ASL Veteran

That would be great if a battery is solely dedicated to support your particular unit, but in the case of divisional artillery that is unlikely to be the case since multiple units may need access to that asset.  If the player can just have the divisional artillery sitting around waiting for twenty minutes for the player's unit to begin the FFE then some battalion at another (off map) location might get overrun because the artillery is just sitting around waiting for Fred to finally call his fire mission in.

Variable extra time is not dependent upon scenario size.  It's strictly a function of whether or not the scenario designer added it or not.  There is a small scenario in CMFB where the scenario is 15 minutes long with 15 minutes of variable time added, for example.

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 don't know if this was changed at some point or not, but troops on a higher level will always drop down to the first floor if under heavy fire - as in the suppression meter maxes out.  It makes no difference what type of fire it is.  Sometimes they will curl up in the fetal position for a while first, and maybe they will stay up there for a  bit, but eventually they will always run to the first floor.  If they are subjected to continuous heavy fire on the first floor eventually they will exit the building, although they should typically exit the building in the direction of the friendly edge so that they can put the building between themselves and the enemy.  Infantry don't normally just sit in a building under heavy fire forever and ever in the game, although how resistant those troops are will be dependent upon whether they are in command and control and what quality level the troops are in terms of morale and their state (broken, panic, nervous).  Dropping to the first floor or exiting the building is actually normal behavior - it just depends upon whether the examples given are outside of the norm or not (and what the expectations are of the person reporting the issue as compared to how the game is supposed to act by design)

Well, I mean from my perspective I made something where the AI won the scenario as the Soviet and the AI won the scenario as the American.  There is only so much testing that can be done.  Now I'm sure that domfluff is an accomplished head to head player, but this scenario wasn't designed as a puzzle scenario (which I'm sure is meant in a disparaging manner coming from a head to head player).  I picked a patch of ground, plopped some forces on the map, and I worked on some AI plans and this is the result.  There was no thought of 'well the Soviet has to do this that or the other thing' (as in a puzzle type solution).  No, that was never any part of the design process whatsoever.  The terrain dictated the route of advance, just as it does in real life.  I found a covered route of advance and used it - domfluff did not.  If domfluff went back to the commissar and gave a report that he retreated after five minutes he would be shot. 
The Soviet force that's currently in the scenario now is a lot more powerful than the force Slysniper had when he tried it and the American force is actually substantially weaker than it was originally.  In fact, I strengthened the Soviet force and weakened the US force based on his feedback.  However, the terrain is what the terrain is and there are only so many ways you can advance up the valley.  I took it right off Google Earth so unless I want to use a different patch of ground then that's the terrain that was used.  Now if during testing I could not make a viable Soviet AI attack plan well then I would have to make adjustments obviously.  But for the player, if you drive the BRDMs up the highway and they explode then you have to look for an alternate route and if a player just plays for five minutes, throws up their hands and says it's impossible then I can't respect that.  Especially when the AI plan, which most players who play Head to head would say is a worthless opponent, can succeed where the player fails.  You can't make the scenario 'better' using this map because it doesn't matter if you have a battalion of Soviet tanks driving up the highway - if the TOWs are still in the same place then you are going to lose some tanks - there is just no two ways about it.  The Soviet force already outnumbers the US by 3 to 1.  Some guys want to say that it's not their tactical acumen, but rather it's the scenario that's broken.  In this case I don't think that's a valid position to take.  The AI won the scenario from both sides during testing.  That's as good as I can do.  What you do with the force and situation provided is up to you.  Now if someone has some trouble finding an alternate route when they first play it - sure I get it.  Not everyone is going to find a covered route of advance right away - and even if you do find that route you still have to execute the attack.  At least Slysniper kept working the problem until the time expired.  I can respect that.

