Sgt.Squarehead

The single front window and longer turret makes me think Zuzana-2.

Kudos to you for a very generous offer. 
But I've got 'em all already. 
Unless you happen to have a copy of Pro lying around? 

The Syrians wouldn't allow Al Qaeda to launch a 'dirty-bomb' attack on the west from their territory either, but that didn't stop it from making a bloody fine basis for a game! 

Now wouldn't those look lovely steaming through some really hilly terrain, or maybe a ruined city? 
Of course, if you had some of these:

You would blow them to bits! 
But if you do too well, these guys might show up:

And then you'd need to ask this lot for some help:

Now wouldn't that be a lot more fun than shooting up Chinese Marines in a big minefield? 
PS - @dragonwynn  Now is your time.....Surely? 

You don't get support like that with Cyberpunk 2077! 

Sweet.....Now let's blow **** up! 

Go to his page. 

As a scenario designer both for some community and stock releases I've always gone towards controlling unit placement myself for a number of reasons. Even when I've had the initial intention to leave it to the player, I've always tended to take back that control before a scenario was finalised. The following reasons generally always come up:
1) For historical scenarios it allows me to place units approximately where they commenced the engagement (where known) to ensure the player has the most historical experience. It also prevents the player from exploiting history books and hindsight if they know something about the battle. For example, if I allow the player to reposition their Tiger II to the top of a hill with great overwatch & LOS/LOF, it will have an adverse effect on the rest of the scenario and make it more a-historical.
2) It allows me to ensure that the patterns around initial spotting of opposing units is as intended. For example, there are no stray pot shots both from player and AI units after a few seconds of hitting the red button for the first time if I expect the player to conduct recon etc.
3) Most of the CM player base plays single player. I don't want the AI to reposition units that may mess up AI plans. (As outlined above)
4) It ensures an equal starting point for all players. This ensures that testing is easier and more informative as everyone starts with the exact same situation to solve their problem (the scenario) from. Maybe this is a residual from years of playing hex wargames where it was common for scenarios to specify where every unit started.
4) (Sometimes) The starting map is quite restrictive for one side or both in where a force can reasonably deploy. If one side is restricted due to terrain you generally don't want the other side to have a huge advantage of letting them reposition all their units as they see fit - particularly if they know where the enemy is coming from. For example, a historical engagement started with the tank heavy force moving down one road surrounded by heavy forest on both sides. This makes opening up deployment to the player somewhat redundant given the restrictive terrain.
Everyone is allowed their opinion on the matter on what they think is best. QB and free for all engagements, go at it I say. But scenarios, particularly historical ones tend to have (good) boundaries that work as a starting framework for designers to adhere to. The above is what I discovered worked for me over time making multiple scenarios created from scratch. Still disagree with me? No problems. The best way to change community practice is to get into the editor and start making and releasing scenarios.

You didn't criticize the game, you accused a long standing veteran (of both the forum and the armed forces) of something that would be a criminal offence were he a US citizen. 
PS - As I suspect this forum is hosted in the US, he could probably sue you off the face of the planet. 

Danas (or maybe Zuzanas) by the look of em:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152mm_SpGH_DANA

I always felt a better setting for a China CM game would be a second Korean War, whether due to Kim invading the South wreaking horrific destruction on Seoul but getting his arse handed to him militarily, or (more likely IMHO) his early death natural or otherwise precipitating civil war in the North. Either way, you could expect a total breakdown in the North, with both China and and South Korea sending 'humanitarian' assistance and backing factions (with the US and Japan largely taking their cues from Seoul?).
The South Korean army is fairly formidable but generally organized for defense. So its expeditionary forces in the North (with US advisers?) could find themselves fairly evenly matched with PLA airborne and mech units trying to set up a buffer zone/new client state as far south as possible. But I must confess to knowing a lot less about this than I do about Taiwan. Thoughts?

