Combatintman

@Amedeo - that's the source I'm using too.  A lot of it is derived from this publication (in Russian) which I've rummaged around - there are inconsistencies for sure but I haven't found anything better:
УДК 355 (lib.ru)
As an example of inconsistency - both the website and Feskov list 245 Guards Motor Rifle Regiment as being part of 47 Guards Tank Division and 207 Motor Rifle Division in the same period of time.  Logic to me dictates that it was part of 47 Guards Tank Division because it appears in its Orbat from 1960 all the way through to its CFE declaration in 1990.

Possibly because you are playing on Iron mode?  You can't see all of your units in Iron mode, that's the point of it.

There's probably an oberleutnant involved ... 😏

Objectives are of course important but @George MC is a good enough designer to have given the player some flex on these objectives I am sure.  It would be a pretty dumb move to send units all over the map to chase after every single sound contact.  Think of the mission holistically and view it through the common sense/realism lens rather than trying to score every single point available.

The AI mortar stuff - no.  You can get them to fire but not fire smoke specifically so they will always fire HE.
My scenarios generally replicate historical actions but I have no set approach to scenario-making other than:
It is something I want to make. I have a reasonably solid concept of the narrative and what I want to do with it. Although the second bullet is flexible as I found with my Zitzewitz scenario for Fire and Rubble and a couple of others I have done.
Historical stuff is easy in concept - you know the piece of ground and the forces so you follow the known facts as much as you can and test and adjust to make the thing playable and achievable in the editor.
Non-historical stuff is harder, or for me it is anyway.  Taking one of my Cold War scenarios, Rumpenheim Rumpus.  The concept was simply 'I want to do an assault river crossing.'  I then had to find a decent piece of ground which would fit the bill within the area that the US was deployed in Germany.  Once I'd found the piece of ground I then thought about the forces.  Due to the limited AI slots, it is difficult to make an attacking force much bigger than a battalion which meant that the defender would be about company(ish) sized.  It was just a case from there onward to test and adjust to make it work.
Bottom line - you need to find a way of doing stuff that works for you.  As you get better at it, you can be more flexible with your approach but above all else - it must be something you want to make.

The AI mortar stuff - no.  You can get them to fire but not fire smoke specifically so they will always fire HE.
My scenarios generally replicate historical actions but I have no set approach to scenario-making other than:
It is something I want to make. I have a reasonably solid concept of the narrative and what I want to do with it. Although the second bullet is flexible as I found with my Zitzewitz scenario for Fire and Rubble and a couple of others I have done.
Historical stuff is easy in concept - you know the piece of ground and the forces so you follow the known facts as much as you can and test and adjust to make the thing playable and achievable in the editor.
Non-historical stuff is harder, or for me it is anyway.  Taking one of my Cold War scenarios, Rumpenheim Rumpus.  The concept was simply 'I want to do an assault river crossing.'  I then had to find a decent piece of ground which would fit the bill within the area that the US was deployed in Germany.  Once I'd found the piece of ground I then thought about the forces.  Due to the limited AI slots, it is difficult to make an attacking force much bigger than a battalion which meant that the defender would be about company(ish) sized.  It was just a case from there onward to test and adjust to make it work.
Bottom line - you need to find a way of doing stuff that works for you.  As you get better at it, you can be more flexible with your approach but above all else - it must be something you want to make.

I'd agree with the training and veteran linkage.  Personally I think the problem with all of this is the labels - if the experience levels were numbered 0-5 say, people would probably have less issues or fewer discussions about it.  Anyway ... back to Vietnamese public transport ... 😏

To be honest my friend - as soon as this thread popped up I thought that you would come away disappointed.  This game is not about the graphics although as everybody who has contributed have pointed out, there are ways of making it better.  If, after all of these steps you still don't like it then you have to accept that you've pretty much pushed the envelope to as good as it gets.  The engine is a few years old and it is designed to me played on both Macs and PCs - this, I am told, imposes some limitations on what is doable.
The bottom line then is that if graphics are a deal breaker then this game isn't for you.  If realism and recreating the experiences of warfare are your thing then it is for you.

