenarios as stand alone once the campaign is baked, as some of the maps have gone through a dramatic facelift.
Respectfully,
LL

Not really an expert. Just figured the bitrate is something that is convertable, and since I was just playing some Red v Red battle I had some incentive. Downloaded Audacity tool, fiddled with it and voila some 44100 wav's. I did save them in 16bit, not sure if better quality etc can be achieved. However, they seem to work and that was all that I needed

iTunes, pah!
Malicous bloatware, nothing more!
I just checked the first file... it was at 11025 Hz.
Sounds like @Lethaface fixed it.

I have converted them to 44100 with audacity. I know for sure at least one works, so I guess the rest does too. Dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rlvbosi5qni2cep/AAATY4XOlG1jGbgCikcIq3Jga?dl=0

As promised here is a link to a compiled .pdf of the AAR: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QtvMj5-T6CbqvQnR-6utl-nmpMH1rhM9 

The AAR comes to an end, probably with excellent timing given the Rome to Victory AARs have now begun! Thank you to all who followed with interest, I will post a .pdf of the amalgamated posts in a couple days' time.  
___
1843-1846:
The Challengers take a battle position near the original BP3 while they wait for the smoke mission, ordered from the Palace observation point, to fall. They promptly spot and engage a pair of T-72s in the vicinity of EA1 upon taking their position. The enemy now appear completely dislocated at this point; even as the T-72s pull back into EA2 and the immediate surroundings, BMPs are seen speeding towards the vacated BP1. They are rushing headlong into 1st platoon’s alternate battle position in the reverse slope and are handled easily by the warriors interposed between the buildings.
A lone platoon of Syrian infantry remains in good order and pushes onto BP2, though are kept at bay by the riflemen now in position at the palace with ease.
 By 1845, the smoke is falling and building in a gap between rocky mesas, masking the counterattack which kicks off shortly after at 1846. The column is motoring forwards, putting down marching fire, when the battle ends.

The Challengers spot and rapidly engage - with catastrophic effect - the T-72s that had minutes earlier pulled back into EA2. 

Dismounts from the 3rd Platoon fire on the only Syrian unit still maneuvering aggressively, keeping them a comfortable distance from their positions. 
Debrief:
A short, sharp battle, though many lessons to reiterate none the less:
The battle is a good example of why having a plan, even a skeletal one based on little information, is important. Likewise, alternate positions are imperative – even if they are found ‘on the fly.’ Topping this point off: there is almost always an alternative position, no matter how barren the terrain seemingly appears. Know when to pull back. Admittedly, it could have been a done a bit earlier from BP1 – which to my surprise was the main effort of the enemy, rather than on my right like expected. It was simply too tempting to keep the dismounts at BP1 on line and putting down fire on the enemy dismounts. This only really served to expose them to overwhelming return fire from Syrian small arms, BMPs and eventually, artillery. It was good fortune that they did not incur more losses in such a position. An artillery fire mission over a wide area would’ve sufficed to smash the slow moving, dismounted thrust. A defense against a combined arms attack is an intricate dance in separating armour from infantry transports, the transports from their dismounts and then destroying each in turn with assets best suited to do so. In this case, these assets were Javelins, Warriors and Artillery, respectively. Active counter-recce can sometimes be as easy as trusting your gut at fleeting glimpses of movement and putting down an area-of-denial fire mission. Fires don’t have to kill enemy observers or scouts, merely compel them to continue to displace. A scout dodging shrapnel is not reporting on your dispositions or guiding in fire. There are lessons to learn from the Syrians, too: 
The initial thrust on my right flank was disquieting but broken up by javelins. Had more weight been thrown behind that initial thrust I would’ve found myself very hard pressed – could the Warriors have stopped a company’s worth of BMPs at that position? I’m doubtful. The enemy attack on the left was also disquieting for a short while, before it rapidly became shambolic. The enemy dismounted attack was not a bad idea in theory, certainly it had sufficient overwatch elements, though it could’ve made use of artillery before rather than after it commenced. Further, the supporting BMPs taking the forward slope of the small rise they took position on was a fatal decision to the supporting effort. The enemy clearly had a lot of indirect fire assets. It was used anemically in the initial bombardment, coming down in small quantities for only a short time. It was also poorly templated: the best positions I could take were obvious and yet no fire was put on them. A stronger initial suppressive fire would’ve allowed for a much further forward dismount point. Infantry dismounting 300m away from my positions, rather than 800m away, would have likely put me in checkmate. Situation at end of battle & Total Losses:
 


The butcher's bill at battles end. 
 

