Pete Wenman

Social customs differ among people, cultures and probably planets. Also, not all scenario's are created equal 😉 , but that doesn't mean that one can't have fun with 'lesser' ones.
I think that @Zveroboy1 says, although less direct, that the way some people (including you here) talk about 'lesser' scenario's might make people, who created something for fun, feel less enthusiastic about sharing their stuff. And that that's not helping more people into becoming interested in scenario design and sharing among the community.
Criticism can be worded in many different ways.

I am neither a millennial nor gen Z, no one is expecting a cookie or a pat on the back. I just wish there was more scenarios available to play and trying to encourage new people to contribute and post their work. That is all. 
And knowing how long it takes to design a scenario and how victory conditions is the last step in the process, I personally tend to not look a gift horse in the mouth too much.  Because before you can do VP calculations, you first have to do some research on the battle you want to portray, work on the map and this part alone can take several months, then worry about units placement, then AI plans. And by this stage you have already playtested the battle 3-4 times easily to make sure the AI does more or less what you want and that the balance is right for each plan. Now on top of it you have to conduct more tests for VPs. This is usually the point where it stops being fun and can easily become a chore.
Then there is the elephant in the room. Except in a handful of lucky cases, there is almost zero feedback when a scenario is published.
So yeah personally I am not going to be too picky if everything else is good and polished and the last stage is slightly less so.
Frankly I find the role reversal here a bit disturbing. Someone goes out their way to flesh out something they have been working on in their spare time for free and that took weeks if not months to finish, posts it for the community to enjoy and you are worried that they might waste -your- time? Sorry but this is taking the piss.
Again this attitude is imo one of the reasons why we have only a trickle of new scenarios published.
It is my conviction that the community has become too demanding and it has a stifling effect. In other words if we have less community made scenarios it is not only because creating scenarios is harder or because lots of designers got co-opted by Battlefront. It is also because lots of people who before did release their work don't do it any more. Right now I bet there are probably hundreds of scenarios or pet projects sitting on people's hard drives in various states of completion. Almost none of them would make the cut or see the light of the day because they don't meet the ever increasing quality standards.
People can not improve and get better at their craft if the expectations are so high that they never get started in the first place though.
Now I realise the OP was talking about an official battlefront scenario so this is probably off topic and doesn't even apply to the situation at hand and I apologize for the long rant. Besides I have already tried to get my point across as best as I could so instead of just repeating myself I'll take a rain check.
 

You mean these badgers ...
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf
So to answer your question ... yes 😉

These are helpful and very good guidelines no doubt. But personally I can't help but think that expecting this level of work and testing in particular for amateur scenario designers is both unrealistic and in the end also counter-productive. For me it is one of the reasons why we have so few community made scenarios being released these days. The expectations and standards have become way too high.
And what this does is just create more hurdles for aspiring scenario designers. I mean put yourself in the shoes of say someone who just bought the game on Steam and wanted to give scenario design a try for fun. Chances are they are going to read this and just become disheartened and most likely give up, never publishing their work because they deem it is not good enough, leaving us with just a handful of scenario designers co-opted by Battlefront and barely anything else on the side.
I actually strongly push for the opposite approach myself. Simpler scenarios with less work involved. We want to foster more community based content and not require someone to spend 6 months or more working on a scenario. Maybe this is appropriate for an official Battlefront scenario but it should never be what's expected of an amateur scenario in my opinion.
I remember fondly the days of CM1 and also SF1 to some extent, and this is not just nostalgia talking here, where you had hundreds of scenarios being published over the years by the average joe. Maybe someone who never published anything else but had a cool idea, worked on it a little bit in their spare time and shared the result with the community. A lot more people seemed to take a crack at it back then. They just fiddled with the editor and posted the results for other people to play and enjoy.
Were all these scenarios good? No of course not. Most of them were really lacking in one area or the other, some were disappointing or just sloppy. But in the end we had way more content available to play.
 
 
 
 
 

Getting the victory conditions right from a scenario design perspective is actually not that easy.
Not only is it difficult to get the full spectrum of victory conditions available to the player but you have to take into account the fact that the skill level can vary a lot from player to player. Someone might struggle with the battle while another player will find it a breeze. Moreover it can be very time consuming and tedious to replay the battle several times. Okay sure there are ways that you can use to compute the victory points without necessarily replaying the battle but it is clearly not the most thrilling part of scenario design.
At the end of the day though you said the battle was enjoyable, you had a good time and all so maybe this is going to be an unpopular opinion but is it that important what the final screen at the end says? For a human vs human game or a campaign yeah sure it matters a lot more but for a single scenario vs the AI, personally I can tell on my own without even looking at the screen how well or how poorly I did.