The other clue is that the distance to the target changes to reflect the position of the waypoint relative to the target rather than the current position of the vehicle even though the line is still drawn from the vehicle.

@pintere - Zitzewitz is mine.
The subject of 'best played as' recommendations caused some debate in the Beta Forum.  I will echo what @ASL Veteran said in his post because we were more or less on the same side of the debate.  In sum it boils down to 'some scenarios in which defeating an AI opponent is relatively easy to do' being subjective.  Some players are better than others, some players are a whizz at employing infantry, some at handling larger formations, some are ninjas with armour, some are excellent playing as Germans, some are excellent at playing Russians ... or whatever.
The Zitzewitz scenario, believe it or not, came about for some fairly unconnected reasons.
I wanted to get a scenario into this title. The scenario I started making for it in about 2016/17 was struggling to get properly tested because it was crashing the various Beta builds. I thought about doing something different and considered doing something revolving around a push into the weapons testing site at Peenemunde. My initial attempts at doing a reasonable representation of Peenemunde were also causing Beta crashes. So I just scrolled around Google Earth a bit to find a piece of ground that vaguely interested me on which I could set a scenario with an end of war feel in which the Red Army was mobile and facing a bunch of thrown together defenders.  As time was pressing, or so I thought when I started the journey, I wanted a decent-sized map that was fairly low-drag to make and Zitzewitz fitted the bill.  A quick bit of research pulled up the 1935 (I think) 1:100,000 map of the area and a bit of noodling around in street view and finding some old postcards gave me enough to make the map (see images).  That research also pulled up the fact that there was a Schloss there in 1945 and the story of Graf Wilhelm von Zitzewitz which gave me a bit of human interest to weave into the scenario narrative which is entirely fictional because there was in fact no battle for Zitzewitz in March 1945, the time frame in which the scenario is set in order to correspond with the dates that it was actually overrun by the Red Army.

 

All very well I hear you say but this isn't answering the question ... well in fact it is answering the question.  The point of the above is to illustrate that I never set out with any particular intent to make a scenario that was easy for one side or the other and it is why I am wary of making the 'best played as' recommendation as a designer.  It comes recommended as best played as Soviets because the Soviet player has more options than the German player; however, it you are a player that is vaguely competent, likes a challenge and loves defending then it quite clearly is best played as German ... see the dilemma about recommendations?  Beyond that I would be going into the realms of spoilers.
Bottom line is that you can always crack the scenario open for whichever side you feel you want to play it as and read the briefing and decide 'meh ... I don't want to play this.'

We've pretty much gone full circle with this.  You've heard from the designer and the approach that was used mirrors the way I generally tackle soft factors in that you start with what you think looks right from the historical perspective and then test and adjust to arrive at levels that give you the effect you want to achieve in order to make the scenario/campaign to work.  Sometimes the two align - my Ap Bac Scenario called 'A miserable damn performance' for @37mm's Heaven and Earth project is one such example.  The ARVN were shocking that day, hence the title, to the point that I cannot understand how Lt-Col Vann, their advisor, did not suffer an aneurysm that day.  I started the ARVN troops with most leadership ratings in the 0 to -2 range, experience at regular and below (with most below) and the motivation settings in the low or poor range.  The results against a motivated, well-led and reasonably well trained VC force pretty much reflected the real-life experiences of the day in that the moment troops come under fire, they hunker down.  As my intent was to present the player with the same challenges that Lt-Col Vann experienced, this works to good effect and if you ever play it, you will find that it is easy to get your @$$ handed to you by a small VC force despite commanding three battalion equivalents backed up by M-113s, a sh1t tin of artillery and air support. 

Objectives are of course important but @George MC is a good enough designer to have given the player some flex on these objectives I am sure.  It would be a pretty dumb move to send units all over the map to chase after every single sound contact.  Think of the mission holistically and view it through the common sense/realism lens rather than trying to score every single point available.