Many thanks to Squarehead, we exchange a lot on the particular mission and from what I saw he did very good, but the challenge was maybe a bit too steep with 3 battery of art missing  Gratulation for those who manage without, must have be very painful. 
The new version is available at this adress : https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2-2/cm-shock-force-2-campaigns/to-al-hell-and-back-v2/ 
It was bootie who published the fist so i do not have the access to remove/replace the previous version. 

@Combatintman Karl, outstanding posts.  I really appreciate you expanding on your initial comment re: Binh Ba and backing it up with fact and references, very well written... if @chuckdyke can't read that, take it in, and then back down and apologize for his knee-jerk reactions, well that speaks volumes about his character, to me anyway.
I suggest you ignore him and get back to work... I know you have better things to do and the clock is ticking soldier.   

Points for trying but I am not sure the target is listening.  The plus side is this discussion took me on a bit of journey on the question.  So closest I could find to a recent true urban warfare example was the re-taking of Mosul in 16-17.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mosul_(2016–2017)
So this took 9 months and was really more of a hybrid warfare fight than a true conventional peer-on-peer fight but it fits the bill close enough.  If you look at the numbers the Blue/Green force had over 114K combatants clearing a city of 180 sq kms with thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of densely packed buildings (a freaking nightmare).  Red Force had approx 6-12k in forces but we are largely talking uncons so all types and weirdness there.  

By true urban warfare standards this one was actually pretty light.  About 7k Blue force casualties and pretty much all of Daesh in a 9 month grind.  Compared to Stalingrad this was a minor side action.
To put that into perspective the entire US Army regular force is about 485k, with NG and reserves that number can get as high as about a million but I doubt more than half are combat forces.  Toss in the Marines and you might get another 100k So what? The US military as it stands today would have been challenged in this fight.  That is probably 15-25% of the entire US land field force eaten up in one city against an adversary whose capabilities fall roughly into the "tethered, highly challenged one eyed goat" territory.  Nuke and Bypass indeed.   

Just a couple more teaser screen shots while I crunch through the final checks ...

It's been a bit of a marathon, but:

Really enjoying this campaign.....I believe an updated version may be imminent, hope so! 
PS @Bartimeus A platoon of engineers or some Breach Teams would be very useful for Scenario 3.

I often use 'the tank dance' when I'm brassing up fixed defences.....Target Briefly 15secs/Pause 15secs, Move 1m, Target Briefly 15secs/Pause 15secs, Reverse 1m, Target Briefly 15secs/Pause 15secs, Move 1m, etc. etc. until either all the targets, or my tank, are dead! 

Just being able to stack 'Target Briefly' commands (without movement) would get us close, you could engage four tiles in a turn.

Look for 'Javelin ATGM Launcher' in the Acquire Panel:

 

Kudos to you for a very generous offer. 
But I've got 'em all already. 
Unless you happen to have a copy of Pro lying around? 

Played that one from both sides now.....Total Victory for both sides too.  I actually quite like the M60A2 now. 
PS - I found the US reinforcements hellish difficult to kill.....They caused me more casualties than the intial force! 

Hi all,

So you;ve might have seen this elsewhere but in the spirit of the holidays I'm giving away some Combat Mission titles December 23rd. I'm going to raffle off the games on the Official CM discord: https://discord.gg/KFwm9exfDr All you need to do to enter is be a member.

Happy Holidays,
Geist

 

TBH it really doesn't come any more cold war than this track from Pink Floyd (1983):
 