Personally I think this is the way it is supposed to be.  A 10 minutes firefight between troops in good cover isn't shocking at all if their motivation is good. It is what we sometimes had before with soldiers just fleeing and getting mowed down in the open that was wrong. Now you need to actually maneuver to root them out or be prepared to have a prolonged firefight. I find it both more enjoyable and realistic. And it is not necessary to actually assault the position. A crossfire will usually do.

There are a number of aspects to this which I probably won't cover off entirely but here goes ...
In the early CMx2 days, a lot of people complained vociferously and frequently usually in threads called 'Extra Time for Scenarios' about early AI surrenders along similar lines to your original post i.e., 'I'd tee'd up the perfect plan to nail the enemy only to have the scenario end' - or as you put it ...
"Well I was all lined up for the final strike on the German Tigers. Been getting everyone in position for over 10 minutes."
It took people a while to work out that if you added a few extra units that the player never saw, you could create a scenario that would allow the player to execute their 'perfect' plan.  That is one of the reasons that the trick is widely used by scenario designers.
From a design point of view, I admit it probably isn't perfect and maybe the game should take into account other factors such as objectives held or the morale state of the opposition, although of course with the latter - that only becomes apparent at end game and still leads to the frustration at not being able to execute the 'perfect' plan.  Having a morale dimension would also completely kill certain scenarios at birth - my Ap Bac Scenario for the Heaven and Earth module absolutely would not work if morale played strongly into the equation as about 70% of the total ARVN force have shocking motivational and leadership factors.
Conversely to early surrenders, players don't like schlepping across the map for half an hour having knocked over the enemy and secured all of the objectives at the end of a mission to root out a single unit in a tactically insignificant location, and slot it, in order to achieve a victory.
FWIW, my scenario design philosophy has always been about the narrative and I am mindful of the fact that anybody who elects to download and play a scenario is making a choice.  This means you have to accept that it is transactional between player and designer and ultimately you have to try as best as you can to satisfy player needs.
That means your narrative and design concept has to either hit, or balance some quite often divergent factors and of course no scenario is ever going to tick everyone's boxes, but the closer you get to achieving that aim the better.  As a simple example of this - if I call a scenario 'the Battle of Waterloo' then it ought to include things like La Haye Sainte, an allied defending force, a French attacking force and some Germans rolling up late on in the game because that is what the player is expecting.  I would also do my best within the editor to make sure that the map and forces resemble the real thing as well as ensuring that the moving parts in the AI plan bear some resemblance to real events.  If I fail to do this adequately, the transaction between designer and player fails because the player is expecting to refight Waterloo.  Similarly, if I call a mission (or have as its premise) 'Platoon attack' I would design that mission so that the player gets to execute a platoon attack and can actually culminate that attack.  This means that the enemy doesn't surrender when it loses a handful of soldiers.
Since I learned the 'reinforcements that never arrive' trick I have found that it gives me more control over achieving my scenario narratives.  It certainly isn't the only trick by the way but it is one that I consistently use with what I would like to think are fairly successful results.
The transactional piece for me looks vaguely like this:
Players want to win. Players want to feel challenged. Players want to feel that they are a commander in a realistic environment. CM players expect scenarios modelled on real engagements to bear some resemblance to them. To achieve that, you give them the tools in terms of time, forces available to them (e.g., sappers if there are minefields), clear mission command-style orders, a strong narrative, a realistic setting and you set the objectives/VPs accordingly.
It is usually the latter that is the most nuanced mainly because objectives and VPs are how victory is judged and what the victory-focused player will therefore judge the outcome.  It is also nuanced in terms of surrender points - I'm happy that the AI will trigger a surrender at the point where the player has closed in on the last objective but will make absolutely sure that it doesn't happen before that because the player rightfully feels cheated.  The same is true of unit objectives of any description - you can't give a player the goal of 'destroying all the Tigers' and then have the AI surrender before the player has even seen them.
Your comment about reaching the point where you'd expect them to surrender is absolutely valid but is subjective - some will call a scenario/surrender unrealistic if it doesn't happen at the point at which the force suffers 30% casualties - CM has it modelled at around 60% - yet this didn't seem right to you based on the fact that some gucci armour was on the map in the engagement you were fighting.  There is a lot of truth in what @sburkesaid - you only know you were 'cheated' after the scenario ended and to a large extent are judging based on that godlike information given to you at ceasefire.  I recall testing one of @George MC's scenarios recently and had got to a point in the scenario where I thought - "I'm not getting anywhere here, I'll hit surrender and see if I can edge a win," - an excellent example of how friction and the essence of manouevre warfare works - shattering the enemy's will (or in this instance mine) had come into play.  As it happens, I thought - "I'm testing this scenario so I should play it through in order to give the best feedback" and about three turns later I got the sense that the enemy had culminated and that I could actually continue with a reasonable chance of achieving the set objectives.  About five turns later, the enemy surrendered.  In short - a brilliant example of scenario design which ticked most of the transactional boxes for me.
To conclude - balancing these factors and explaining it in the narrative to manage the player's expectations and then testing the scenario to make sure that the thing works is key to the whole scenario design piece.  Adding a few extra dudes that the player doesn't see to stave off the early surrender is a proven and effective tool that people use to best deliver a 'really good scenario which I recommend' comment versus 'the AI surrendered early' comment.  Not perfect of course and it would be better if the designer could control the ratios and maybe use a combination of tools.