Its your scenario mate - do what you like with it.  Period maps for a lot of the bits of Europe that were fought over during WW2 certainly exist and if you can't find one then the usual technique is to use Google Earth and lop off the outer suburbs of built-up areas and replace them with fields or suchlike. 
If you don't feel up to making a fictional, representative map then just find a real piece of ground that you think would make a really interesting tactical situation/problem and model that.  Call the place something entirely fictional and Bob's your uncle.  I personally prefer the real ground approach because making maps using the overlay feature is a lot easier than agonising over where the church should go and whether the place should have a railway station or not etc.  The other reason I advocate this approach is because a lot of fictional maps that I see are decidedly average generally because the map maker has absolutely no concept of scale or concept of those things that exist in areas where humans live like where do people drink, where do they buy stuff, where do they worship, where are their dead buried, where do the kids go to school etc.  Most 'villages' I see on such maps actually wouldn't warrant a cartographer unscrewing the lid from their pen to scrawl a name on the map.  Four buildings is an average-sized farm, not a village.  In fact generally, if the place doesn't cover a good proportion of a grid square (1km x 1km) in the modern era it is a small village - it is certainly not a town.

I'm sure the campaign author will chime in - can't remember who it was but I'm pretty sure they will confirm that the experience setting is a gameplay design mechanism rather than a reflection of Afghanistan experience or whatever.  Bearing in mind that the Soviet Army was mostly conscript, the majority of the unlucky non-commissioned troops that got sent there would have been discharged after their tours ... if they survived them of course.  Generally, there is certainly a case for more experienced soft ratings for some of the officers based on some going to Afghanistan at some point and the fact that career officers would receive more than adequate training during their careers. 
For those interested in scenario design, I would be looking in the range Conscript - Veteran for the Soviets.  There were two conscript intakes a year that would arrive at their units in Germany around November and May annually.   As the new soldiers arrived, the term expired ones would depart and discharge to the reserve.  This process averaged out as each unit losing about a quarter of its trained strength in favour of a quarter of new arrivals.  If you apply the principle of quarters then at any given time a unit could conceivably have (using CM experience nomenclature):
1/4 Conscript (new arrivals in their first six months of service). 1/4 Green soldiers with 6-12 months of service who will have completed at least one training cycle to include collective training up to divisional level. 1/2 Regular soldiers with 12-24 months of service who will have completed two training cycles to include collective training up to divisional level. Save your veteran ratings for a couple of selected leaders.

I'd rather have a campaign that works as intended due to those factors rather than one that was a dud.  I never really get excited or completely bound by experience levels or their labels - ultimately this is a game and if it isn't playable because the Soviets were all conscripts or whatever then that is an epic fail.  The campaign tested well and feedback so far on the boards seems to be good.

I'd rather have a campaign that works as intended due to those factors rather than one that was a dud.  I never really get excited or completely bound by experience levels or their labels - ultimately this is a game and if it isn't playable because the Soviets were all conscripts or whatever then that is an epic fail.  The campaign tested well and feedback so far on the boards seems to be good.

I'd rather have a campaign that works as intended due to those factors rather than one that was a dud.  I never really get excited or completely bound by experience levels or their labels - ultimately this is a game and if it isn't playable because the Soviets were all conscripts or whatever then that is an epic fail.  The campaign tested well and feedback so far on the boards seems to be good.

I'd rather have a campaign that works as intended due to those factors rather than one that was a dud.  I never really get excited or completely bound by experience levels or their labels - ultimately this is a game and if it isn't playable because the Soviets were all conscripts or whatever then that is an epic fail.  The campaign tested well and feedback so far on the boards seems to be good.

