Combatintman

But embrace the finished ones:

I would rotate that map - you will struggle to recreate the quays at the harbour if they're at an angle.  Rotating it something along the lines below will help:

 
Also if this is your first attempt at making a map in CM using a real map overlay then this is an ambitious way to start.  I've been making maps for years and I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole because:
No matter how you rotate the map, you have lots of compromises to make due to the overall flow of the roads and railways. The map is huge if I'm interpreting the grids correctly and this is a 3 x 3km map. There is a combination of roads, buildings and closely spaced contours on the north of the harbour inlet which even the best map makers will struggle to get to look right in 3D and will also cause issues for building entry by dismounted troops due to entrances and windows sinking into the terrain. I'm assuming that the coastline north of the harbour inlet is a cliff facing the sea - again these often don't look great in 3D in CM. The 3x3 size of the map; the extent of the urban area, which is about a quarter of the map; and, sharp elevation changes in this map could cause a CTD when you try and load it as these are all things that will stress your computer. I don't want to put you off but I would also hate to see you spend a month on this map lovingly getting everything just right and then end up with something that CTDs and you finding that you have wasted a lot of precious time.  Why ... it happened to me with a map of Kham Duc I was trying to create for @37mm's Heaven and Earth mod for Shock Force 2.  Although that map didn't have much in the way of buildings, it had a whole bunch of steep elevation changes.  I can't recall the size of it, I think it started at about 2.5km x 2.5km but even after cropping it and softening some of the elevations, I could never get it to load in 3D.
Also, even if you don't run into this problem with the map - once you add units, AI plans, briefings and briefing graphics the file size increases and if you're lucky and the game doesn't crash, you could end up with low frame rates during game play.
Go ahead by all means and I wish you the best of luck ... but don't say I didn't warn you ...

To be fair I've seen threads here as random as those.

To be fair I've seen threads here as random as those.

Except that wasn't 'all' you 'mentioned'  You also said you were waiting for a bug update which presumably means a patch.  The game has been patched so your comment, if 'bug update' = patch is false which is harmful to the title's reputation and; therefore, toxic.

I told you to keep hold of the grab handles ...

 

It is exactly what happened at the back end of the Cold War - every exercise I did between 87 and 89 with the UK's 2nd Infantry Division had III (US) Corps "saving our limey @r$e$".  There's' a paper about Field Marshal Bagnall's  thinking and reforms which led to a rethink of how 1 (BR) Corps would fight its battle and, when he became Commander NORTHAG, enacted similar reforms on a wider scale.  This in turn led to a persuasive argument which would see some REFORGER assets being assigned to NORTHAG rather than CENTAG.
The paper is sat on my hard drive - it is called Deterrence and the defence of Central Europe : the British role from the early 1980s to the end of the Gulf War.  I've attached it below if you can't find it online - a good read once you've finished @Jim Storr's book.
 
Bagnall Analysis.pdf

It is exactly what happened at the back end of the Cold War - every exercise I did between 87 and 89 with the UK's 2nd Infantry Division had III (US) Corps "saving our limey @r$e$".  There's' a paper about Field Marshal Bagnall's  thinking and reforms which led to a rethink of how 1 (BR) Corps would fight its battle and, when he became Commander NORTHAG, enacted similar reforms on a wider scale.  This in turn led to a persuasive argument which would see some REFORGER assets being assigned to NORTHAG rather than CENTAG.
The paper is sat on my hard drive - it is called Deterrence and the defence of Central Europe : the British role from the early 1980s to the end of the Gulf War.  I've attached it below if you can't find it online - a good read once you've finished @Jim Storr's book.
 
Bagnall Analysis.pdf

It is exactly what happened at the back end of the Cold War - every exercise I did between 87 and 89 with the UK's 2nd Infantry Division had III (US) Corps "saving our limey @r$e$".  There's' a paper about Field Marshal Bagnall's  thinking and reforms which led to a rethink of how 1 (BR) Corps would fight its battle and, when he became Commander NORTHAG, enacted similar reforms on a wider scale.  This in turn led to a persuasive argument which would see some REFORGER assets being assigned to NORTHAG rather than CENTAG.
The paper is sat on my hard drive - it is called Deterrence and the defence of Central Europe : the British role from the early 1980s to the end of the Gulf War.  I've attached it below if you can't find it online - a good read once you've finished @Jim Storr's book.
 
Bagnall Analysis.pdf

It is exactly what happened at the back end of the Cold War - every exercise I did between 87 and 89 with the UK's 2nd Infantry Division had III (US) Corps "saving our limey @r$e$".  There's' a paper about Field Marshal Bagnall's  thinking and reforms which led to a rethink of how 1 (BR) Corps would fight its battle and, when he became Commander NORTHAG, enacted similar reforms on a wider scale.  This in turn led to a persuasive argument which would see some REFORGER assets being assigned to NORTHAG rather than CENTAG.
The paper is sat on my hard drive - it is called Deterrence and the defence of Central Europe : the British role from the early 1980s to the end of the Gulf War.  I've attached it below if you can't find it online - a good read once you've finished @Jim Storr's book.
 