Now that is cool - kudos to the NAM for being on point, and now I'm feeling thirsty
P

For those not familiar with the 'yellow handbag' cultural reference ...
https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=2018-04-3-1
 
Made up that this is from the National Army Museum, although in my day 4 Armoured Division was Herford-based.

The breakfast of champions ...

Try this
P
MG Borderland_vp.btt

Try this
P
MG Borderland_vp.btt

Thanks for the replies and links.  One of the provided links was for the Soviet Order of Glory.  I also found the Order of Glory on some of the uniforms (see below).  In the below screenshot, on the soldiers right breast is the Soviet Guards Badge.  On his left is the Soviet Order of Glory along with a third award. 
 
 
 

 
I was curious about the uniforms / awards for a possible scenario idea I've been experimenting with.   I would like to make a CMRT scenario on a huge map where recon plays a significant role.  The player would use his recon assets to identify what Avenues of Advance were defended by Soviet Guards units and which were defended by Soviet Army units.  The Guards have better equipment and soft factors than regular Army units.  So the player could recon and identify the location of the weaker Soviet units (the location changes with the AI plan).  The player's small German Kampfgruppen would have better odds following the path of least resistance as identified by his forward recon units.  Or if he is looking for more of a challenge the player could decide to attack through the Soviet Guards units. 
To make this work I needed a way for the player to be able to ID a difference between a Guards uniform and a regular army uniform.  Then I came across the below mod which creates a noticeable difference in the uniforms.  For the purposes of the briefing I wasn't sure what to call the award on the right breast (wasn't even sure what it was).  I think I've got it now.  Thanks.           
http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=617
 
Radio operator, advise the kampfgruppen the village, up ahead, is occupied by a Guards unit. 

 
 

Seems more of a well-orchestrated demonstration than a serious tactical exercise.

There was discussion in the general forum about scenario replayability, including this perspicacious comment from MikeyD...
...I find myself doing something similar with QBs - playing the same, similar or related forces again and again, against similar but varied enemies, on different maps, in different weather conditions and so on. I particularly love the British and Commonwealth forces - CMFI has a marvellous range of these, covering a good chunk of the war.
These days, I've found myself playing with variations on the MG Company/MG Battalion/Support Group used in conjunction with Infantry or Motorised Infantry. There are many subtle variations of the Support Group/Support Company, as well as variations of the Motorised Company - and I am getting much better at using the combination of massed Vickers MG (with extra ammo of course), heavy and medium mortars and good old British/Commonwealth infantry.
An MG Platoon (or two) can put out an amazing amount of suppressing fire if concentrated on a single target (they don't get many kills, but they can paralyse most soft targets at up to 1000m). Heavy mortars are inaccurate, but fire comes in quickly. Combined with the ubiquitous infantry smoke mortar, there are all kinds of fun tactical plans to experiment with - plus there are on map mortars, carriers and so on to utilise. I must be up to about my 20th consecutive QB with some combination of these forces from one of the Commonwealth nationalities and I feel like I am still just beginning to come to grips with the use of these two units in combination.
Thanks yet again BF
 
 
 

Now that it has been raised, I will keep an eye out to see if anything is out of the ordinary. There are lots of little things in the game that could be tweaked, but like everything else in life, there is never enough time.
Everyone here cares about the game and wants to make it as realistic as possible.

Correct.
The last patch for CMSF was near a decade ago. You mentioned being bewildered that CMSF was always undergoing some change which the release of CMSF2 only further compounded.
I was simply curious as to:
1) where you were getting your patches for CMSF as the only the last one I applied for it was 10 years ago; and
2) what feature (or mechanic) in CMSF2 is causing your distress? The core play mechanics to me seem to be identical to every other CM2 tittle (WWII and Modern).
I'm wondering if I'm to only one who simply refers to weapon/organization chapters in a given manual as the UI/core hasn't changed much since CMBN was released.
I'm only trying to help by first understanding what is causing you to have to continuously relearn the game.
 