Here's what you can expect "Russians" doing:

I think what @Combatintman said above is what you are probably looking for.  I have some equipment cards I made on a Word Document for artillery.  I only did this for artillery that I use often in PBEM etc.  I like the 105mm for their cost (when selecting from the CM purchase screen.  Not RL), ammo supply and ability to fire smoke.  So I included part of an equipment card for German 105s as an example below.  I don't know what German artillery you are going to use in your scenario.  I hope the information is understandable after the cutting and pasting (I removed the classified parts for PBEM OpSec) .  
You asked for a list of each artillery unit and the range.  For the Real Life (RL) range that info is available in the Combat Mission (CMBN) game manual (not to be confused with the 4.0 engine manual).  The game manual also lists all the assets in the game with the RL stats. 
However for game purposes almost all the artillery assets can range an entire Combat Mission map.  There are a few exceptions such as a light mortar on a huge map.  So, in game terms the range may not matter unless I just misunderstood what you were after.   
The below chart/card shows the Fire For Effect times when using a HQ or FO with and without TRPs.  Each HQ & FO are broken down from Elite to Conscript.  The last time I updated the card was March 2017.  As far as I know the FFE times for CMBN are still accurate. 
The crater size is just to help identify what the OpFor is shooting back with (one of the games within a game).      
GERMAN WWII ARTILLERY CARD
 
Equipment:  Howitzer Section Medium 3x105mm Howitzer (Wespe)
Dates Available: All available WWII dates. 
TOE Location: On the purchase screen: Formations, German Army, Artillery, Self-Propelled Howitzer Section [medium].
Off Map Ammo: 96 HE, 30 Smoke1, Yes Personnel Airburst                                                                         Crater Size: Light, Medium, Heavy, Super
FFE Time
HQElite
HQCrack
HQVet.
HQReg.
HQGrn.
HQCons.
 
F/OElite
F/OCrack
F/OVet.
F/OReg.
F/OGrn.
F/OCons.
LOS
13Min.
13Min.
13Min.
14Min.
16Min.
19Min.
8Min.
8Min.
8Min.
9Min.
10Min.
13Min.
TRP
9Min.
9Min.
9Min.
9Min.
9Min.
9Min.
5Min.
5Min.
5Min.
5Min.
5Min.
5Min.
Notes: 1) The 30 smoke are part of the 96HE total and will be fired with the HE rounds during a fire mission (even if duration is less than maximum).
                               
Equipment:  Howitzer Battery Medium 4x105mm Howitzer
Dates Available: All available WWII dates. 
TOE Location: On the purchase screen: Formations, German Army, Artillery Battery [medium].
Off Map Ammo: 140 HE, 40 Smoke1, Yes Personnel Airburst                                                                       Crater Size: Light, Medium, Heavy, Super
FFE Time
HQElite
HQCrack
HQVet.
HQReg.
HQGrn.
HQCons.
 
F/OElite
F/OCrack
F/OVet.
F/OReg.
F/OGrn.
F/OCons.
LOS
14Min.
14Min.
14Min.
15Min.
17Min.
20Min.
9Min.
9Min.
9Min.
9Min.
11Min.
14Min.
TRP
9Min.
9Min.
9Min.
9Min.
9Min.
10Min.
5Min.
5Min.
5Min.
5Min.
5Min.
5Min.
Notes: 1) The 40 smoke are part of the 140HE total and will be fired with the HE rounds during a fire mission (even if duration is less than maximum).
                              Last Update: 7 March 2017
EDIT:  On my computer I had to expand the browser window to see the right side of the card / chart after I posted. 

One of my pet peeves with scenarios is time limits, Often i find them too limiting. When I run infiltrations, and assaults in real life they take way longer than the two hours alot of the long scenarios give you. I would always ask for atleast 3 hours... 

Quick update:
Kafr Nabudah 4k is coming along nicely. Qasabiyeh, Kabani, and Tal Malah have been updated internally for the campaign. Here's some in-progress shots of Kabani after the elevation rework.


Respectfully,
LL

For best results, focus your artillery assets on one target.
There was once even a version where we had airplanes, but that got thrown out due to ZU-23-2 pick ups and their AA role.

This is great feedback, thank you for that. When the time comes for Qasabiyeh to be revised for campaign, we will take into account the length of calling time. 
Everyone who play these scenarios, feel free to post your experiences here or pm me or @Liveload. More feedback is good.
It's an never ending conundrum of scenario design for Red forces whether to give the player 2S1 or D30 howitzers. Is the extra ammo (120) worth the extra time for calling in fire mission or vice versa, is faster calling time worth the reduced load out (70)...