umlaut

Hi
Just tested it myself. As far as I can tell, it works like this:

"Dismount" only works for vehicles carrying spare ammunition - like trucks for instance. When you select a truck to be dismounted in the editor, it automatically becomes an ammo dump.
For other vehicles or if you want a truck to be "normally dismounted", then you just leave it at the default "OK" status and deploy you troops. Once it has been deployed on the map you then give it the "dismount" order (for some vehicles it is "bail out" instead of "dismount" for some reason - I dont know why BFC has made that distinction there).

Hope this helps?
Edit:
If you by "abandoned" mean that you would like the crew to be able to reman the vehicle, then do as above. If you just want the vehicle to be there for decorative reasons, you can always use "destroyed" or "immobilized".
Second edit:
Your post prompted me to try an old idea once again, namely: Can you make a scenario where you need to get a tank crew back to their abandoned tank? Alas, that seems impossible, because even though you can get the crew to dismount the vehicle in the editor, it seems that it always automatically remounts the tank, once you start the scenario in the "Battle" menu. A real pity ☹️
 

Oh, no - it´s the master race!


Seriously: wonderful work - as always, Falaise.

Looking at the magnificent master map: "Les Hauts Vents & Pont Hébert" from Kandu which used "Road at 22.5 °" for its realization, I saw that the mod could be improved.

So here is version 2


I invite you to go and see the results on this map where the new mod is up to the breathtaking work it has done.


use

Dragged the file into your z file

It will appear in maps made with 22.5 ° roads

For the design of a map, the keys 1 2 3 5 8 10 13 and 15 are now available and will allow you to make the roads at 22.5 ° but also a wide variety of turns.

For maps containing a highway, it can cause problems (to be checked according to the map) in this case it must be removed from the z file

it's very nice friends but I only explore the limits of the game ...
Not far from Le Mans....

a race is in progress (to close the Falaise gap ?) 

the Germans are in the lead, of little...

No worries, TBH while it was a typically glib statement, I suspect there is some real truth in it.....I grew up during the original cold war and TBH my fondest memory is of it ending: 
The sheer joy of those days & weeks!  TBH we squandered a golden opportunity, by & large as the result of pure greed on the part of those who should have known better. 
But all that's a very long way from the Fulda Gap. 

In a thread already derailed in a discussion of what clothing they may or may not be wearing.. things can be open to.... interpretation.  I blame the Capt.

And thats why I dont let folk load up their own mods... the map file was uploaded and not attached.
Here you go.  Will fix the site download later. 
 
@Falaise
Hauts-Vents-Pont-Hebert-Master.zip

While reading you can listen to this one - to get in the proper mood 🙂
 
 

