Erwin

Thank you.  Looks much better.

Thank you for all the work you are doing laurent22 - becoming the Aris of snowy vehicles...

A "Wait in Ambush, Shoot, then Displace to Another Location" order would be very helpful for snipers, and any unit waiting to ambush something.
A complete revamp of the "Acquire" process so that any unit could exchange weapons and ammo with any adjacent unit - up to a reasonable amount of course and with a time delay - like when one sets up a crew weapon.  (ie: Do away with the clickfest "Split into Teams, Mount Vehicle, Acquire, Dismount and Rejoin Original Squad" process.)
A "Scout Order" - one can simply click on a target location and the scout team uses an AI routine to carefully scout towards it while maintaining self-preservation.  (Currently, scouting is a virtual suicide mission - at least in WEGO.)
 

Thank you for keeping up with this.  Looking forward to it.

All of George's designs seem xnt.  Looking forward to it as well.

Thank you for all the work you are doing laurent22 - becoming the Aris of snowy vehicles...

****** POSSIBLE SPOILERS *******
 
My experience was that I initially wanted to move the M60's into better ambush positions from their set-up positions (nearly all US units are stuck in place for set-up) .  This was my first CW game and most of my experience with modern titles has been with CMSF and CMBS.  I thought that the M60's would do a better job spotting Soviet vehicles at long range. 
The result was that any M60 that was poking its head around a building to get LOS to the Soviet-occupied hills got killed by ATGM's.  IIRC about 3 or 4 M60's were quickly KIA in this way.  I do not know if these ATGM's were from BMP's or inf units.  I assumed inf units as no Soviet BMP was spotted.  However, the US vehicles seemed very bad at spotting as later on when Soviet vehicles closed in it was common for a US vehicle to have problems spotting an enemy unit 50-100 meters directly in front of it(!).  My conclusion was that the US vehicles need to stay hidden behind buildings and trees in order to stay alive.  
Noe that my situation was made worse as I failed to move any US ATGM units into the hills on the US side of the map as I didn't notice the restricted Soviet set-up zone.  I simply didn't notice the double line of barbed wire that delineates the Soviet "zone".  (It would be helpful for the design notes to point out this Soviet restriction as it may be essential for the US to occupy these hills with ATGM's.) 
Re the Soviet artillery.  While It is rare to kill an enemy tank with arty, the arty most certainly can immobilize vehicles, and this happened to at least a couple of the US vehicles.  I thought that the inf in the APC's would be safer in a church, but after concentrated Soviet arty, the church collapsed killing an entire squad while immobilizing the APC.  However, the inf would have survived in the APC - at least until the Soviet BMP's and inf arrived and killed it.  
One US AA vehicle was well-placed and killed several BMP's before succumbing.  However, what shocked me was the poor spotting ability of the US M60's.  I tried the NTC training scenarios and also found that the M48's and M60's seem to be very poor at spotting even when pointing directly at an enemy.  
We abandoned the game as the Soviet tanks approached the final objective as it seemed impossible for the US to mount a credible defense.  Every time a US vehicle exposed itself to shoot at a target it either couldn't see it and/or was soon killed.  I have been looking forward to playing this as the Soviet vs the US (as soon as I forget enough) as this scenario seemed designed for that.  Am amazed that you had a completely different experience.
I only just recently upgraded to v1.06 (altho' I only see v1.02 in the DATA folder - is that correct???).  Am wondering if the US spotting has improved in the latest version.
 
 

Can't see much at night.    Better in daylight.

