Sgt.Squarehead

What, face-planting? 
I'm guessing you mean the linear flavour objects thing, and you too have no idea how I filled my map with junk? 

I've modified my post with the pictures to make it clearer. 
Outta likes again, I owe you a couple, again. 

You will notice something that has confused me in the past. I deployed the red tanks in the middle - as you can see in your first screen shot - but each AI orders had a unique setup area. During setup the red forces appear in their deployed positions even though the plan choice is locked in. As soon as you press the BRB they jump to the stop zone.
So, remember when you are testing your new AI plan, with the unique setup that should always be chosen because you turned off the other plans, that they don't assume their start position until you press the BRB. Loading the scenario over and over and checking the plans in the editor is just wasting your time

+1  Interesting.  Thanks for sharing the information.  
Hmmmm, I think this trail of information leads away from the idea that @Sgt.Squarehead's cat walked across his computer keyboard.  I'm thinking he dozed off while working in the editor again and did a face plant on his keyboard   .......   To confirm observe the drool on the keys........   

Cheers George, you've saved me some experimentation there. 

You've matched me with that result, I've never won as the Ukrainians that I recall. 
Maybe there's a message for someone in there somewhere.....Picking fights with Russia is a **** idea. 
PS - Had similar issues with the BTRs.....IIRC in my last commentary on this battle I considered stripping out all the gear, dismounting the crews and using the vehicles as roadblocks (Unlike the old CM1 games, enemy units can't just bulldoze them aside, sadly IMHO.  ).

They are more likely to scamper off if the have a gap and leave behind the traps and destruction to abuse and fight again somewhere else.

Sounds like the cat walked across your keyboard.    

From what I've seen in my experiments in design, the AI plan is chosen when you click the Big Red Button, so a preliminary setup save is cool.....But once the Big Red has been clicked, your path is chosen. 

Was the ATGM inside a building at all? 
IIRC not all ATGMs can be fired from inside closed structures.
PS - You've gone and done it.....I'm going to have to play it again now! 
 

Sreenshot / video or it didn't happen  ...........  Might even be a good topic for a thread, Longest CM sniper kills. 

Port Cros harbour

Oops I for got to report back. The bug has been reported - it is in the queue

Also to add - mines (of any flavour) or barbed wire do not work/count as DESTROY or SPOT unit objectives. What I tend to do is have the area they are placed on marked as a TERRAIN OBJ 'not known' to the player or "known' if you defo want the player to go check if there are mines at that spot.

Yup, my first save for each new battle is always 'Battle Name - Setup'.....But you knew that already. 

THAT, made me laugh out loud. 
Something you can do, especially when you're first learning the game is "save".  Load everybody up with ammo (I also many times cross load teams in vehicles) and position troops and vehicles at their starting locations within the setup zones.  Basically do all the administrative stuff in your SOP during setup phase and then SAVE.  If you have to start over (which you may, since you are just learning this simulation) you go back to the setup save.  It would get tedious having to repeat all the administrative stuff over again.   

Horses for courses.....If something needs blowing to bits, call the Royal Artillery, if on the other hand, it needs a neat round hole straight through it, use a Challenger. 

You could say that - I tested the first scenario and smashed the sh1t out of the place and as they say in Ulster 'No Surrender'.

OK, not gonna lie, I want this...for CMBS, or CMSF2...OR GASP...BOTH...in order to have some really excellent Blue on Blue...like the ol' Twilight 2000 campaign someone made for CMSF1.  You could have a whole campaign on this map....
Great work....
There's a Wal-Mart building there somewhere right?  😎

Very well put.
Also good for Last Stand type fights. I've a Urban map in my head for Human v fanatical AI. Only possible with that ballast. 
@Sgt.SquareheadI haven't had the pleasure of your Mosul map but I assume you're using this approach to maximise the AIs "tenacity". 

