Combatintman

@chuckdykeyes you can do this in the editor but it can be tricky if you want your Tiger to go to a hull down terrain spot because you create the AI plan in 2D.  The mechanism to move the tank would be a simple trigger to have the Tiger move from its hide.  So if you want it to move to its fire position from its hide when hordes of T-34s come over the horizon then you would set an enemy armour trigger to trip at a time and space that allows your Tiger to move from its hide and get into the hull down fire position.  On firing the trigger, the Tiger moves.  You can specify an exact action spot for it to go to (your hull down position) but to get it exactly right you need to correlate that position that is obvious in 3D mode to the 2D action spot in the AI editor which is the tricky part and requires testing and adjusting frequently.

To pile on here - the drills we were taught in pre-deployment training involved ensuring the safety of yourself and the casualty at all times.  The IA drill; therefore, was to win the firefight first and then either extract the casualty to a safe place or attend to the casualty at the point of wounding rather than urinate about trying to treat someone from the prone position, which as LukeFF has pointed out is not something that medics are trained to do and from my less expert military experience is almost impossible.  If none of you have tried moving dead weight then try it and remember that an injured inert soldier will be a lot heavier and more difficult to move than most people when you take into account the equipment they'll be carrying and, in the modern era, the body armour they will be wearing.

To pile on here - the drills we were taught in pre-deployment training involved ensuring the safety of yourself and the casualty at all times.  The IA drill; therefore, was to win the firefight first and then either extract the casualty to a safe place or attend to the casualty at the point of wounding rather than urinate about trying to treat someone from the prone position, which as LukeFF has pointed out is not something that medics are trained to do and from my less expert military experience is almost impossible.  If none of you have tried moving dead weight then try it and remember that an injured inert soldier will be a lot heavier and more difficult to move than most people when you take into account the equipment they'll be carrying and, in the modern era, the body armour they will be wearing.

Not really - that, and despite me repeatedly mentioning here that in my 4 years of active duty as a combat medic we never, ever trained once to treat casualties while prone, there are certain members here who continue to ignore that. 

It cannot be done and it is an immersion breaker - I played a red v red campaign in CMSF a few years back which showed promise until I busted my @$$ trying to capture a particular objective and pretty much flattened it in one mission only to see the building miraculously intact and back in enemy hands in the next mission.  To me Campaign Design 101 should be never to set missions on the same piece of ground more than once until such times as the game features persistent damage effects on maps.

It cannot be done and it is an immersion breaker - I played a red v red campaign in CMSF a few years back which showed promise until I busted my @$$ trying to capture a particular objective and pretty much flattened it in one mission only to see the building miraculously intact and back in enemy hands in the next mission.  To me Campaign Design 101 should be never to set missions on the same piece of ground more than once until such times as the game features persistent damage effects on maps.

Probably due to the fact that 41 Pantserbrigade based in Seedorf/Hohne was the only significant element of 1 (NL) Corps based in Germany in peacetime.  Anybody interested in the Dutch military in this period should bookmark this site:
Netherlands Armed Forces Order of Battle 1985 (orbat85.nl)
 

You can record - the only way to test something is to save it as a scenario and then 'play' it in scenario author mode so everything that you can do in a normal game, such as take screen shots or videos, you can do in scenario author mode.

