Combatintman

Can't speak for the M-577 but all British Army armoured vehicles have this capability.  Gentlemen, I present the Boiling Vessel (BV):

Well, two actually, but you get the picture.

Can't speak for the M-577 but all British Army armoured vehicles have this capability.  Gentlemen, I present the Boiling Vessel (BV):

Well, two actually, but you get the picture.

It is exactly this - map boards and radios.  They generally set up in groups with tents extending from the back of them, often in a cruciform.  The middle of the cruciform is generally where the commander will stand over the map along with the principle staff officers and direct the battle.  The bigger the HQ the more vehicles and they are generally parked backed up so that all of the tentage is in the middle (see image).  It is not supposed to be charging around shooting at stuff.

Correct - also the abundance of sand is not particularly reminiscent of northern Europe.  Nonetheless that is how they set up.  I was in the British Army during the Cold War and we would set up in very much a similar fashion.  The trick was to try and find an empty factory or a big enough farm with plenty of barns to set up in.

It is exactly this - map boards and radios.  They generally set up in groups with tents extending from the back of them, often in a cruciform.  The middle of the cruciform is generally where the commander will stand over the map along with the principle staff officers and direct the battle.  The bigger the HQ the more vehicles and they are generally parked backed up so that all of the tentage is in the middle (see image).  It is not supposed to be charging around shooting at stuff.

It is exactly this - map boards and radios.  They generally set up in groups with tents extending from the back of them, often in a cruciform.  The middle of the cruciform is generally where the commander will stand over the map along with the principle staff officers and direct the battle.  The bigger the HQ the more vehicles and they are generally parked backed up so that all of the tentage is in the middle (see image).  It is not supposed to be charging around shooting at stuff.

Correct - also the abundance of sand is not particularly reminiscent of northern Europe.  Nonetheless that is how they set up.  I was in the British Army during the Cold War and we would set up in very much a similar fashion.  The trick was to try and find an empty factory or a big enough farm with plenty of barns to set up in.

You're all missing the point ... given BFC's record with predicting conflicts in their games, it must mean that Black Sea will get Brits in a module.

It is exactly this - map boards and radios.  They generally set up in groups with tents extending from the back of them, often in a cruciform.  The middle of the cruciform is generally where the commander will stand over the map along with the principle staff officers and direct the battle.  The bigger the HQ the more vehicles and they are generally parked backed up so that all of the tentage is in the middle (see image).  It is not supposed to be charging around shooting at stuff.

Fixed that for you and show 'em some pics of the naval gunfire support smashing the forts 😏

You make maps? ... everyday's a school day 😏

You're all missing the point ... given BFC's record with predicting conflicts in their games, it must mean that Black Sea will get Brits in a module.

You're all missing the point ... given BFC's record with predicting conflicts in their games, it must mean that Black Sea will get Brits in a module.

You make maps? ... everyday's a school day 😏

You're all missing the point ... given BFC's record with predicting conflicts in their games, it must mean that Black Sea will get Brits in a module.

You can't - you have the choice of straight up, down, left or right and diagonal road tiles.  If you're trying to map a real place using the overlay feature, the top tip is to orientate your overlay so that the important/major roads or the majority of the roads flow to fit the limited choices you have see below:

 If you look at the image, you can see a whole heap of tracks through the forest which I decided should run north to south to make the map making easier.  If you look at the topographical overlay, you can see that I have tilted it so that north in real life is actually pointing NW (the grid line runs from number '171' at the bottom of the image).  You can also see that with the other roads and the railway line, I just have to compromise and make the best job I can of getting them to generally flow in the intended direction.
This is a 3D view of part of the map:

Which although not 100% accurate doesn't look too shabby.
 

You're all missing the point ... given BFC's record with predicting conflicts in their games, it must mean that Black Sea will get Brits in a module.

I have no set rule.  Your weighting will depend on the type of scenario it is.  If grabbing or not losing bits of terrain is the key bit of the mission concept then it is logical to weight VPs towards terrain objectives.  If your mission is about killing the enemy or not being killed then you can weight towards parameters and unit objectives.  If you then follow that logic and you have a mission which emphasizes grabbing a piece of ground but not losing too many troops in the process then you're looking at balancing your terrain, parameters and unit objectives.
That should be the starting point but always needs refinement.  If your scenario is going to be playable by both sides, how do you stop one player getting a turn one victory by hitting ceasefire because they are the defender sat on all of the high VP terrain objectives?  How do you keep one or both players in the game by ensuring that neither side has an advantage until just past the mid point in the scenario?  The mechanism I use for the latter eventuality when testing is to save and ceasefire at between five and 15 minute intervals and screen capture the end game screen.  The numbers there inform me as to how the casualties tick over and allows me to adjust unit objective values for instance.  It is rare that my original VP schema survives testing so you shouldn't think narrowly about 'terrain is the most important' or whatever.  You need to just use what is perhaps the biggest and most flexible toolkit in the editor to get the right scores on the doors.

I have no set rule.  Your weighting will depend on the type of scenario it is.  If grabbing or not losing bits of terrain is the key bit of the mission concept then it is logical to weight VPs towards terrain objectives.  If your mission is about killing the enemy or not being killed then you can weight towards parameters and unit objectives.  If you then follow that logic and you have a mission which emphasizes grabbing a piece of ground but not losing too many troops in the process then you're looking at balancing your terrain, parameters and unit objectives.
That should be the starting point but always needs refinement.  If your scenario is going to be playable by both sides, how do you stop one player getting a turn one victory by hitting ceasefire because they are the defender sat on all of the high VP terrain objectives?  How do you keep one or both players in the game by ensuring that neither side has an advantage until just past the mid point in the scenario?  The mechanism I use for the latter eventuality when testing is to save and ceasefire at between five and 15 minute intervals and screen capture the end game screen.  The numbers there inform me as to how the casualties tick over and allows me to adjust unit objective values for instance.  It is rare that my original VP schema survives testing so you shouldn't think narrowly about 'terrain is the most important' or whatever.  You need to just use what is perhaps the biggest and most flexible toolkit in the editor to get the right scores on the doors.

You're all missing the point ... given BFC's record with predicting conflicts in their games, it must mean that Black Sea will get Brits in a module.

I'm reasonably sure it would be the same for the US but in the British Army of the time, platoons will be on a company net so as soon as the sighting platoon sends in their contact/sighting report every platoon and the company HQ would have the information.  Battalion would be a different net so passage upwards would be from the company HQ on the battalion net which also goes sideways to all of the other callsigns on that net (i.e., the other companies in the battalion).  I can't speak for the Soviets as I am nowhere near my reference materials but I don't think it was that much different.

I suspect that GerryCMBB has finished this scenario in the four and a half years since the original post.

Pretty much what Royal Armoured Corps crews thought in the 1970s/1980s before the thing broke down on its way from the tank sheds to the camp gates. 😏

Highly recommended - it is a useful mechanism for balancing your VPs.  I often just do a head count for each side and allocate 1 VP as a 'Destroy' objective.  So if there are 130 dudes on one side and 150 on the other, the VP count is 130 and 150 respectively.  The beauty of it is that each side picks up points as they go along ... provided they kill people of course.

It signifies a unit objective - this is what the manual (page 88 refers) says:
To designate a unit or formation as a scenario objective, you have to first assign it to a “unit objective group” in the Unit Editor. To do that, select the unit or formation and hold down the SHIFT key while pressing a number key from F1-F7. The selected unit(s) will then show a [U] next to its name followed by the corresponding group number you pressed.