ASL Veteran

Trust me, BFC is very aware of all the spotting complaints.  Personally - just speaking for myself - I think there is a combination of factors that skews things a bit.  For one thing I'm not sure that gamers realize how difficult it is (per veteran accounts as well as various 'spotting tests' done in the 19th century - the human eye hasn't changed since then) to spot anything at all on the battlefield - up to and including stuff that's firing directly at you.  I'm also not sure that gamers fully appreciate what a human being looks like at 700 meters (for example).  On the one hand you have to make spotting such that a game can function (the empty battlefield) and on the other hand you have to try and make something that an average gamer can reasonably associate with reality and that's a difficult wire to walk (gamers who may or may not have an appreciation of what something actually looks like 800 meters away).  I think probably the biggest spotting 'hole' in the game (if you will) is probably anything movement related.  Movement draws the eye and assists in spotting something.  Binoculars will bring something a lot closer through magnification, but of course your field of view is way more restricted than it would be with the naked eye.  So typically I would expect that if something was stationary (even sitting in the open) it would be difficult to spot at various ranges (for example, an infantryman standing in the open might not be seen with the naked eye beyond 700 meters if he isn't moving).  However if something is moving you should notice it even with peripheral vision with the naked eye at reasonable ranges (not at 2000 meters for example) and then binoculars could be used to scan the specific area where movement was detected in order to firm up the 'spot'.  Infantrymen could walk through an open field at 2000 meters and it's unlikely that you would even know they were there if you were looking just with the naked eye. 

Even funnier than that is Steve is a dead ringer for my brother in law - retired contractor / carpenter in West Virginia.  Incidentally my brother in law's name is ... Steve.  No I'm not making this stuff up.

Well you know what they say: We all start in diapers and we all end in diapers

Well you know what they say: We all start in diapers and we all end in diapers

You could just say Japanese.  It's only five extra letters.

IF the western allies did not declare war on Germany after the invasion of Poland
IF that resulted in neutral France, Britain, and America along with no Lend Lease
Germany invades the Soviet Union in the Summer of 1940.
No German occupation forces in France, Norway, etc so the full force and resources of the German military were targeted on the Soviet Union standing alone
Italy, Romania, Finland, and Hungary all join the invasion of the Soviet Union (Mussolini wanted to help the Germans in the Soviet Union in spite of Hitler not wanting his help.)
I think that even with what we know now the Axis powers would have prevailed.  The wild card in that scenario would be if the Empire of Japan still attacked the US in December of 1941, would Germany still declare war upon the US and thus likely bring Britain into the war as well (not sure what France would do in that circumstance).  If so, would Germany simply defend the West Wall and send a few troops to North Africa or would substantial forces be moved west to actively fight Britain, the US, and maybe France or maybe not France.
 

You could just say Japanese.  It's only five extra letters.

Because the AI can't adjust it's positioning and has very little situational awareness the game has to make what seem like ridiculous situations possible in game otherwise you could have situations where friendly vehicles are destroying friendly vehicles and I don't think anyone would be a fan of that.  The Tac AI does a decent job most of the time, but the Tac AI can't evaluate the entire battlefield the way a person does.  That's why.

You could just say Japanese.  It's only five extra letters.

IF the western allies did not declare war on Germany after the invasion of Poland
IF that resulted in neutral France, Britain, and America along with no Lend Lease
Germany invades the Soviet Union in the Summer of 1940.
No German occupation forces in France, Norway, etc so the full force and resources of the German military were targeted on the Soviet Union standing alone
Italy, Romania, Finland, and Hungary all join the invasion of the Soviet Union (Mussolini wanted to help the Germans in the Soviet Union in spite of Hitler not wanting his help.)
I think that even with what we know now the Axis powers would have prevailed.  The wild card in that scenario would be if the Empire of Japan still attacked the US in December of 1941, would Germany still declare war upon the US and thus likely bring Britain into the war as well (not sure what France would do in that circumstance).  If so, would Germany simply defend the West Wall and send a few troops to North Africa or would substantial forces be moved west to actively fight Britain, the US, and maybe France or maybe not France.
 

You could just say Japanese.  It's only five extra letters.

You could just say Japanese.  It's only five extra letters.

From what I recall, the concept of the Panzer Brigade was born out of experience on the Eastern Front.  It was found that the Panzer Divisions would generally operate by forming battlegroups since the distances were so vast and it was difficult to form continuous defensive lines with the limited manpower available.  The motorized infantry would form a sort of 'anvil' type battle group with all the StuGs and ATG assets and they would be tasked with holding important terrain strongpoints while the tanks would form up with the armored infantry battalion to form a mobile strike force or 'hammer' which would move around to various spots and aggressively initiate combat with Soviet forces that were moving about.  Someone then got the idea 'well if the mobile battlegroup is so effective, why don't we just create some new formations that are just the armored battlegroup bit and shed the motorized infantry bit.'  In that way it was probably hoped that the Germans could get the most bang for the buck in terms of how their limited resources were allocated and thus they would be a sort of pocket panzer division with all the 'good bits' that formed the mobile strike force.  

