Combatintman

Some clearly love it but I'm not a fan to be honest so don't feel alone - give me armour and a lot of room to play around with and I'm as happy as a happy thing.

And probably breaks down at 7 minutes (insider British Army of that era joke ...)

Basically what @George MC says towards the latter end of this is perhaps the key piece.  To knock out a decent AI plan you have to have a fairly good appreciation of time and distance - eg, how long does it take for a dismounted unit to move from one end of the map to another, when is it likely/feasible for it to arrive at objective X etc etc.  Then you test the hell out of it and adjust as you go.  I rarely use triggers due to the combination of struggling to get them to work and because there is huge potential for them to have unintended consequences which then become a sh1t fight to unsnarl.  I'm actually in the early stages of an AI plan right now in between checking in on the forum.  To get to this stage, I've listed all of my AI groups and their individual components, drawn a scheme of manoeuvre for them and that scheme of manouevre graphic is now my Special Editor overlay.  I've painted out the full move sequence for half of the AI groups and am plugging away at the rest.  Next step will be to assign a couple of timings for those groups and then hit play in Scenario Editor mode.  I will then see what happens and firm up the move timings, adjust any that are wonky and add more move timings further down the orders sequence.  Then ... I'll test again, then I'll see what happens when I properly lay out the defender's forces.  Then I'll test again.
The image below is the scheme of manoeuvre - I've stripped out the underlying base map that it has been drawn on in order to avoid any spoilers ...

No problems for sharing - I make no claim to the scheme of manoeuvre as a special editor overlay idea though, I think folks like myself, @George MC, @benpark and @Pete Wenman sort of stumbled on variations of this idea at around the same time.  One thing is certain though - it makes punching your AI plans into the editor a whole lot easier and probably cuts the time taken for the process down by about 75%.

Basically what @George MC says towards the latter end of this is perhaps the key piece.  To knock out a decent AI plan you have to have a fairly good appreciation of time and distance - eg, how long does it take for a dismounted unit to move from one end of the map to another, when is it likely/feasible for it to arrive at objective X etc etc.  Then you test the hell out of it and adjust as you go.  I rarely use triggers due to the combination of struggling to get them to work and because there is huge potential for them to have unintended consequences which then become a sh1t fight to unsnarl.  I'm actually in the early stages of an AI plan right now in between checking in on the forum.  To get to this stage, I've listed all of my AI groups and their individual components, drawn a scheme of manoeuvre for them and that scheme of manouevre graphic is now my Special Editor overlay.  I've painted out the full move sequence for half of the AI groups and am plugging away at the rest.  Next step will be to assign a couple of timings for those groups and then hit play in Scenario Editor mode.  I will then see what happens and firm up the move timings, adjust any that are wonky and add more move timings further down the orders sequence.  Then ... I'll test again, then I'll see what happens when I properly lay out the defender's forces.  Then I'll test again.
The image below is the scheme of manoeuvre - I've stripped out the underlying base map that it has been drawn on in order to avoid any spoilers ...

Basically what @George MC says towards the latter end of this is perhaps the key piece.  To knock out a decent AI plan you have to have a fairly good appreciation of time and distance - eg, how long does it take for a dismounted unit to move from one end of the map to another, when is it likely/feasible for it to arrive at objective X etc etc.  Then you test the hell out of it and adjust as you go.  I rarely use triggers due to the combination of struggling to get them to work and because there is huge potential for them to have unintended consequences which then become a sh1t fight to unsnarl.  I'm actually in the early stages of an AI plan right now in between checking in on the forum.  To get to this stage, I've listed all of my AI groups and their individual components, drawn a scheme of manoeuvre for them and that scheme of manouevre graphic is now my Special Editor overlay.  I've painted out the full move sequence for half of the AI groups and am plugging away at the rest.  Next step will be to assign a couple of timings for those groups and then hit play in Scenario Editor mode.  I will then see what happens and firm up the move timings, adjust any that are wonky and add more move timings further down the orders sequence.  Then ... I'll test again, then I'll see what happens when I properly lay out the defender's forces.  Then I'll test again.
The image below is the scheme of manoeuvre - I've stripped out the underlying base map that it has been drawn on in order to avoid any spoilers ...