So welcome to our Beta AAR.  Introductions, I am The_Capt...hello.  Some old timers may remember me from back in the day but for the newbies (and hopefully there are a lot of you) I am the Simon to Bil's Garfunkel.  While Bil is detailed, deliberate and cool all resting on a foundation of real talent; I am erratic, insecure and hot-headed resting on very occasional unpredictable sparks.  Between the two of us we try to make wonderful music.
So first the obvious, what is CM Cold War and where did it come from?  Well the game is our brainchild, not that it took a serious leap of imagination as people had been talking about a Cold War game for years.  Bil and I had been looking for a title to cut our designer-teeth on for years as well, and after a few false starts we approached BFC with the idea about 7-8 years ago, to which Steve sagely looked at two complete amateurs and said "uh, sure...why don't you guys go pull some stuff together and we will do lunch".  So we did up all the boring and work-like stuff most of you never see; project documents, historical research, backstories, TO&Es (pouring over things like Senate Arms Committee records and back issues of the US Army magazines), and campaign designs.  Once we did all this we came back to Steve like proud children that had just performed surgery on the family cat.  Steve's eyes went a little wider and very Bruce Willis-like said, "ok let's give these kids a shot".  I am pretty sure we were to remain a weird side project in the basement - that is where the older Beta Testers go in the end - but last year things accelerated and we found ourselves suddenly thrust into the rock and roll lifestyle of computer wargame designers...without the groupies, cocaine or leather pants.
So with a very small team, a tight timeline and another look from Steve that was somewhere between "ya, there is no way these guys are going to make it" and "but if they do...?" (seriously, support from the BFC guys has been outstanding) we started the journey.  So when you play the game on release (it is no secret we are on track for Apr, after Easter) you know who to curse when something either does not look quite right or you are getting beat up on a campaign (the Soviet one is particularly brutal).  If you love the game, praise the entire team, if you are angry that the Soviet officer holster does not look right, feel free to vent at either Bil or I, mostly Bil.
Onto the AAR.  Ok in the proudest tradition of this thing, Bil will wow you all with dazzling intelligence products that would make an ASIC weep.  I, on the other hand, prefer a  more tactile and coffee-stained approach...I also tend to lose these fights.  This map comes from the US campaign, a scenario called Dollbach Heights, but do not worry the scenario is completely different so no spoilers.  This whole thing is occurring in the backdrop of a Cold War-gone-hot strategic situation set in summer of 1982, which may seem quaint today but back in '83 we actually came pretty close.  The Soviets are basically making a break for the Rhine as fast as possible before reserves can be called up and fly-overs conducted.  The US forces are the tripwire forces of V Corp with units like the 11 ACR and 3rd Armd Div (for this AAR we do not assign particular units) as the game centers on the Fulda corridor (between the West German border and Frankfurt).  So the strategic game is simple, Soviets have to move fast as possible to get in close to the major urban areas, knock France out and put the UK into close range.  The bet back in Moscow is that at this point NATO will fracture as half of them sue for peace...we will see how that works out.
A couple points on force balance and doctrine.  So this is 1980, the beginning of a vapid and synthesizer-infested decade (trust me I was there). The US forces are still recovering from the entire Vietnam experience.  Goldwater-Nicols has not happened so we are still talking about conventional service competition in the US military, which was unhealthy (still is) and a US Army that was slowly coming out of the old ROADs models and heading towards AirLand Battle.  The TO&Es are based on the '77 force structures (you will note US tank platoons have 5 tanks).  The "so what?" is that US forces are pretty much at their most vulnerable point in this era.  They lack mass and are moving to active defense and maneuver warfare but the equipment has not caught up.  It is going to feel weird to some but this is a modern (well semi-modern) title where US forces do not dominate the battlefield.  They have to be played carefully to achieve parity.  For example the T62 can kill an M60A3 in the front from about 1500m, so the US player must be elegant and clever...like the gentle fox.
The Soviets on the other hand are the bear that eats said gentle fox and then poops him out, barely breaking stride.  The Soviets at this point are pretty much near the top of their game.  Their equipment is solid, if a little blind, and they have mountains of it. Soviet operational doctrine is actually very good, it uses mass much like it did in WW2, and frankly Genghis would be proud at how well the Soviet can throw MRRs at a problem and simply keep going.  The T64 is a beast, probably the best Soviet tank in the game (particularly the B versions), the T80 can throw a punch too.  The Soviet use of ATGM is frankly terrifying.  First, they literally put those things on just about everything, and the AT 5 feels like the modern day Javelin in that, if it can hit, it will kill.  In testing one scenario of the US Campaign, I played sloppy and watched an BMP MRB shred all the US armor in about 5 mins...so there is that.   
At a tactical level the Soviet are all about lining up the punch.  They were not mindless hordes, they would prepare and shape with recon but when they decided to throw that punch...oh, my.  First they would drop the sky on top of you using massed artillery.  Then they would advance en masse  along multiple axis projecting dilemma everywhere for an opponent.  They would then trade shots until your armor is gone and finally they might dismount and clean up any poor infantry you have left.  I say 'might' because they would often simply bypass those huddle GIs and just keep going.
So for this AAR, I will try to emulate the soviet approach as much as possible.  Stay tuned and see how it turns out.       

While reading you can listen to this one - to get in the proper mood 🙂
 
 

Back around April 2019 I got first wind of the still-unnamed cold war title. I quickly threw together new rural Germany mountains horizons, hastily reskinned CMSF2 T62, then brought it into CMBS as a 'proof of concept' test. The response was 'Dang, this could actually work!' These are the very first screenshots from the very first test of what would eventually turn into CM Cold War.
 