So here are the draft orders ...
Situation
Amid a background of tensions on the Russian and Belarusian borders with the Baltic states, Russia announced its Zapad exercise, which traditionally takes place in September, early causing alarm to NATO governments.  This saw Russian forces move to border regions and the reinforcement of the Kaliningrad Oblast with airborne formations.  The exercises finished a week ago, but these forward deployments are unchanged leading NATO intelligence analysts to assess that Russia and its Belarusian ally planned to attack the Suwalki Gap.  In response NATO has started to move reinforcements into the area including the 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team (1 IBCT)/82nd Airborne Division which started to arrive in Vilkaviskis, Lithuania last night.  A Troop 3rd Squadron/73rd Cavalry Regiment (A/3/73 Cav) was one of the first units to arrive and has been rushed west to deal with any Russian supporting eastward attack from the Kaliningrad Oblast.  It is now 1100hrs on June 01, 2017, and the Russians crossed the border 30 minutes ago.  It is warm, clear and there is a gentle west to east wind.
Mission
A/3/73 Cav guards in the vicinity of Maldenai until 1200hrs, 01 June in order to delay the enemy assault on Vilkaviskis.
Tasks:
Destroy enemy reconnaissance.
Disrupt the enemy first echelon battalion.
Deny enemy penetration in greater than platoon strength of the Battle Handover Line.
Maintain 60% combat effectiveness.
Withdraw no later than 1230hrs, 01 June.
Friendly Forces
A/3/73 Cav complete comprising 1st, 2nd and 3rd Platoons each with 2 x M1151 HUMMWV M2, 2 x M1151 HUMMWV Mk19, 2 x M1167 HUMMWV TOW and an LMTV truck.  Also organic to A Troop are 2 x M120 120mm mortars and 1 x RQ11B UAV.  Other support available comes mainly from 3rd Battalion/319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment (3/319 AFAR) comprising Battery A (6 x 105mm M119A3), Battery B (6 x 105mm M119A3) and Battery C (6 x 155mm M777A2).  An additional RQ11B UAV has been assigned to A Troop from 3/73 Cav.
Enemy Forces
Intelligence assesses that either 7th Guards Separate Motorized Rifle Regiment (7 GMRR) or 79th Guards Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (79 GMRB), both of 11th Army Corps normally based in the Kaliningrad Oblast will lead the attack.  The S2 assesses that 7 GMRR is the most likely of the two.  Both are equipped with T-72 tanks, 7 GMRR is BMP-2 equipped while 79 GMRB is MTLB equipped.  Whichever formation leads, Intelligence Preparation of the Battlespace (IPB) indicates that the enemy unit will be a battalion-sized force tactically deployed to conduct a meeting engagement.  Its likely mission is to defeat the friendly covering force and secure a jump off point for subsequent echelons to assault Vilkaviskis 7km east of the Battle Handover Line.  There is no threat from enemy air assets.
Plan
It is your choice commander but be aware that you have been given a tough mission which will stretch the capabilities of your light and small force given that you will be facing a mechanized force that outnumbers you by approximately three to one and your force is not optimized for this kind of mission.
Your plan will need to make best use of ground and your key assets which are your long-range anti-tank and indirect fire weapons.
You must exit the eastern edge of the map (Battle Handover Line) before the mission ends.
Conceptually this is a simple mission that requires a trade-off between inflicting casualties on the enemy, slowing enemy progress across the map while minimizing your own casualties and picking the right time to withdraw and exit the map.  The enemy gets points for advancing across the map, exiting units from the eastern edge of the map and for inflicting blue casualties while minimizing red casualties.  You lack the combat power to destroy every single vehicle, so you need to track your kills and enemy progress in order to choose the right moment to withdraw.  Once you have withdrawn, you should ceasefire.
Notes
This mission was going to be part of a campaign depicting a ‘what if’ Russian attack on Lithuania which I never really progressed with.  The Russian and US units have been researched and the map is as good as the Combat Mission editor can reproduce of the area depicted.  I spent a lot of time in Street View in Google Earth while making it and I hope you appreciate the result.  If you want to check yourself, the middle of the lake on the map is at Grid 34U FF 2386 5620.  This mission has four Russian AI plans so if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.
I hope you enjoy playing the mission.
Combatintman

The two saves crashed for me. The first at 30 minutes, the second about 3 minutes progressed. I've saved the Mac diagnostic reports. Hard for me to decipher but it *appears* to have something to do with OpenGL (don't quote me on that). 
My MacBook Pro is lower spec than @Halmbarte
Before I make a Mantis report, I want to check the scenario from scratch on my Mac. @Sgt.Squarehead is it at FGM, or can you just send me a copy by PM?
Dave