@NamEndedAllen - glad you found the tutorial useful.  I don't have blank examples of the tools, if ever I plan something I create stuff as I go.  The example you linked to I think I knocked up on a PowerPoint slide.  As with all of these things, tools can be useful but I often found in my military career that some of them actually constrained me.  I'd start off with the things that you feel are important to be recorded, either because it is the type of information that you easily forget (for me it is anything associated with numbers), or is important because it is key to the mission/plan.  Once you know all of that you can then knock an aid or a series of aids to record that data.

Great video mate - I rarely get further than 5 minutes into these but yours drew me in with a succinct explanation of the ground, objectives and plan.  You followed up during execute with some great vignettes of the battle which were easy to place within the overall situation and some great cinematography.  All in under half an hour - definitely one of the best video AARs I've seen - have a like.

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.

Commanders essentially do two things - they lead and make decisions. CCIRs are designed to allow them to make informed decisions and are recommended to the commander by the various elements of the staff. The commander then amends and approves as necessary. They should be things that the commander MUST know in order to successfully execute the plan. CCIRs are comprised of three elements:
FFIRs (Friendly Force Information Requirements). These, predictably are focussed on the friendly force and possibly elements of the ground. They might be something like 'combat effectiveness of A Coy dropping below 80%' or 'the loss of a bridging asset' or, in this instance 'status of bridges'. These will drive the friendly course of action.
PIRs (Priority Intelligence Requirements). These are generally either enemy or terrain focussed, are usually linked to NAIs (Named Areas of Interest) and should reflect activities by the enemy which confirm or deny a particular course of action. They could be something like 'report armour in NAI 1' or 'identify obstacle belt IVO NAI 2'. These should drive the collection/reconnaissance plan.
EEFIs (Essential Elements of Friendly Information). These are things that you want to protect from the enemy's intelligence collectors and will typically be something like 'location of the Battlegroup Reserve'. These will drive the counter reconnaissance and deception plan.
So, just because something is mentioned as a CCIR, it does not mean that it is guaranteed to happen, it just means that if it happens, the commander absolutely MUST know about it.
Implementation in the game is a variable and is dependant on the scenario designer but in some cases VPs can be allocated to support CCIRs. The simplest example of this is the 'Spot' unit objective type. I don't own this title so I can't comment on how this designer has implemented the CCIRs, I suspect they might be a mechanism to give you a clue as to what to expect but without seeing the mission brief this is pure speculation.

Hi @Butschi - I keep looking at this thread and thinking ... must help - but have been a bit overwhelmed by RL stuff.  This is a shorter answer than I'd have liked but something's better than nothing.
First up, your MRR does have four battalions but once you task organize them by giving a tank company from the regiment's tank battalion to each of the three motor rifle battalions you end up with three manoeuvre elements.  Advancing three-up with all three of your battalions would; therefore, be extremely unusual. 
There's no mention of reconnaissance elements in the scheme of manoeuvre - if the finished campaign thing is going to do the whole regiment's advance, rather than just the southern axis you have scope for a series of recce battles employing elements of the divisional reconnaissance battalion and the regimental reconnaissance company.  In fact, even if you only stick with the southern axis you can still have some reconnaissance battles using those elements.
I absolutely wouldn't stretch your narrative to include T-80s in the ORBAT of a Cat III division.  This type of division would be rounded out by reservists who had probably finished their conscription period years and years before - it would be hard enough for them just to recall their skills and drills on the equipment they had used during their service, let alone learn to operate a newer piece of equipment.  Not only that, even Cat I divisions were not fully equipped with T-80 by 1980.  We don't seem to know what 50 GMRD was equipped with in 1980 but we know it had T-62, BMP-1, BTR-60 and BTR-70 in 1985.  I would suggest that in 1980, 69 GTR would have had T-62 and BMP-1, while the three MRRs would have had T-55 and BTR-60.  You can see how far down the food chain it was by looking at its artillery allocation in 1985, the 152mm D-1 which is a towed gun dating back to WW2. 
Regarding the US - I can't give a huge amount of detail but you'll see that the US 5th Division of which 256 Brigade was a part only had 3 tank battalions and 3 mechanized infantry battalions in 1978 - it was therefore massively understrength and I doubt that situation would have rectified itself much before 1980.  Link below, Table 35, page 38 refers:
Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades (army.mil)
I hope this helps.