The thing with scenario size is that, generally speaking, the smallest 'semi' independent maneuver element is typically a battalion - at least for WW2.  Not sure if that's changed for modern or not, but you simply can't find very many situations with a company sized force that is operating independently of it's parent battalion.  Platoon sized actions take place obviously, but those are typically going to be patrol type actions and so you are somewhat limited in what you can do because a lot of patrolling activities simply don't translate into CM very well since they aren't typically going to be a 'capture location x' type of battle.  Prisoner snatch type of things simply won't work since you can't really deliberately capture enemies in CM.  You can do spotting for victory points, but then what's the other side doing during that time frame and if it's a larger enemy force then how does the player keep their 'spotting' units alive - especially if playing head to head.  Then how fun would that be anyway since most of the time would be spent hiding from the enemy.  It works for campaigns but not so much for a stand alone.
On top of that, modern units just have a lot of 'stuff'.  Even a US Mech Infantry platoon is something like eleven 'pieces' if you split your squads.  A US Mech Cavalry troop has something like four tanks, three scout teams, two M901s, and three M113s IIRC so that's twelve pieces to move around for one troop.  Smaller battles are a lot easier and quicker to create, but at the same time there is only so much you can really do with them since you have to come up with patrol type objectives. 
Incidentally the US side in Czechmate is only two platoons (slightly reinforced) and you are defending so it shouldn't be too taxing.  It's still a lot of pieces relatively speaking (in WW2 terms) because of all the vehicles, but the Soviet force is a lot larger so it wouldn't classify as a small scenario given the size of both forces combined.

The thing with scenario size is that, generally speaking, the smallest 'semi' independent maneuver element is typically a battalion - at least for WW2.  Not sure if that's changed for modern or not, but you simply can't find very many situations with a company sized force that is operating independently of it's parent battalion.  Platoon sized actions take place obviously, but those are typically going to be patrol type actions and so you are somewhat limited in what you can do because a lot of patrolling activities simply don't translate into CM very well since they aren't typically going to be a 'capture location x' type of battle.  Prisoner snatch type of things simply won't work since you can't really deliberately capture enemies in CM.  You can do spotting for victory points, but then what's the other side doing during that time frame and if it's a larger enemy force then how does the player keep their 'spotting' units alive - especially if playing head to head.  Then how fun would that be anyway since most of the time would be spent hiding from the enemy.  It works for campaigns but not so much for a stand alone.
On top of that, modern units just have a lot of 'stuff'.  Even a US Mech Infantry platoon is something like eleven 'pieces' if you split your squads.  A US Mech Cavalry troop has something like four tanks, three scout teams, two M901s, and three M113s IIRC so that's twelve pieces to move around for one troop.  Smaller battles are a lot easier and quicker to create, but at the same time there is only so much you can really do with them since you have to come up with patrol type objectives. 
Incidentally the US side in Czechmate is only two platoons (slightly reinforced) and you are defending so it shouldn't be too taxing.  It's still a lot of pieces relatively speaking (in WW2 terms) because of all the vehicles, but the Soviet force is a lot larger so it wouldn't classify as a small scenario given the size of both forces combined.

The thing with scenario size is that, generally speaking, the smallest 'semi' independent maneuver element is typically a battalion - at least for WW2.  Not sure if that's changed for modern or not, but you simply can't find very many situations with a company sized force that is operating independently of it's parent battalion.  Platoon sized actions take place obviously, but those are typically going to be patrol type actions and so you are somewhat limited in what you can do because a lot of patrolling activities simply don't translate into CM very well since they aren't typically going to be a 'capture location x' type of battle.  Prisoner snatch type of things simply won't work since you can't really deliberately capture enemies in CM.  You can do spotting for victory points, but then what's the other side doing during that time frame and if it's a larger enemy force then how does the player keep their 'spotting' units alive - especially if playing head to head.  Then how fun would that be anyway since most of the time would be spent hiding from the enemy.  It works for campaigns but not so much for a stand alone.
On top of that, modern units just have a lot of 'stuff'.  Even a US Mech Infantry platoon is something like eleven 'pieces' if you split your squads.  A US Mech Cavalry troop has something like four tanks, three scout teams, two M901s, and three M113s IIRC so that's twelve pieces to move around for one troop.  Smaller battles are a lot easier and quicker to create, but at the same time there is only so much you can really do with them since you have to come up with patrol type objectives. 
Incidentally the US side in Czechmate is only two platoons (slightly reinforced) and you are defending so it shouldn't be too taxing.  It's still a lot of pieces relatively speaking (in WW2 terms) because of all the vehicles, but the Soviet force is a lot larger so it wouldn't classify as a small scenario given the size of both forces combined.