I believe you talking about two different things, each of which is already present in the game. The entire enemy force will surrender when a certain set of conditions has been met. I am not sure exactly what the level is but lets go with 45%.  If we assume the enemy has 100 men, once 45 of them have been KIA or WIA, the battle is over, the enemy surrenders to your awesome playing skills. It doesn't matter if they are green or elite, low or fanatic motivation, once 45% are casualties, the battle is over. The morale ballast is used for the situations where you want those 100 men to fight to the last man, no matter what. A good example would be a delaying force, left in place to slow the enemy down in a suicide mission. Without the morale ballast, they would quit the fight after losing 45 of the 100 men. Yet in this situation, the remaining 60 enemy troops could still cause a significant threat to your men. So a morale ballast of 1000 men is added to arrive on the 4 hour mark, ensuring those 100 men will fight to the very last man.
The second part is the individual troops themselves. The can and do surrender if they are cut off from their parent unit, surrounded and facing overwhelming incoming fire. Here, experience and motivation play a significant role. Elite fanatics will fight to the last man, to the last bullet, to the last breath in their lungs. Poorly motivated conscripts on the other hand will surrender, throw down their weapons and raise their hands in the air, rather quickly if cut off and surrounded. Depending on the situation you wish to depict in your scenario, choosing the appropriate troop quality will play a very important part of the battle.
What you are suggesting here is possible to setup using terrain triggers. Set the AI plans to have the enemy troops keep pulling back every time your men reach a certain area of the map. Once the last terrain trigger has been tripped and you wish the enemy force to withdraw, set an AI movement point for the exit zone.  As more and more of your men leave the map, there will be a greater chance of individual units being cut off and surrendering. From a points perspective, the enemy force could be given a friendly casualties threshold. As the men retreat and exit the map, they will stay alive and earn points. If the player has points attached to how many casualties they cause, each man who exits will deny the player points. Again, the only way to prevent the mass surrender is to have the morale ballast, which will in turn allow for more opportunities for individuals to surrender.
If you would like to see the following in action, shoot me a PM and I will set up a battle to show you how it works. 

Good evening,
I had a thread about a QB map that has since evolved into a scenario.  So I decided to make a new thread.  Scenario time is 45 minutes, blue vs AI only.  Link below.  This has been a good learning experience so far and if anyone would like to playtest and give any feedback on my AI plans, force size/structure, or the map itself, I would really appreciate it.
http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tpg2/cm-black-sea/battle-of-concord/
Thanks,
Chris

You need to have an idea of where you're going with it all for starters. Something like:
F*ck it, this is just a bit of blowing stuff up fun campaign. Contemporary/historical/semi-historical. Plausible scenario. From what you've posted, your ideas sit in either 2 or 3. This being the case, you have to target the bits of the narrative that add credibility. Units of the US Sixth Fleet, which USMC units rotate through the Mediterranean, which bases do US fixed wing have access to? For the purposes of the overall campaign narrative you don't really need to stretch much further than Wikipedia to be honest.
Before you get wrapped up in the detail of units and things like that though, for your campaign vision you need to have some fairly worked up answers to the following:
Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? Then think about whether all of this is achievable in the editor, or consider how to create it in the editor.
I have  to say though, if you're not prepared to make this (or at least the bulk of it) yourself as you indicated in your response to my previous post then I'll tell you now that it is pretty unlikely that anyone is going to go 'wow, great campaign idea I'll happily spend the next 6 months in the editor making it for you'. Mainly because the people who actually do this sort of mission and campaign making thing do not lack inspiration.
To give you a feel for how hard it is, I intended to do two CMSF-1 campaigns. I'd done the research, made all of the maps, designed and play tested all of the missions as standalones. Despite all of this, I could not get the sum of the whole to work as a campaign. These were projects that I had a vested interest in because they were my ideas, my vision, my passion. I don't recall how many days, weeks, months that I spent on them but I plugged away because I really wanted to make these campaigns.
The problem with both was that neither would work properly as a CMSF campaign that players would want to play. Am I disappointed - you bet I am for the two factors mentioned above, failing to bring my cherished projects to the wider community and the fact that I'll never get those hours spent in the editor back.
You are of course welcome to bat campaign ideas and narratives around but you will almost certainly be wasting your time unless you are prepared to step into the editor.

Yes … but … no.
The AI will auto surrender at something around the 40% remaining mark which many players find irritating (search 'time limit' or similar for threads ad nauseum about it). In scenarios with UNCONs, it is not realistic to pack the map with heaps of units so to have the thing look realistic but prevent an early auto surrender, designers use reinforcements on the UNCON (in this case) side which have a scheduled arrival time after the mission ends. As these 'reinforcements' do not arrive and cannot be killed the on-map forces can take quite a pasting before auto surrender is triggered.
There are many circumstances in which this trick can be used and whether the designer employs it or not will depend on what they are trying to achieve with the mission. One of the more obvious examples being a mission where Blue has victory conditions related to their own force preservation, minimising collateral damage, neutralising specific targets.

Strange, that's quite contrary to what I recall from my limited (outside of TOC resting) experience of Blue units in CM:BS.....I clearly need more practice.