I seem to trot these out fairly regularly in other similar discussions:
My Ap Bac Scenario graphics for the Heaven and Earth mod.  All done with Powerpoint and Paint:
Strategic Map

Operational Map

Tactical Map

Now I admit that the black and white 'aerial reconnaissance' photography isn't great but on both the tactical and operational graphics I was looking to create that 1960s feel so on the 'imagery' the image tints were similar to 1960s aerial images and the annotation style and fonts were similar.  Likewise for the Mission and Tasks statements on the operational map - 1960s-style fonts were used.

You need to adjust the enemy VPs to compensate for it.  Let's assume in this instance that the player is Allied.  The Axis AI player needs to start with some points to make the Allied player work for their victory or whatever threshold you have determined for the player progressing to the next mission.  For the sake of simplicity let's say there is only one Allied objective which is the Occupy objective they're sat on and that it is worth 100 VPs and that to advance to the next mission the Allied player needs a draw or above.  The Axis side therefore needs about 130 VPs at the start which would give that side a minor victory on a turn one surrender.  The way I generally do this is to use the friendly force casualty parameter.  Again in this simple example, set it at 130 VPs but with an Axis friendly force parameter (number of casualties suffered) at a percentage that you know from your testing that the Axis Force will suffer at about the half way point in the scenario.  Again keeping this simple - let's say the Axis force has 100 soldiers and you know that the Axis consistently loses 30 of them by the half way point.  Set the parameter at 130 VPs for 30%. 
Obviously more complex if you've got a whole mix of parameter, unit and terrain objectives but testing will solve the problem along with @Ithikial_AU's excellent VP calculator.  There are other ways to crack this nut of course, but friendly force parameters are usually my go-to solution for this dilemma.

Horses for courses mate - if that's your thing then fine but there's a whole bunch of other folks who play this game because of its attention to detail and accuracy and complain volubly when those standards aren't met.  C2 is one of those important game mechanics that works better and more realistically when you've got the TO&E right.

@The_Capt - a British one would be more appropriate:

Ok so this was the Falklands but the right era at least ... the bootneck with the moustache front left of the photo was a mate of my father's and was in the original NP 8901 and was one of the three who evaded capture for a few days after the original Argentine landings.  He, like the rest of NP 8901 returned with the Task Force.  Liked to drop his trousers in the pub to urinate off WW2 veterans who claimed that post WW2 conflicts "weren't real wars."  He got shot in Borneo in 1966 during Confrontation and had the hole in his leg to prove it.

Stop being so damned obstinate - no one but you thinks the FO thing is a bug which should have been a sufficiently obvious combat indicator that you not getting a new FO after the original got killed is the game functioning as it should.  Added to that we have confirmation from @George MC the campaign designer that there are no reinforcements and limited refits due to the short 72 hour span of the campaign, which by the way is entirely realistic.  Campaigns work on a pretty simple premise, which is that you get given a bunch of forces at the start and you have to achieve your missions with that core force.  Any casualties to that force mean that subsequent missions get harder.  In this instance, you took casualties in an early mission and your subsequent missions are now harder.  This was a point helpfully reinforced by George in his campaign briefing.  Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Hi @Butschi - I keep looking at this thread and thinking ... must help - but have been a bit overwhelmed by RL stuff.  This is a shorter answer than I'd have liked but something's better than nothing.
First up, your MRR does have four battalions but once you task organize them by giving a tank company from the regiment's tank battalion to each of the three motor rifle battalions you end up with three manoeuvre elements.  Advancing three-up with all three of your battalions would; therefore, be extremely unusual. 
There's no mention of reconnaissance elements in the scheme of manoeuvre - if the finished campaign thing is going to do the whole regiment's advance, rather than just the southern axis you have scope for a series of recce battles employing elements of the divisional reconnaissance battalion and the regimental reconnaissance company.  In fact, even if you only stick with the southern axis you can still have some reconnaissance battles using those elements.
I absolutely wouldn't stretch your narrative to include T-80s in the ORBAT of a Cat III division.  This type of division would be rounded out by reservists who had probably finished their conscription period years and years before - it would be hard enough for them just to recall their skills and drills on the equipment they had used during their service, let alone learn to operate a newer piece of equipment.  Not only that, even Cat I divisions were not fully equipped with T-80 by 1980.  We don't seem to know what 50 GMRD was equipped with in 1980 but we know it had T-62, BMP-1, BTR-60 and BTR-70 in 1985.  I would suggest that in 1980, 69 GTR would have had T-62 and BMP-1, while the three MRRs would have had T-55 and BTR-60.  You can see how far down the food chain it was by looking at its artillery allocation in 1985, the 152mm D-1 which is a towed gun dating back to WW2. 
Regarding the US - I can't give a huge amount of detail but you'll see that the US 5th Division of which 256 Brigade was a part only had 3 tank battalions and 3 mechanized infantry battalions in 1978 - it was therefore massively understrength and I doubt that situation would have rectified itself much before 1980.  Link below, Table 35, page 38 refers:
Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades (army.mil)
I hope this helps.