The thing with scenario size is that, generally speaking, the smallest 'semi' independent maneuver element is typically a battalion - at least for WW2.  Not sure if that's changed for modern or not, but you simply can't find very many situations with a company sized force that is operating independently of it's parent battalion.  Platoon sized actions take place obviously, but those are typically going to be patrol type actions and so you are somewhat limited in what you can do because a lot of patrolling activities simply don't translate into CM very well since they aren't typically going to be a 'capture location x' type of battle.  Prisoner snatch type of things simply won't work since you can't really deliberately capture enemies in CM.  You can do spotting for victory points, but then what's the other side doing during that time frame and if it's a larger enemy force then how does the player keep their 'spotting' units alive - especially if playing head to head.  Then how fun would that be anyway since most of the time would be spent hiding from the enemy.  It works for campaigns but not so much for a stand alone.
On top of that, modern units just have a lot of 'stuff'.  Even a US Mech Infantry platoon is something like eleven 'pieces' if you split your squads.  A US Mech Cavalry troop has something like four tanks, three scout teams, two M901s, and three M113s IIRC so that's twelve pieces to move around for one troop.  Smaller battles are a lot easier and quicker to create, but at the same time there is only so much you can really do with them since you have to come up with patrol type objectives. 
Incidentally the US side in Czechmate is only two platoons (slightly reinforced) and you are defending so it shouldn't be too taxing.  It's still a lot of pieces relatively speaking (in WW2 terms) because of all the vehicles, but the Soviet force is a lot larger so it wouldn't classify as a small scenario given the size of both forces combined.

I don't know if this was changed at some point or not, but troops on a higher level will always drop down to the first floor if under heavy fire - as in the suppression meter maxes out.  It makes no difference what type of fire it is.  Sometimes they will curl up in the fetal position for a while first, and maybe they will stay up there for a  bit, but eventually they will always run to the first floor.  If they are subjected to continuous heavy fire on the first floor eventually they will exit the building, although they should typically exit the building in the direction of the friendly edge so that they can put the building between themselves and the enemy.  Infantry don't normally just sit in a building under heavy fire forever and ever in the game, although how resistant those troops are will be dependent upon whether they are in command and control and what quality level the troops are in terms of morale and their state (broken, panic, nervous).  Dropping to the first floor or exiting the building is actually normal behavior - it just depends upon whether the examples given are outside of the norm or not (and what the expectations are of the person reporting the issue as compared to how the game is supposed to act by design)

Yes, I did that for the Seelow Heights scenario, but I had a lot more feedback on that one since it was in the oven for a lot longer.  I certainly could have included better 'orders' in the briefing for sure.  At the same time though there are those who don't want detailed orders in the briefing so it has to be a balance.  Seelow Heights is another one where the AI won from both sides and the complaining was continuous from the Soviet players about how hard it was and I had the opportunity to include a very detailed briefing off of that.  For me though - it's like - well the AI won from both sides what the hell am I supposed to adjust?  If the AI is winning and you aren't then it can't be the scenario it has to be you.  If the AI wins from both sides then that's as good as you can get from a design perspective.  I don't know what else to do.

Well, I mean from my perspective I made something where the AI won the scenario as the Soviet and the AI won the scenario as the American.  There is only so much testing that can be done.  Now I'm sure that domfluff is an accomplished head to head player, but this scenario wasn't designed as a puzzle scenario (which I'm sure is meant in a disparaging manner coming from a head to head player).  I picked a patch of ground, plopped some forces on the map, and I worked on some AI plans and this is the result.  There was no thought of 'well the Soviet has to do this that or the other thing' (as in a puzzle type solution).  No, that was never any part of the design process whatsoever.  The terrain dictated the route of advance, just as it does in real life.  I found a covered route of advance and used it - domfluff did not.  If domfluff went back to the commissar and gave a report that he retreated after five minutes he would be shot. 
The Soviet force that's currently in the scenario now is a lot more powerful than the force Slysniper had when he tried it and the American force is actually substantially weaker than it was originally.  In fact, I strengthened the Soviet force and weakened the US force based on his feedback.  However, the terrain is what the terrain is and there are only so many ways you can advance up the valley.  I took it right off Google Earth so unless I want to use a different patch of ground then that's the terrain that was used.  Now if during testing I could not make a viable Soviet AI attack plan well then I would have to make adjustments obviously.  But for the player, if you drive the BRDMs up the highway and they explode then you have to look for an alternate route and if a player just plays for five minutes, throws up their hands and says it's impossible then I can't respect that.  Especially when the AI plan, which most players who play Head to head would say is a worthless opponent, can succeed where the player fails.  You can't make the scenario 'better' using this map because it doesn't matter if you have a battalion of Soviet tanks driving up the highway - if the TOWs are still in the same place then you are going to lose some tanks - there is just no two ways about it.  The Soviet force already outnumbers the US by 3 to 1.  Some guys want to say that it's not their tactical acumen, but rather it's the scenario that's broken.  In this case I don't think that's a valid position to take.  The AI won the scenario from both sides during testing.  That's as good as I can do.  What you do with the force and situation provided is up to you.  Now if someone has some trouble finding an alternate route when they first play it - sure I get it.  Not everyone is going to find a covered route of advance right away - and even if you do find that route you still have to execute the attack.  At least Slysniper kept working the problem until the time expired.  I can respect that.