@Canuck21 - you're overthinking a lot of this ... so don't 😏
Make what you want to make and don't be constrained by the labels ... what is a tiny battle?  Is it about the size of the map, the size of the forces or the length of the mission?  Is a three hour mission, set on a 4km x 4km map involving a platoon on each side tiny or huge; is a 30 minute mission set on a 1km x 1km map with a battalion on one side and a company on the other medium or large?  Here's what the manual says:
"The scenario’s approximate size, from Tiny to Huge, gives players an idea of the overall scope of the battle. Each scenario author probably has a different idea of what Tiny or Huge is, but usually the amount of units involved as well as map size and battle duration should be factored into the setting here. As a general guideline, a Tiny battle involves platoon sized forces, or smaller, for each side and a very small map. A Huge battle involves a force of several companies on each side and a very large map. The rest fall somewhere in between."
So as you can see, even Battlefront doesn't know.
Likewise for Battle type ...
"Specifies the general nature of the battle and who is the attacker. Depending on the nature of the scenario’s storyline you may wish to be “vague”, or even inaccurate, so you don’t give away surprises.  Assault, Attack, Probe, Meeting Engagement."
Again, Battlefront doesn't know and tells you it is ok to get it wrong if you really feel like it.
Next - park the QB thing until you've got out of the question asking phase of your scenario design journey and have released a dozen or so scenarios that you are totally happy with.  I've no idea how many scenarios I've made but probably in the region of 70+.  I have never ever made a QB because I still don't understand how to make good ones.  As I don't really play them either unless I just have one of those days where I need to fire up the game and kill something without thinking too hard about it, I'm also not overly interested in making them.  I also don't think that there are many people out there who have mastered QB scenarios, I am aware of three or four guys who have done so and one of those has disappeared off the edge of the planet. 
As I've said in other threads - make what you want to make.  I think you've got yourself into a mindset of 'ooh I just want to make lots of stuff' - no bad thing but if you make something for the sake of making something then it will probably be a bit sh1t.  Additionally you will burn yourself out.  I am working on a project at the moment - I have spent the last 6 weeks spending at least four hours a day making maps for it.  I am 75% into map four and to be honest I'm struggling to keep going with map making right now.  This is a project that I really, really want to see come to fruition so I am persevering with it but I know when I have to start map five that I'm going to have the same feeling - if your heart's not in it then you won't finish anything or you'll just get threaders with scenario making.  Find something that inspires you sufficiently to want to spend about a month making the map, picking the units, programming the AI, testing the AI and writing up the orders and graphics.  That can be a piece of ground that looks like an interesting tactical problem, a real action that you've found a map of or a written account or something different like making a map of your Mother-in-Law's house and then working out how to destroy it ... or whatever ...
Chill out mate ... seriously ...

Probably due to the fact that 41 Pantserbrigade based in Seedorf/Hohne was the only significant element of 1 (NL) Corps based in Germany in peacetime.  Anybody interested in the Dutch military in this period should bookmark this site:
Netherlands Armed Forces Order of Battle 1985 (orbat85.nl)
 

Correct - if it is a scenario, you can make it whatever battle type you like and it will have no bearing on what you have done elsewhere in the editor; however, it is obviously good practice to call your scenario a meeting engagement if that it is what it is because it is one of the things a player will look at when deciding whether they want to play the thing or not.

Yep - I agree with @domfluff - there is no misunderstanding of your original point.  I agree that maybe that scenario could have included something in the description along the lines of Beginner for US and Expert for the Russian but then of course there are players who have an inflated sense of their skill level or comedians who leap straight into Iron mode the first time they play the game.  It is also important to remember that the Steam hookup with Slitherine will be bringing in new players who are unfamiliar with the whole Battlefront system and probably need a few easy scenarios that they can win without doing too much in order to get to grips with the game.  If they keep bumping up against scenarios they can't win without playing it more than a couple of times, they are unlikely to keep playing the game or buy another module/title.  Not every scenario or campaign has to be pitched at challenging genuinely experienced players.  How many threads have you seen recently along the lines of '[name of scenario] help needed' - or 'I cannot get past mission 3 in the [name of campaign] - Please help.'  Or look at the thread asking how many times people play a scenario in order to win it - the balance of opinion there seems to be I just get frustrated and move on or I had to save every turn and replay and I feel soiled.  My stuff is generally pitched at the novice to average player mainly for this reason and the fact that the main tester (me) is a middling player.  I would rather kick a scenario out of the door that can be won first time rather than making it difficult for experienced players and then having to keep coming onto the forum to explain how to win it.
Otherwise, the points that both domfluff and I raised about design philosophy, your target audience in terms of H2H, one side vs the AI or both sides vs the AI, and the constraints that you have to work with in the editor are extant and valid.

Heaps of people who served in BAOR do exactly the same - don't worry about the BOAR thing.
The image below, although having US III Corps reinforcing NORTHAG which was a role that evolved towards the end of the Cold War, pretty much sums the deployment piece on the Central Front.  There are of course better and more detailed maps out there but this one was easy to find and gets the message across.

I can guarantee you that in the time frame of the game - the only Brits you would have seen alongside the Danes would have been 6 Field Force/1 Infantry Brigade/UKMF which as I said earlier and the image illustrates, would have come from the UK.
Prior to 1975, and I haven't researched that in detail because it is irrelevant to the time frame of the game, 3 (UK) Division apparently either had a role in Denmark/Schleswig Holstein or there was talk of it having one.
If you are interested in BAOR barracks, this is a good starting point:
Barracks (baor-locations.org)

Yeah - @kohlenklauhas pretty much nailed it.  The probe/attack etc options are really only relevant if you're making a QB as this affects point allocations and VPs (I think) - if it is a scenario then the battle type appears as text in the 'Load Game' menu but the label you apply has no effect on your AI plans etc.  It just gives the player a clue as to what they might be doing i.e., probe, assault or whatever ... if they read it of course.  In my experience, they'll go by the description that you put in the 'Description' box under the title in the 'Description' part of the editor.