So you are suggesting pulling the US more directly involved in this war so we can basically ping away at strategic targets within Russia “just a little bit more”?  The risk to opportunity costs are pretty upside down on this.  As I said before Ukraine has every right to strike legitimate military targets within Russia and obviously has a level of domestic ISR to do so. However, this is harassment fires that create uncertainty and doubt, which is not small, but Ukraine is already capable of this on its own.
Supplying longer range HIMARs without ISR support will limit their employment to what Ukraine can already prosecute or risks Ukraine leaning in and taking risks we are not comfortable with.  I have no doubt if the US supplies ATACMS today there will be people on this board screaming for “more ISR support so Ukraine can widen its target set” in another month or so.
A strategic offensive is not something one “nibbles away at” in ones or twosies - you claim to want a quick end to this war (strategic end) and that Ukraine needs long range precision fires to target in-Russia targets (Means) but they are going to do it incrementally (Ways)? - this is a flawed strategy with all the risks of escalation and none of the payoff?  You have under prescribed the risks to fit your narrative but it does not fix a fundamentally flawed strategy.
Your limited Russian airfield is a classic example of amateur military planning - ok, we execute a “limited campaign” against a single Russian airfield with strategic bombers, “1-4” was the number you quoted.  Let’s unpack this one:
We give Ukraine a few dozen ATACMS and they go ahead and do this campaign on their own - no western ISR.  Ukraine now has to validate the target and do BDA all on its own.  We have definitely escalated things by providing the weapons but can keep our hands clean from direct targeting.
Ukraine goes ahead and hits the target - you will all feel better I am sure.  They hit some infrastructure, damage the airfield and take out 4 Russian strategic bombers - huzzah!
Well this will definitely create some uncertainty for Russia which is not small, they will react and likely pull assets back lengthening flight times.  This will definitely be an escalation as it is now targeting their ability to defend themselves from NATO but it might make life harder for pounding Ukrainian cities.
Ok, now what?  Russia has over 500 TU-95s:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 . So the actual damage to the fleet is minimal.  Airfields also take a lot to knock out so the actual damage to that airfield is going to be temporary.  Finally, we have done nothing to actually affect the Russian strategic bomber system.  It’s production, maintenance, fuelling, arming and C4ISR.  We have damaged an airfield and knocked a few platforms.  The Russians will pull back, take a little longer and burn a little more fuel (which we also did nothing about) and still hammer Ukrainian cities with abandon.
What we did do is escalate this war.  Likely reinforced Putin’s narrative that this is an existential war for Russia against NATO pretty significantly, and Russia will likely continue to escalate strikes against Ukrainian cities.
So in a month or so, you and others will be demanding a broader campaign to hit “all Russia’s airfields in ATACMS range!!”  There will be all sorts of upside down risk calculations because - once again - no one has offers any educated assessment of where the Russian escalation threshold actually is.  A larger counter AirPower campaign will require western ISR support and pull the US further into direct involvement in this war while steadily marching towards a plausible Russian escalation threshold we cannot fully define.
More bluntly put - we are breaking our opponents hands and arms right now.  It is slow and painful but working.  If you want a fast end to the war you are going to have to hit the body and head, hard and fast - no sidestepping or weasel-ing out of that reality.  Russia has nuclear strategic deterrence and a doctrine behind it:https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf. That is a pretty grey and broad doctrine btw.  So if we start striking it’s head and body we are on a slippery slope to someone pulling out a gun in this bar fight. 
The end to this war is not about making you feel better.  It is about negotiating with a reality nobody wants but can live with. Russia is already on the ropes within Ukraine, the operational campaigns have been brilliant and are working.  If we are going to do anything more double down on that because any “quick and easy” magic new platform/weapon solutions aren’t quick or easy.
 

If this about creating more realistic-looking terrain then it would be a great improvement.

Thank you.  Lovely.

I am traveling abroad right now and don't have access to all the CM files.  Should be back this weekend.  So, if you haven't found it by then I'll check my mod files.  However, everything was sent to Bootie, so he may have what you are looking for.

Thank you RockinHarry

Congrats to you, Lille Fiskerby, and to Phantom Captain.  Looking forward to getting back to my game machine!  Great campaign and great AAR.

+1  Bootie probably does the most for the BF volunteer community than anyone.

Thank you Koh and Bootie...

Lovely - thanks to all...

+1... Yes, thank you, Phil.

Congrats.  Very atmospheric.  Some of the rifle butts look quite bright orange to me.  Need to be toned/darkened down.

You don't say which CM title(s) you already own.  If you enjoy playing the Germans, CMFB offers far more opportunities for winter German attacks than CMBN.  There are some xnt user-made campaigns and scenarios for FB as well.  Also, you get late war equipment.  Many of us consider FB one of the best titles.  You should check out the CMFB forums.
 

Good for you, Chuck.  Hope we all last as long! 
 
 

Useful.  Thanks George.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRkgGy12X3s
 

That experience and your good eye really shows.

You have a good visual eye for composition and editing.