Well, I mean from my perspective I made something where the AI won the scenario as the Soviet and the AI won the scenario as the American.  There is only so much testing that can be done.  Now I'm sure that domfluff is an accomplished head to head player, but this scenario wasn't designed as a puzzle scenario (which I'm sure is meant in a disparaging manner coming from a head to head player).  I picked a patch of ground, plopped some forces on the map, and I worked on some AI plans and this is the result.  There was no thought of 'well the Soviet has to do this that or the other thing' (as in a puzzle type solution).  No, that was never any part of the design process whatsoever.  The terrain dictated the route of advance, just as it does in real life.  I found a covered route of advance and used it - domfluff did not.  If domfluff went back to the commissar and gave a report that he retreated after five minutes he would be shot. 
The Soviet force that's currently in the scenario now is a lot more powerful than the force Slysniper had when he tried it and the American force is actually substantially weaker than it was originally.  In fact, I strengthened the Soviet force and weakened the US force based on his feedback.  However, the terrain is what the terrain is and there are only so many ways you can advance up the valley.  I took it right off Google Earth so unless I want to use a different patch of ground then that's the terrain that was used.  Now if during testing I could not make a viable Soviet AI attack plan well then I would have to make adjustments obviously.  But for the player, if you drive the BRDMs up the highway and they explode then you have to look for an alternate route and if a player just plays for five minutes, throws up their hands and says it's impossible then I can't respect that.  Especially when the AI plan, which most players who play Head to head would say is a worthless opponent, can succeed where the player fails.  You can't make the scenario 'better' using this map because it doesn't matter if you have a battalion of Soviet tanks driving up the highway - if the TOWs are still in the same place then you are going to lose some tanks - there is just no two ways about it.  The Soviet force already outnumbers the US by 3 to 1.  Some guys want to say that it's not their tactical acumen, but rather it's the scenario that's broken.  In this case I don't think that's a valid position to take.  The AI won the scenario from both sides during testing.  That's as good as I can do.  What you do with the force and situation provided is up to you.  Now if someone has some trouble finding an alternate route when they first play it - sure I get it.  Not everyone is going to find a covered route of advance right away - and even if you do find that route you still have to execute the attack.  At least Slysniper kept working the problem until the time expired.  I can respect that.

Well, I mean from my perspective I made something where the AI won the scenario as the Soviet and the AI won the scenario as the American.  There is only so much testing that can be done.  Now I'm sure that domfluff is an accomplished head to head player, but this scenario wasn't designed as a puzzle scenario (which I'm sure is meant in a disparaging manner coming from a head to head player).  I picked a patch of ground, plopped some forces on the map, and I worked on some AI plans and this is the result.  There was no thought of 'well the Soviet has to do this that or the other thing' (as in a puzzle type solution).  No, that was never any part of the design process whatsoever.  The terrain dictated the route of advance, just as it does in real life.  I found a covered route of advance and used it - domfluff did not.  If domfluff went back to the commissar and gave a report that he retreated after five minutes he would be shot. 
The Soviet force that's currently in the scenario now is a lot more powerful than the force Slysniper had when he tried it and the American force is actually substantially weaker than it was originally.  In fact, I strengthened the Soviet force and weakened the US force based on his feedback.  However, the terrain is what the terrain is and there are only so many ways you can advance up the valley.  I took it right off Google Earth so unless I want to use a different patch of ground then that's the terrain that was used.  Now if during testing I could not make a viable Soviet AI attack plan well then I would have to make adjustments obviously.  But for the player, if you drive the BRDMs up the highway and they explode then you have to look for an alternate route and if a player just plays for five minutes, throws up their hands and says it's impossible then I can't respect that.  Especially when the AI plan, which most players who play Head to head would say is a worthless opponent, can succeed where the player fails.  You can't make the scenario 'better' using this map because it doesn't matter if you have a battalion of Soviet tanks driving up the highway - if the TOWs are still in the same place then you are going to lose some tanks - there is just no two ways about it.  The Soviet force already outnumbers the US by 3 to 1.  Some guys want to say that it's not their tactical acumen, but rather it's the scenario that's broken.  In this case I don't think that's a valid position to take.  The AI won the scenario from both sides during testing.  That's as good as I can do.  What you do with the force and situation provided is up to you.  Now if someone has some trouble finding an alternate route when they first play it - sure I get it.  Not everyone is going to find a covered route of advance right away - and even if you do find that route you still have to execute the attack.  At least Slysniper kept working the problem until the time expired.  I can respect that.