Stop being so damned obstinate - no one but you thinks the FO thing is a bug which should have been a sufficiently obvious combat indicator that you not getting a new FO after the original got killed is the game functioning as it should.  Added to that we have confirmation from @George MC the campaign designer that there are no reinforcements and limited refits due to the short 72 hour span of the campaign, which by the way is entirely realistic.  Campaigns work on a pretty simple premise, which is that you get given a bunch of forces at the start and you have to achieve your missions with that core force.  Any casualties to that force mean that subsequent missions get harder.  In this instance, you took casualties in an early mission and your subsequent missions are now harder.  This was a point helpfully reinforced by George in his campaign briefing.  Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Stop being so damned obstinate - no one but you thinks the FO thing is a bug which should have been a sufficiently obvious combat indicator that you not getting a new FO after the original got killed is the game functioning as it should.  Added to that we have confirmation from @George MC the campaign designer that there are no reinforcements and limited refits due to the short 72 hour span of the campaign, which by the way is entirely realistic.  Campaigns work on a pretty simple premise, which is that you get given a bunch of forces at the start and you have to achieve your missions with that core force.  Any casualties to that force mean that subsequent missions get harder.  In this instance, you took casualties in an early mission and your subsequent missions are now harder.  This was a point helpfully reinforced by George in his campaign briefing.  Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Hi @Butschi - I keep looking at this thread and thinking ... must help - but have been a bit overwhelmed by RL stuff.  This is a shorter answer than I'd have liked but something's better than nothing.
First up, your MRR does have four battalions but once you task organize them by giving a tank company from the regiment's tank battalion to each of the three motor rifle battalions you end up with three manoeuvre elements.  Advancing three-up with all three of your battalions would; therefore, be extremely unusual. 
There's no mention of reconnaissance elements in the scheme of manoeuvre - if the finished campaign thing is going to do the whole regiment's advance, rather than just the southern axis you have scope for a series of recce battles employing elements of the divisional reconnaissance battalion and the regimental reconnaissance company.  In fact, even if you only stick with the southern axis you can still have some reconnaissance battles using those elements.
I absolutely wouldn't stretch your narrative to include T-80s in the ORBAT of a Cat III division.  This type of division would be rounded out by reservists who had probably finished their conscription period years and years before - it would be hard enough for them just to recall their skills and drills on the equipment they had used during their service, let alone learn to operate a newer piece of equipment.  Not only that, even Cat I divisions were not fully equipped with T-80 by 1980.  We don't seem to know what 50 GMRD was equipped with in 1980 but we know it had T-62, BMP-1, BTR-60 and BTR-70 in 1985.  I would suggest that in 1980, 69 GTR would have had T-62 and BMP-1, while the three MRRs would have had T-55 and BTR-60.  You can see how far down the food chain it was by looking at its artillery allocation in 1985, the 152mm D-1 which is a towed gun dating back to WW2. 
Regarding the US - I can't give a huge amount of detail but you'll see that the US 5th Division of which 256 Brigade was a part only had 3 tank battalions and 3 mechanized infantry battalions in 1978 - it was therefore massively understrength and I doubt that situation would have rectified itself much before 1980.  Link below, Table 35, page 38 refers:
Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades (army.mil)
I hope this helps.