This topic is why I'm often on the board talking down the notion of maxed out map sizes and maxed out scenario times. The AI functions admirably (1) if the scenario designer is sufficiently adept to make it perform logically, and (2) if the the scenario is within the game's 'sweet spot'. Event the best scenario designer is at sea if he can't anticipate where the opponent is likely to be on a  4km map after 3 hrs 30 minutes of gameplay. You may have noticed the occasional huge scenario show up with the tag 'Play (X) side only'. That means the designer's given up on formulating offensive AI plans. It may be difficult to max out map and force size in the game but its pretty easy to max out the scenario designer's ability to orchestrate events.

Given the current state of AI in games, if you are seeking to replicate how a human may play using the AI and specifically the AI in CM then you are on a road to frustration.
There has been some useful, practical and workable advice regarding how to get the 'best' out of the AI given the current limitations of the AI.
So there are options.
1/ If you think the AI is rubbish and lacks then play against humans (just don't play against me because my playing in CM makes the AI looking positively ninja General like in comparison...). 
2/ Work with the AI tools we have and seek to make the best we can - @MOS:96B2Phas some excellent suggestions how this might work.
3/ Pound sand and bewail how crap the AI is.
Choices, choices, choices...

That's true.  One of the big issues with first-person sans bots is achieving proper troop density.  With PS, you're looking at basically one platoon of infantry facing off against one enemy platoon, with a few vehicles in support on each side. Coming from CM, that's a tiny force, with the AFVs not even able to achieve a true platoon formation, due to spawn limits.
IMO, the biggest realism killers for tactical FPS play revolve around morale and speed of play. In order to make first-person fun, you have to keep folks in the action. However, the available tools of things like suppression effects and ticket limits cannot properly model the degradation of morale. What this does is effectively nerf otherwise very-accurately modeled equipment like MGs. For example, in CM, if a player stumbles on an MG hardpoint and a couple of his squads get mauled, the remaining squad members will have suffered a loss of morale, the global morale of his force could be effected, and he has permanently lost assets -- just like in real life. However, in a tactical FPS like PS/HLL, as long as tickets aren't very low, the attacking players can quickly respawn and try again with no effective loss in morale. Therefore, defenses/equipment that would stop the enemy cold in real life or CM are routinely quickly overrun.
The required speed of play to make FPS fun also adds a major handicap to using real world team tactics. In CM, we split our squads, have a base of fire and maneuver teams and the pixeltruppen sort out all the required team chatter and internal commands amongst themselves. In a tactical FPS, things are generally moving too fast, the comms workload is too much, or there is a lack of willingness to comply with orders, making a real-world level of coordination impossible. I've read game clan threads where PS veterans were throwing cold water on gungho newbies' expectations for trying to use detailed real world tactics. "We've tried. They don't work. Keep it very general."
Ultimately, tactical FPS play is more flavor than substance. Sure, there are moments of magic and the VR buzz can be awesome. But, I think by nature they can't come close to the level of realism that a well-made third person experience like CM can. That's why CM is my steak and potatoes, while PS/RO/DH are occasional milkshakes. 🙂
 

Trust me, those discussions will happen or we'll get 'Why did my veteran crewed tank on a slow movement order shed a track on dry open ground' type observation.  This will generally be from someone who has never crewed an AFV and has no idea how often it can occur in seemingly benign conditions.

Personally I never put much stock in STEAM reviews since they always seem to be all over the map for any game. So far CMSF2 has mostly positive reviews which is really the best you could ask for.

UK seems like a terrible place to me.  It's like The Purge with all the murders!  Even the little college town of Oxford has huge murder rate.  I know this because I've been watching a documentary series on it called "Endeavor".  Oh, not to mention all the killings in Hastings area in another totally true not made up series called "Foyle's War".  Sounds dreadfully dangerous.

Thing with Combat Mission I've learned is it punishes impatience and rewards thoughtful planning. My very first game I played I thought I could just wing it and successfully rush into a city and take over...that was a bad mistake. Lost most of my armor and my team was wiped out. You have to be careful with how you approach a situation.
Also, if battles were so easy to conquer, why does it take on average 250,000 bullets for every enemy killed IRL: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-314944.html
It's not easy. War is freaking hard. And Combat Mission does a good job exhibiting that difficulty.

There is a saying about the British Army: they tend to lose evey battle, except the last one.
 
Of course, it's only the last one that really matters.