Exactly what I said on the Beta board - have a like.

Exactly what I said on the Beta board - have a like.

Exactly what I said on the Beta board - have a like.

I don't believe this is true. Or perhaps if this *is* true, they've done a pretty bad job of making Cold War a US-centric title (whoops?), given the amount of effort put into the Soviet forces, how they're structured, the campaigns and the Tutorial missions for Soviet Doctrine.

That was not my experience and as @George MC, whose scenario this is and is one of the most accomplished scenario designers out there, the balance of probability of your opinion being correct is pretty low.
Editing is fun but if you set yourself the goal of frustrating people, no one will play your scenarios and will come onto the forum and rip them apart.  Why not try it first before feeding your compulsion to make random uninformed comments across multiple threads?

That was not my experience and as @George MC, whose scenario this is and is one of the most accomplished scenario designers out there, the balance of probability of your opinion being correct is pretty low.
Editing is fun but if you set yourself the goal of frustrating people, no one will play your scenarios and will come onto the forum and rip them apart.  Why not try it first before feeding your compulsion to make random uninformed comments across multiple threads?

That was not my experience and as @George MC, whose scenario this is and is one of the most accomplished scenario designers out there, the balance of probability of your opinion being correct is pretty low.
Editing is fun but if you set yourself the goal of frustrating people, no one will play your scenarios and will come onto the forum and rip them apart.  Why not try it first before feeding your compulsion to make random uninformed comments across multiple threads?

@AdamPraha - I am glad you have found something that works for you.

Incorrect - motor rifle regiments generally got the older kit but not T-72s.  Using 8 Guards Army, which would have been GSFG's first operational echelon in the American zone as the case study ...
20 Guards Motor Rifle Division
Was completely equipped with T-54/55 in 1974. It had a mix of T-54/55, T-62 and T-64 in 1979. In 1985 it had 231 x T-62s and 40 x T-80s. 39 Guards Motor Rifle Division
Was completely equipped with T-54/55 in 1974. In 1979 15 Guards Tank Regiment was T-64 equipped while the three motor rifle regiments were T-62 equipped. In 1985 it had 177 x T-62 on strength and 94 x T-80s. 57 Guards Motor Rifle Division
Was completely equipped with T-54/55 in 1974 51 Guards Tank and 174 Guards Motor Rifle Regiment were equipped with T-64 while 170 and 241 Guards Motor Rifle Regiments were equipped with T-55 in 1979. In 1985 the division had 40 x T-62 and 231 x T-80s. 79 Guards Tank Division
In 1974 every single regiment in the division was equipped with T-62 except 247 Guards Motor Rifle Regiment which was equipped with T-54/55. In 1979 it was completely equipped with the T-62 with the exception of 211 Tank Regiment which had possibly received T-64 that year. In 1985 it was completely T-80 equipped.

In terms of composition it was a Tank Army but going back to what I said about relearning everything I thought I knew about the Cold War it was not called 3 Shock Army during the time frame of this game.  It also only had only three divisions until 1983 (two tank and one motor rifle) vice the four that I am more familiar with in the time that I was expected to face it off.
OMGs were the new buzz words in the late 80s so for the game period  I wouldn't set too much store by them.   3 CAA/Shock Army's main effort would have been in the 1 (GE) Corps AOR (Hannover and immediately north of it), 2 GTA was pretty much going to be the second operational echelon for GSFG and given where it was based, would most likely have rolled through 1 (GE) Corps and bits of 1 (BR) Corps.  Of course it could have been employed north and south of that option though .   The most likely second operational echelon in the south would have been the Central Group of Forces and, from what I've read, the Poles, if they turned up, would have been given the northern option (eg Hamburg and all of the coastal stuff).
There is the issue of the NVA - from what I can gather during the game time frame two NVA divisions were slated to come under 3 CAA/3 Shock Army's command, both were fairly high category reserve divisions and my guess is that they would get given tasks to either fix bits of 1 (NL) Corps and 1 (BE) Corps or do a bit of 'kameradenschaft' with 1 (GE) Corps in built up areas such as Hannover.

What @mjkernersaid - the scenario author has allowed for variable extra time.  These can be set in blocks of none, 0-5 minutes, 5-10 minutes and 10-15 minutes.  The program randomly sets a time within the selected block, so if it has been set to 0-5 minutes, the game can end at 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes or 5 minutes.