The Soviet power is the infantry companies not the tanks.  The tanks are just along for the ride.  I guess it depends on where you tried to cross the river - you can also move through trees as well btw.  If you cross the river near foot bridge by moving north of the house then you should be able to cross there.  You can then re-cross the river to get behind those trees on your side of the river and (or you can just drive behind them I guess) then cross the river again and you are behind the bluff.  Now it's possible that your opponent deployed in a fashion that I did not foresee so there is that.  But if you play as the US against the AI you should see what I'm talking about.
The great thing about the AI is that it doesn't care when things explode

You swim with your BTR60s across the river and deploy on the bluff next to the bridge.  The Bradley's can't see to the valley floor from where they are located and you can put infantry onto that hill and flush them out.  The TOWs can't see to the other side of the river - at least not very well.  If you are sitting around then yeah, maybe they can spot you but if you know where you are going and are on the move you might lose one or two but that shouldn't be a problem.
You can also move tanks up towards the top of the hill on your side and engage the Bradley's from there. 
I mean, your gonna lose  vehicles - that's going to happen.  It won't happen as much if you are moving somewhere as opposed to if you are just sitting somewhere.  The deployment zone can get hit (unfortunately) but it takes several minutes before the TOWs can see into there and it's mostly the stuff on the right side and towards the back that might get hit.  If you move closer to the trees then you should be fine - assuming you want to sit around in the deployment zone

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....
 

You aren't going to win with your tanks.  You are going to win with your infantry.  I think I'll leave it at that - don't want to give too much away in case anyone else is trying this one.  Well, infantry and artillery.

The main thing you have to be aware of as the Soviet commander is that every single one of your BTR60s can swim.  In fact, the only thing that can't swim are the tanks and the Shilka's.

In Soviet Russia, binoculars watch you!

It would ask for your Windows PIN if you were logging into your Microsoft account for some reason.  

Are you saying that a real commander can give out different (even contradictory) orders every couple of seconds with the complete expectation that the orders will be received and understood by the recipient and immediately acted upon in the exact manner expected by the commander?

Everyone fighting in WW2 also had their own brain.  I don't think Ike positioned every infantryman on the battlefield himself.

Just for clarification - the elevation that water will go to will be equal to the lowest elevation tile that touches a water tile (ie adjacent to one so you don't even need to set elevations in the water tiles themselves), not the lowest elevation on the map in general.  This allows you to massage your map to some extent because you can alter your elevations without consequence so long as they aren't touching the water tile and you can manipulate how your shoreline looks by keeping the tiles next to the water within a few meters above the water (so put a tile 3 meters above the water level next to the water and then put something 20 meters above the water level next to that tile so it's not directly next to the water.  You can also put dykes and levees like in Holland and even have the water level higher than the surrounding terrain so long as your levee tiles are consistent.

Just for clarification - the elevation that water will go to will be equal to the lowest elevation tile that touches a water tile (ie adjacent to one so you don't even need to set elevations in the water tiles themselves), not the lowest elevation on the map in general.  This allows you to massage your map to some extent because you can alter your elevations without consequence so long as they aren't touching the water tile and you can manipulate how your shoreline looks by keeping the tiles next to the water within a few meters above the water (so put a tile 3 meters above the water level next to the water and then put something 20 meters above the water level next to that tile so it's not directly next to the water.  You can also put dykes and levees like in Holland and even have the water level higher than the surrounding terrain so long as your levee tiles are consistent.