Because the AI can't adjust it's positioning and has very little situational awareness the game has to make what seem like ridiculous situations possible in game otherwise you could have situations where friendly vehicles are destroying friendly vehicles and I don't think anyone would be a fan of that.  The Tac AI does a decent job most of the time, but the Tac AI can't evaluate the entire battlefield the way a person does.  That's why.

The Soviets outnumber to American force 3 to 1.  There is one thing that you neglected to notice in your Soviet OB.  You have a lot of ATGMs that apparently you chose not to use.  You also have way more infantry firepower than the US force.  The US force is anti armor focused and the Soviet force is Infantry heavy.  The American ATGMs are easily taken out with the mortars because they are not dug in.  The problem isn't the Soviet OB.  The problem is your ability to use it to best advantage.
The American force is only two platoons btw.  Well, one infantry platoon and one Cavalry troop, but the Cavalry troop has no infantry so it's really like a big tank platoon.
Regarding the Soviet ATGMs since you asked - the 2500meter variety show up near the top of the hill on your side because - well if you were smart you would put them on that hill so they can fire into the town since they can see all the way down into the valley from up there.  The other infantry all have 1000 meter ATGMs that if you happen to notice the bluff near the bridge - well a smart man would notice that if he put his ATGMs up on that bluff maybe, just maybe, all those ATGMs could also fire into the town.  At that point you wouldn't need any tanks because your ATGMs would take out the M60s and your artillery could take out the TOW.  Now that I told you what to do maybe you can try it again.
Honestly I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why so many are having so much trouble with this scenario.  The bluff on the other side of the river near the bridge is just sitting there screaming "hey come on over here and deploy on me".  If you don't like that bluff there is plenty of high ground on your side of the river too.  The TOWs can only take out so many vehicles so if you wanted to rush them up to the intersection above the bridge you could put ATGMs in several locations over there too.  You are only dealing with one American infantry platoon and you have two Soviet infantry companies.  I mean seriously....
 

I did make a few tweaks to the scenario and hopefully the new version will be released with the Steam release.  I've submitted it anyway so hopefully they will grab it when the time comes.  I wasn't overly concerned at first about the set up zone, although I felt it was not ideal I figured it was manageable.  I think what might be happening is that many players haven't figured out their course of action by the time the main attack force arrives and thus they are basically sitting in the setup zone rather than executing their plan of attack.  That's why I gave the player 15 minutes to play around with the minor recon force prior to the arrival of the main force - in the hope that the player would have a plan of action by then and the setup zone 'problem' would be minimized since the player would be on the move.  
I think I've addressed the issue by planting a whole bunch of the biggest trees available in the editor - they are probably about twice as tall as the ones currently there.  Even so some of the TOWs still get in there somehow, but it should be minimized to the point where it should be acceptable for most players.  It does look a little funny to me, but it's all I could think to do.  I also anticipated the Bradley down by the river situation and modified the American setup accordingly.  It's still possible for the American player to do that, but it's an even less probable thing for someone to think to do with the way I have redeployed everything.  
I also made a few minor adjustments to the American AI and reduced their combat power ever so slightly - probably not even noticeable for most players.  I also made some modifications to the Soviet briefing in an effort to help steer players in the right direction if they are not familiar with Soviet equipment / capabilities or perhaps newer to the game.  I increased the time by ten minutes as well.
I've had scenarios panned before so it's nothing new.  You can't make as many scenarios as I have if you have a thin skin.  Sometimes they work out and sometimes they don't.  Hopefully the modifications I've made will result in fewer complaints.  I typically try not to comment in scenario threads except for maybe a single post or two, but I was a little surprised and confused by some of the reactions that players were having when playing this scenario.  My honest reaction was 'what the heck are these guys doing?'  I'm thinking that most of the frustration was the TOW into the setup area when they can't spot what's hitting them.  If you are unsure of what your course of action is and stuff is 'spontaneously combusting' I can definitely see someone getting aggravated by that.  Hopefully now if a player wants to sit in the deployment zone for thirty minutes while they determine a course of action it will be safer for them to do so.