Hi @Butschi - I keep looking at this thread and thinking ... must help - but have been a bit overwhelmed by RL stuff.  This is a shorter answer than I'd have liked but something's better than nothing.
First up, your MRR does have four battalions but once you task organize them by giving a tank company from the regiment's tank battalion to each of the three motor rifle battalions you end up with three manoeuvre elements.  Advancing three-up with all three of your battalions would; therefore, be extremely unusual. 
There's no mention of reconnaissance elements in the scheme of manoeuvre - if the finished campaign thing is going to do the whole regiment's advance, rather than just the southern axis you have scope for a series of recce battles employing elements of the divisional reconnaissance battalion and the regimental reconnaissance company.  In fact, even if you only stick with the southern axis you can still have some reconnaissance battles using those elements.
I absolutely wouldn't stretch your narrative to include T-80s in the ORBAT of a Cat III division.  This type of division would be rounded out by reservists who had probably finished their conscription period years and years before - it would be hard enough for them just to recall their skills and drills on the equipment they had used during their service, let alone learn to operate a newer piece of equipment.  Not only that, even Cat I divisions were not fully equipped with T-80 by 1980.  We don't seem to know what 50 GMRD was equipped with in 1980 but we know it had T-62, BMP-1, BTR-60 and BTR-70 in 1985.  I would suggest that in 1980, 69 GTR would have had T-62 and BMP-1, while the three MRRs would have had T-55 and BTR-60.  You can see how far down the food chain it was by looking at its artillery allocation in 1985, the 152mm D-1 which is a towed gun dating back to WW2. 
Regarding the US - I can't give a huge amount of detail but you'll see that the US 5th Division of which 256 Brigade was a part only had 3 tank battalions and 3 mechanized infantry battalions in 1978 - it was therefore massively understrength and I doubt that situation would have rectified itself much before 1980.  Link below, Table 35, page 38 refers:
Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades (army.mil)
I hope this helps.

Stop being so damned obstinate - no one but you thinks the FO thing is a bug which should have been a sufficiently obvious combat indicator that you not getting a new FO after the original got killed is the game functioning as it should.  Added to that we have confirmation from @George MC the campaign designer that there are no reinforcements and limited refits due to the short 72 hour span of the campaign, which by the way is entirely realistic.  Campaigns work on a pretty simple premise, which is that you get given a bunch of forces at the start and you have to achieve your missions with that core force.  Any casualties to that force mean that subsequent missions get harder.  In this instance, you took casualties in an early mission and your subsequent missions are now harder.  This was a point helpfully reinforced by George in his campaign briefing.  Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Stop being so damned obstinate - no one but you thinks the FO thing is a bug which should have been a sufficiently obvious combat indicator that you not getting a new FO after the original got killed is the game functioning as it should.  Added to that we have confirmation from @George MC the campaign designer that there are no reinforcements and limited refits due to the short 72 hour span of the campaign, which by the way is entirely realistic.  Campaigns work on a pretty simple premise, which is that you get given a bunch of forces at the start and you have to achieve your missions with that core force.  Any casualties to that force mean that subsequent missions get harder.  In this instance, you took casualties in an early mission and your subsequent missions are now harder.  This was a point helpfully reinforced by George in his campaign briefing.  Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Yes, that's essentially the so-called "issue."

The FO thing is not a bug, despite your insistence that it is.  You got him killed and the campaign script hasn't allowed for him to be replaced - take it up with the campaign designer rather than bumping your gums that it is a bug.  FOs were not two a penny in WW2 and took a long time to train so it is entirely plausible that for the duration of the campaign, there is insufficient time to identify a battle casualty replacement and bring them forward.
I offer no comment on the half-track thing other than it does seem counterintuitive for a vehicle to show up at the start of every battle after its crew has been killed.