Oh man.....I need more likes! 

Don't laugh, it really was triple covert secrecy! They even kept the title's existence secret from the Beta testers until everything was 85% complete. Then... SURPRISE!  

Yeah I too have had my suspicions since the last round of patches (the scripts text file was full of new additions including Pattons, M113's, T-80's & LAW's ).
Excellent news and it'll be a guaranteed purchase from me.

ICBM´s!!

ICBM´s!!

A towel is just about the most massively useful thing a tank hitchhiker can carry.

High praise indeed from our Defender of the Faith!😇
I'm trying to keep my suggestions in the realm of modifying functionality that already seems well established in the CM2 engine. Notice too, this is all *optional*: nobody is obliged to use it if they prefer the way it works today. Or even use spreadsheets 😵 (oof, talk about sounding like work!)
1. The Artillery/Air interface already exists. Add a tab with a command 'flag' on it, accessible by each platoon HQ. When clicked, all subunits in the platoon are lit. You can 'attach' or deselect certain subunits if you wish, via right click. (What the AI is doing in the background is creating an AI group)
2. Once the place (destination) is painted, you get some pages of buttons presenting much the same menu of choices you get when programming the AI Editor:
>> Assault / Advance / March
>> Aggressively / Cautiously. (Perhaps HQs and mortar/MG/spotter teams are always Cautious and do a 20 second delay so they aren't walking point)
>> At Destination: Hide/Set Ambush/Normal
>> Seek top floors/low floors/mix (default, but HQs, MGs and Spotters always go to top floors).
3.  Set timing parameters for moving out, similar to the arty tab and hit CONFIRM.
For new orders not given at game start, there could be an execution delay based on (a) platoon HQ in good order and 'in command' (b) radios - US best, Russia worst (c) unit experience, so e.g. Elite commandos respond instantly (I agree with @chuckdyke, let's not use leader ratings in this)
4. So in effect, in the background the computer is going to assign the selected units to an AI group and auto-assign them movement paths to the objective as though they were computer-controlled. They will follow these orders unless and until the owner alters them.
5. Less important, but still interesting would be to allow a scenario designer to preprogram AI orders to formations on both teams. This would allow, for example, scenarios where the player can just focus on commanding the tanks in support of an infantry operation, which proceeds on its own (although he's also free to intervene).
(Or even a 'war movie' where you just hit play and watch the troops slug it out, or just micro one sniper, etc. But that's just gravy....)

Yeah, fair one Umlaut. I did not stick to the spirit of the OP. That indeed is for CMx3.

Wait, let me just check my copy...  give me a few weeks 😁.

map is ready for uploading, currently just a map at present , no mission etc.