I did make a few tweaks to the scenario and hopefully the new version will be released with the Steam release.  I've submitted it anyway so hopefully they will grab it when the time comes.  I wasn't overly concerned at first about the set up zone, although I felt it was not ideal I figured it was manageable.  I think what might be happening is that many players haven't figured out their course of action by the time the main attack force arrives and thus they are basically sitting in the setup zone rather than executing their plan of attack.  That's why I gave the player 15 minutes to play around with the minor recon force prior to the arrival of the main force - in the hope that the player would have a plan of action by then and the setup zone 'problem' would be minimized since the player would be on the move.  
I think I've addressed the issue by planting a whole bunch of the biggest trees available in the editor - they are probably about twice as tall as the ones currently there.  Even so some of the TOWs still get in there somehow, but it should be minimized to the point where it should be acceptable for most players.  It does look a little funny to me, but it's all I could think to do.  I also anticipated the Bradley down by the river situation and modified the American setup accordingly.  It's still possible for the American player to do that, but it's an even less probable thing for someone to think to do with the way I have redeployed everything.  
I also made a few minor adjustments to the American AI and reduced their combat power ever so slightly - probably not even noticeable for most players.  I also made some modifications to the Soviet briefing in an effort to help steer players in the right direction if they are not familiar with Soviet equipment / capabilities or perhaps newer to the game.  I increased the time by ten minutes as well.
I've had scenarios panned before so it's nothing new.  You can't make as many scenarios as I have if you have a thin skin.  Sometimes they work out and sometimes they don't.  Hopefully the modifications I've made will result in fewer complaints.  I typically try not to comment in scenario threads except for maybe a single post or two, but I was a little surprised and confused by some of the reactions that players were having when playing this scenario.  My honest reaction was 'what the heck are these guys doing?'  I'm thinking that most of the frustration was the TOW into the setup area when they can't spot what's hitting them.  If you are unsure of what your course of action is and stuff is 'spontaneously combusting' I can definitely see someone getting aggravated by that.  Hopefully now if a player wants to sit in the deployment zone for thirty minutes while they determine a course of action it will be safer for them to do so.

Maybe we could get Ric Flair
 
 

The shopping bags hanging on the gun are a necessary addition to any tank that looks like that.

Sorry you are disappointed.  Some points
It was not my intention to have the setup zone in LOS of the TOWs.  That was an accident of how the map was originally blocked out.  You can read about that in the designer's notes.  When you block out a map in Google Earth (this is a real location btw) it isn't always possible to determine where units can see and I thought that entire edge was safe since it's behind a slight rise in the terrain.  Turns out that it wasn't.  The area behind the edge of the map towards the Czech border is all open farmland so extending the map wouldn't make a difference - the TOWs just shoot too far and the map was already pushing max size.  It's also very difficult and awkward to extend a map after you have made it and I wasn't going to extend the map another 1000 meters east.  We also didn't have a lot of time to finish these things.  
The setup zone originally extended all the way across the map edge but since the TOWs hit the entire map edge except the northernmost portion it would have been even worse if the setup zone was extended.  It is what it is.  The TOWs don't start to spot stuff in the setup zone for several minutes and if you stick close to the trees you should be okay.  Not ideal, but there wasn't much I could do about it so it is what it is.  Once the map is completed the die is mostly cast.
There is no artillery with the starting force because it's supposed to be a recon force.  The artillery comes with the main force because that's the attacking force.  I don't see an issue with that.  The air support is addressed in the briefing.
The footbridge is a footbridge because it seems like that's what it is in the actual location as far as I could tell.  There was another bridge farther north but that part of the map was removed during the creation process - you can read about that in the designer's notes
The reinforcements come in one batch (actually three batches) because of the 1 hour 30 minute time limit.  If they come in smaller bunches then you have less time to use them.  We also have a limit of seven reinforcement groups IIRC and I had already used three of them.  The time limit could have been extended, but then people see the longer time and skip it so you can't just put a crazy long time limit on everything.  You have to balance what you are doing.
The river is not an obstacle for the infantry.  It is only an obstacle for the tanks and the tanks are almost irrelevant to your chances for victory.  There are plenty of hints and tips in this thread if you are having trouble with this scenario.  After reading some of those you shouldn't have much trouble.  You can also try it as the American side if you think it's too difficult as the Soviets.
I think it's pretty obvious that the main issue most have with this thing is the setup zone and, it is what it is.  We didn't have a lot of time to finish these things (I barely finished it in time - many other scenarios done by others were never completed).  Extending a map after it's created is very difficult and awkward and extending the map east wouldn't have made a difference since it's all open and modern weapons have range close to infinity as compared to map sizes.  Maybe planting a few more trees in the area in front of the setup zone would have helped, but then it would have been more difficult to pass through those trees.
A lot of scenario design involves making decisions in the planning stages.  Blocking out your map.  How big do you want the map to be?  Where do you want the edges to be?  What can see what?  Often times you are doing it by looking at the terrain in 2D in Google Earth and you can't always get a decent picture of what it looks like in 3D until you finish it, and by then it's too late.  Once you finally get to the point where you have toys on the map shooting at each other it's basically too late to alter the map without a lot of work (reblocking the map in Google Earth and creating a new overlay and then putting the overlay against the completed parts of the map with all the correct distances - and it's difficult to go back to Google Earth and get the elevation exactly the same as when you first blocked out your map and made your overlay.)  When the map was made I thought the entire approach from the set up zone to the mid point in the highway was safe, but when it turned out it wasn't there was nothing I could do about it.  I restricted the set up zone to the area behind the trees and put most of the reinforcements there because they would be coming up the highway.  If during testing more complained about the setup zone I probably could have had everything come in north behind the mountain, but then no doubt someone would be complaining and wondering why everything is coming in behind the mountain and not on the road.
I'll just put this one in my lemon pile and move on.  Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.  There is no way to know how it will play out once it's in the wild.