I'm sure the campaign author will chime in - can't remember who it was but I'm pretty sure they will confirm that the experience setting is a gameplay design mechanism rather than a reflection of Afghanistan experience or whatever.  Bearing in mind that the Soviet Army was mostly conscript, the majority of the unlucky non-commissioned troops that got sent there would have been discharged after their tours ... if they survived them of course.  Generally, there is certainly a case for more experienced soft ratings for some of the officers based on some going to Afghanistan at some point and the fact that career officers would receive more than adequate training during their careers. 
For those interested in scenario design, I would be looking in the range Conscript - Veteran for the Soviets.  There were two conscript intakes a year that would arrive at their units in Germany around November and May annually.   As the new soldiers arrived, the term expired ones would depart and discharge to the reserve.  This process averaged out as each unit losing about a quarter of its trained strength in favour of a quarter of new arrivals.  If you apply the principle of quarters then at any given time a unit could conceivably have (using CM experience nomenclature):
1/4 Conscript (new arrivals in their first six months of service). 1/4 Green soldiers with 6-12 months of service who will have completed at least one training cycle to include collective training up to divisional level. 1/2 Regular soldiers with 12-24 months of service who will have completed two training cycles to include collective training up to divisional level. Save your veteran ratings for a couple of selected leaders.

I'm sure the campaign author will chime in - can't remember who it was but I'm pretty sure they will confirm that the experience setting is a gameplay design mechanism rather than a reflection of Afghanistan experience or whatever.  Bearing in mind that the Soviet Army was mostly conscript, the majority of the unlucky non-commissioned troops that got sent there would have been discharged after their tours ... if they survived them of course.  Generally, there is certainly a case for more experienced soft ratings for some of the officers based on some going to Afghanistan at some point and the fact that career officers would receive more than adequate training during their careers. 
For those interested in scenario design, I would be looking in the range Conscript - Veteran for the Soviets.  There were two conscript intakes a year that would arrive at their units in Germany around November and May annually.   As the new soldiers arrived, the term expired ones would depart and discharge to the reserve.  This process averaged out as each unit losing about a quarter of its trained strength in favour of a quarter of new arrivals.  If you apply the principle of quarters then at any given time a unit could conceivably have (using CM experience nomenclature):
1/4 Conscript (new arrivals in their first six months of service). 1/4 Green soldiers with 6-12 months of service who will have completed at least one training cycle to include collective training up to divisional level. 1/2 Regular soldiers with 12-24 months of service who will have completed two training cycles to include collective training up to divisional level. Save your veteran ratings for a couple of selected leaders.

I'm sure the campaign author will chime in - can't remember who it was but I'm pretty sure they will confirm that the experience setting is a gameplay design mechanism rather than a reflection of Afghanistan experience or whatever.  Bearing in mind that the Soviet Army was mostly conscript, the majority of the unlucky non-commissioned troops that got sent there would have been discharged after their tours ... if they survived them of course.  Generally, there is certainly a case for more experienced soft ratings for some of the officers based on some going to Afghanistan at some point and the fact that career officers would receive more than adequate training during their careers. 
For those interested in scenario design, I would be looking in the range Conscript - Veteran for the Soviets.  There were two conscript intakes a year that would arrive at their units in Germany around November and May annually.   As the new soldiers arrived, the term expired ones would depart and discharge to the reserve.  This process averaged out as each unit losing about a quarter of its trained strength in favour of a quarter of new arrivals.  If you apply the principle of quarters then at any given time a unit could conceivably have (using CM experience nomenclature):
1/4 Conscript (new arrivals in their first six months of service). 1/4 Green soldiers with 6-12 months of service who will have completed at least one training cycle to include collective training up to divisional level. 1/2 Regular soldiers with 12-24 months of service who will have completed two training cycles to include collective training up to divisional level. Save your veteran ratings for a couple of selected leaders.

Which is wrong.

Vision, passion and research ... a great way to approach scenario design - you may not be the rank amateur you think you are my friend.