I don't seek out armor duels because they are a bit like tossing a coin, but they come up again and again. So I was interested to learn what I can do to maximize the chances for my tank in a duel if it gets into one.
So I put two identical Pz IVH (late) tanks with regular crews, no modifiers, against each other at 600 m range. I called one "Attacker" and the other "Defender", although it does not mean anything. I put both on a mild slope (partial hull down) and varied different conditions. Crew hatches open/closed, vehicle movement, terrain type, crew experience. I ran each case at least 1000 times and recorded the percentage of wins by each side. A 'win' means that the other vehicle was destroyed or the crew bailed out. If both vehicles were alive after 5 minutes, neither side won - usually one vehicle got hit and retreated back down the slope. If neither vehicle survived, both sides got a win.
The tables show the win rate on each side. The statistics were not perfect even with 1000 duels per case. Results of repeat runs could vary by up to +/- 3%. Notably I did not get a perfectly symmetric results even for reference cases R1 and R4 where the vehicles had identical conditions on both sides. So, don't take the numbers as the absolutely accurate truth. They just show what works.
Pz IVH was a good tank for this purpose because it can easily kill itself - powerful gun and vs weak armor. Therefore, the duels were mainly about who is able to spot first and land the first round accurately on target.
I did not find anything revolutionary - mostly stuff people already know and do - but it was still interesting to see the numbers. Here it is:
1. Keep your crew hatches open when expecting to fight an enemy AFV. If you can, force the enemy to close theirs.
Table 1. Effect of crew hatches open/closed. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
49%
49%
Closed
Open [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Open
Open
76%
21%
Closed
2. Minimize movement when within enemy LOS. Stop as soon as your vehicle can see the place where the enemy is (represented with the "Hull Down" command in the table below, which gives additional advantage of being harder to see and hit due to being hull down; this is not to say that the Hull Down command is always useable, but it worked here well because the Attacker was going up the slope). Movement makes you more visible - and it does not appear to matter what kind of movement command you use - in fact the faster movement commands seem to work a bit better.
Table 2. Effect of vehicle movement. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using different movement commands. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Hunt [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Stationary
Slow
35%
63%
Stationary
Move
39%
59%
Stationary
Quick
42%
56%
Stationary
Fast
41%
57%
Stationary
Hull Down
61%
29%
Stationary
Quick: Minimizes the time interval when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Therefore, Quick works well as it gets the attacker into position quickly, whereas Slow works poorly.
Hull Down: Better cover than the Defender and minimizes time when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Also: Easier to disengage when damaged – probably for both sides. High percentage of duels with no winner.
3. If you have to Hunt, point 1. about crew hatches still applies and can reverse the odds in your favor.
Table 3. Effect of crew hatches open/closed while the Attacker is moving. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using Hunt. The Defender is stationary. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
37%
60%
Closed
Open [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Open
Open
64%
34%
Closed
Closed
14%
82%
Open
4. Target arc can serve various purposes but does not help with seeing or hitting the enemy. TRP helps, likely by increasing the chances of a first hit.
Table 4. Effect of using Target Armor Arc and Target Reference Point (TRP). Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
No arc [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] No arc
Target Armor Arc
50%
49%
No arc
TRP on Defender
72%
28%
No TRP
Note: Target Arc can still help by pointing the gun and the Commander’s attention to the right direction if the vehicle is not moving directly towards the defender. Also, it prevents distraction of the Attacker by other, low-priority targets.
5. Ground type can provide some help by concealment. Tall types of grass (T and TY), Weeds, Brush, Lt Forest (without trees) and Crop 1 give a small advantage over hard or bare surfaces. Very tall types of crops (2-6) and Grass XT give significant advantage. There is no disadvantage in being on road or pavement compared to grass, but sand, mud and cobblestone seem to hurt a little, possibly because they lower the chances of disengaging when retreating in damaged condition.
Trees are complicated and depend on type. Type A trees are somewhat helpful if there are 2 or 3 on the tile. Type B trees are not helpful at all. Type C trees seem to be best, especially if there are 2 or 3. Type D trees are somewhat helpful independently on their number. Type E are like Type A. Bush does not make much of a change.
Stone and brick walls and low bocage give some advantage - can be concealment as well as cover. But bocage is the big one. A tank behind bocage almost always wins against a tank in open ground.
Table 5a. Effect of Defender ground type – bare surfaces, hard surfaces and roads. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass
45%
51%
Dirt
Grass
47%
50%
Dirt Red
Grass
49%
48%
Hard
Grass
50%
48%
Rocky
Grass
49%
49%
Rocky Red
Grass
52%
47%
Sand
Grass
52%
47%
Mud
Grass
50%
49%
Pavement 1
Grass
50%
50%
Pavement 2
Grass
52%
47%
Cobblestone
Grass
47%
51%
Gravel
Grass
46%
49%
Dirt Lot
Grass
49%
48%
Dirt Road
Grass
47%
50%
Gravel Road
Grass
51%
48%
Paved 1
Grass
48%
51%
Paved 2
Grass
47%
49%
Foot Path
Sand, Mud, Cobblestone (?): Can impair movement, possibly making retreat of a damaged vehicle slower and less likely to succeed before the Attacker fires another accurate shot.
Table 5b. Effect of Defender ground type – low vegetation and cultivated fields. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass
Grass
50%
47%
Grass Y
Grass
50%
48%
Clover
Grass
50%
48%
Flowers
Grass
49%
50%
Plow NS
Grass
50%
50%
Plow EW
Grass
43%
57%
Grass T
Grass
43%
55%
Grass TY
Grass
44%
54%
Weeds
Grass
44%
55%
Grass + Brush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
[R3] Lt Forest
Grass
42%
57%
Crop 1
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 2
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 3
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 4
Grass
40%
58%
Crop 5
Grass
39%
59%
Crop 6
Grass
38%
60%
Grass XT
Table 5c. Effect of Defender ground type – foliage. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass, no foliage
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
42%
54%
Grass + 3x Type A Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
46%
Grass + 2x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
47%
Grass + 3x Type B Tree
Grass
43%
52%
Grass + 1x Type C Tree
Grass
33%
62%
Grass + 2x Type C Tree
Grass
32%
62%
Grass + 3x Type C Tree
Grass
44%
52%
Grass + 1x Type D Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type D Tree
Grass
40%
55%
Grass + 3x Type D Tree
Grass
50%
47%
Grass + 1x Type E Tree
Grass
42%
55%
Grass + 2x Type E Tree
Grass
41%
55%
Grass + 3x Type E Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type A Bush
Grass
52%
47%
Grass + 2x Type A Bush
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 3x Type A Bush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
 [R3] Lt Forest, no foliage
Grass
44%
54%
Lt Forest + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
39%
57%
Lt Forest + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
37%
59%
Lt Forest + 3x Type A Tree
1x Tree: Can be detrimental because it does not provide enough concealment and can trigger APHE shells passing high, wounding the exposed Commander.
Table 5d. Effect of Defender ground type – walls and fences. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R4]
48%
51%
[R4] Grass
Grass
46%
54%
Grass + Stone
Grass
47%
52%
Grass + Brick
Grass
 
 
Grass + Rural Stone
Grass
43%
55%
Grass + Low Bocage
Grass
7%
89%
Grass + Bocage
6. Crew experience - there is a big change from Green to Regular to Veteran, but Crack gives little advantage over Veteran.
Table 6. Effect of crew Experience. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Green
33%
66%
Regular
Regular
36%
61%
Veteran
Veteran
44%
57%
Crack
Green
20%
78%
Veteran
Regular
32%
67%
Crack
Green
18%
82%
Crack

I think it's Sickboy.....Don't quote me, I'm not that big a fan TBH. 
The late Iain M Banks (PBOH) did a similar thing but much, much better, in 'Feersum Endjinn'.....Wrap your head around some phonetic dyslexia:
"Woak up.  Got dresd.  Had brekfast.  Spoke wif Ergates thi ant who sed itz juss been wurk wurk wurk 4 u lately master Bascule, Y dont u ½ a holiday? & I agreed & that woz how we decided we otter go 2 c Mr Zoliparia in thi I-ball ov thi gargoyle Rosbrith.
I fot Id bettir clear it wif thi relevint oforities furst & hens avoyd any truble (like happind thi lastime) so I went 2 c mentor Scalopin.
Certinly yung Bascule, he sez, i do beleave this is a day ov relativly lite dooties 4 u u may take it off. ½ u made yoor mattins calls?
O yes, I sed, which woznt stricktly tru, in fact which woz pretti strikly untru, trufe btold, but I cude always do them while we woz travelin.
Wots in that thare box yoor holdin? he asks.
Itz a ant, I sez, waven thi box @ his face.
O this is yoor litil frend, is it? i herd u had a pet.  May i see him?
Iss not a pet, iss a frend; u woz rite thi furst time, & iss not a im iss a she.  Luke.
O yes very pretti, he sez, which is a pretti strainge thing 2 say about a ant if u ask me but thare u go.
Duz it - duz she ½ a naim? he asks.
Yes, I sez, sheez calld Ergates."
https://www.pauladaunt.com/books/Classic Science Fiction/Ian Banks/banks_feersum/Iain M. Banks - Feersum Endjinn v1.html#one_4

Hahaha. Reminds me of that brilliant scene with the two roman deserters in the Britannia series. 😁