@pintere - Zitzewitz is mine.
The subject of 'best played as' recommendations caused some debate in the Beta Forum.  I will echo what @ASL Veteran said in his post because we were more or less on the same side of the debate.  In sum it boils down to 'some scenarios in which defeating an AI opponent is relatively easy to do' being subjective.  Some players are better than others, some players are a whizz at employing infantry, some at handling larger formations, some are ninjas with armour, some are excellent playing as Germans, some are excellent at playing Russians ... or whatever.
The Zitzewitz scenario, believe it or not, came about for some fairly unconnected reasons.
I wanted to get a scenario into this title. The scenario I started making for it in about 2016/17 was struggling to get properly tested because it was crashing the various Beta builds. I thought about doing something different and considered doing something revolving around a push into the weapons testing site at Peenemunde. My initial attempts at doing a reasonable representation of Peenemunde were also causing Beta crashes. So I just scrolled around Google Earth a bit to find a piece of ground that vaguely interested me on which I could set a scenario with an end of war feel in which the Red Army was mobile and facing a bunch of thrown together defenders.  As time was pressing, or so I thought when I started the journey, I wanted a decent-sized map that was fairly low-drag to make and Zitzewitz fitted the bill.  A quick bit of research pulled up the 1935 (I think) 1:100,000 map of the area and a bit of noodling around in street view and finding some old postcards gave me enough to make the map (see images).  That research also pulled up the fact that there was a Schloss there in 1945 and the story of Graf Wilhelm von Zitzewitz which gave me a bit of human interest to weave into the scenario narrative which is entirely fictional because there was in fact no battle for Zitzewitz in March 1945, the time frame in which the scenario is set in order to correspond with the dates that it was actually overrun by the Red Army.

 

All very well I hear you say but this isn't answering the question ... well in fact it is answering the question.  The point of the above is to illustrate that I never set out with any particular intent to make a scenario that was easy for one side or the other and it is why I am wary of making the 'best played as' recommendation as a designer.  It comes recommended as best played as Soviets because the Soviet player has more options than the German player; however, it you are a player that is vaguely competent, likes a challenge and loves defending then it quite clearly is best played as German ... see the dilemma about recommendations?  Beyond that I would be going into the realms of spoilers.
Bottom line is that you can always crack the scenario open for whichever side you feel you want to play it as and read the briefing and decide 'meh ... I don't want to play this.'

@pintere - Zitzewitz is mine.
The subject of 'best played as' recommendations caused some debate in the Beta Forum.  I will echo what @ASL Veteran said in his post because we were more or less on the same side of the debate.  In sum it boils down to 'some scenarios in which defeating an AI opponent is relatively easy to do' being subjective.  Some players are better than others, some players are a whizz at employing infantry, some at handling larger formations, some are ninjas with armour, some are excellent playing as Germans, some are excellent at playing Russians ... or whatever.
The Zitzewitz scenario, believe it or not, came about for some fairly unconnected reasons.
I wanted to get a scenario into this title. The scenario I started making for it in about 2016/17 was struggling to get properly tested because it was crashing the various Beta builds. I thought about doing something different and considered doing something revolving around a push into the weapons testing site at Peenemunde. My initial attempts at doing a reasonable representation of Peenemunde were also causing Beta crashes. So I just scrolled around Google Earth a bit to find a piece of ground that vaguely interested me on which I could set a scenario with an end of war feel in which the Red Army was mobile and facing a bunch of thrown together defenders.  As time was pressing, or so I thought when I started the journey, I wanted a decent-sized map that was fairly low-drag to make and Zitzewitz fitted the bill.  A quick bit of research pulled up the 1935 (I think) 1:100,000 map of the area and a bit of noodling around in street view and finding some old postcards gave me enough to make the map (see images).  That research also pulled up the fact that there was a Schloss there in 1945 and the story of Graf Wilhelm von Zitzewitz which gave me a bit of human interest to weave into the scenario narrative which is entirely fictional because there was in fact no battle for Zitzewitz in March 1945, the time frame in which the scenario is set in order to correspond with the dates that it was actually overrun by the Red Army.

 

All very well I hear you say but this isn't answering the question ... well in fact it is answering the question.  The point of the above is to illustrate that I never set out with any particular intent to make a scenario that was easy for one side or the other and it is why I am wary of making the 'best played as' recommendation as a designer.  It comes recommended as best played as Soviets because the Soviet player has more options than the German player; however, it you are a player that is vaguely competent, likes a challenge and loves defending then it quite clearly is best played as German ... see the dilemma about recommendations?  Beyond that I would be going into the realms of spoilers.
Bottom line is that you can always crack the scenario open for whichever side you feel you want to play it as and read the briefing and decide 'meh ... I don't want to play this.'