Bagnall Analysis.pdf

Same here about the numbers - 3 Shock Army was certainly not the behemoth in the 1970s that it came closer to being in the 80s and I used to bang on about in threat briefs.  A troops to task analysis for the 70s clearly shows it was hugely under resourced and I doubt it could have achieved the oft quoted 3 to 1 ratio required in the 1(BR) Corps AO or in the 1 (GE) Corps AO for that matter.  Massive surprise when I found that out.

The higher the civilian density setting, the more difficult it is to spot Uncons is how it is explained in the manual.  The whole concept is an abstraction so nobody apart from Battlefront will know the exact details of how it all works.  I personally haven't tested the nuances of the different settings but they seem to behave as intended based on the absence of threads saying that there's a problem with the mechanics of it.  Similarly I haven't tested whether a 'move' order versus a 'quick' order makes them any more spottable.  The manual, from memory, has a one liner along the lines 'suspicious behavior will make Uncons easier to spot' which is a pretty sweeping statement.  There is no reason why Uncon modelling in player vs AI or H2H modes should be any different.  Again there are quite a few folks here who play both modes and an absence of complaints about Uncons seem to indicate that the mechanics are working as intended.

That's a tasty briefing screen there - very immersive.

Nope.  True in terms of the platform but not the crewing for most of the Cold War until the introduction of the CVR series in the mid-70s.  From then CVR(W) Fox was designed to operate with the mostly light role (Type A and Type B Battalions) UK-based Field Forces/Brigades and their two counterparts in Germany.  The four armoured divisional reconnaissance regiments fielded CVR(T) Scorpion and battlegroups either had their own organic recce platoons/troops with CVR(T) Scimitar or were allocated those elements from the formation reconnaissance regiment when these were regrouped under the latter following the 1975 Defence White Paper from about 1976-1981.   CVR(W) Fox was a divisional asset when 2 Armoured Division moved to the UK and became 2 Infantry Division in 1982/1983.  So from this point forwards your statement is partially correct with one of the four divisions fielding wheeled recce assets for larger scale reconnaissance.

I know a few ex-BRIXMIS types, part of their training used to take place at my depot and I used to monitor SOXMIS, their Soviet equivalent who got up to similar shenanigans - I think Tony Geraghty's book, if that's the one you're referring to, is pretty representative of what went on.

Nope.  True in terms of the platform but not the crewing for most of the Cold War until the introduction of the CVR series in the mid-70s.  From then CVR(W) Fox was designed to operate with the mostly light role (Type A and Type B Battalions) UK-based Field Forces/Brigades and their two counterparts in Germany.  The four armoured divisional reconnaissance regiments fielded CVR(T) Scorpion and battlegroups either had their own organic recce platoons/troops with CVR(T) Scimitar or were allocated those elements from the formation reconnaissance regiment when these were regrouped under the latter following the 1975 Defence White Paper from about 1976-1981.   CVR(W) Fox was a divisional asset when 2 Armoured Division moved to the UK and became 2 Infantry Division in 1982/1983.  So from this point forwards your statement is partially correct with one of the four divisions fielding wheeled recce assets for larger scale reconnaissance.

Except that wasn't 'all' you 'mentioned'  You also said you were waiting for a bug update which presumably means a patch.  The game has been patched so your comment, if 'bug update' = patch is false which is harmful to the title's reputation and; therefore, toxic.

Except that wasn't 'all' you 'mentioned'  You also said you were waiting for a bug update which presumably means a patch.  The game has been patched so your comment, if 'bug update' = patch is false which is harmful to the title's reputation and; therefore, toxic.

Except that wasn't 'all' you 'mentioned'  You also said you were waiting for a bug update which presumably means a patch.  The game has been patched so your comment, if 'bug update' = patch is false which is harmful to the title's reputation and; therefore, toxic.

Except that wasn't 'all' you 'mentioned'  You also said you were waiting for a bug update which presumably means a patch.  The game has been patched so your comment, if 'bug update' = patch is false which is harmful to the title's reputation and; therefore, toxic.

Except that wasn't 'all' you 'mentioned'  You also said you were waiting for a bug update which presumably means a patch.  The game has been patched so your comment, if 'bug update' = patch is false which is harmful to the title's reputation and; therefore, toxic.

This is the Xmas scenario thread not the New Year scenario thread 

I'm no expert but as far as I can remember, hiding troops have a peek around occasionally. When they're not taking a peek then their LOS is limited, from what I've read from various people here, they will hide their observers until they know the spotting rounds are due to arrive and then unhide them during the spotting process and until they get Fire for Effect. Once FFE has been called, the spotter no longer needs visibility onto the target for the rounds to land where they should so you can safely hide the observer again unless you want to conduct battle damage assessment.

I can tell you for free that 'designed with the idea of humans playing vs humans' is a false assumption.  The rule for bundled scenarios is that they can be played in all modes although exceptions to that rule were made for CMCW in relation to the Soviet Tactical Doctrine primer scenarios and a couple of others in that title.  None of those exceptions include H2H only.  There was no direction given to any of the scenario designers to optimise their scenarios for H2H for any title I've been involved with (CMSF-1 &2, CMRT, CMFB, CMFR, CMCW).
The challenge of following the rule, particularly when making a scenario based on a real action, is that the scenario has to be winnable by both sides in all three modes.  The get out clause is the one-liner in the 'Load New Game' screen where you can say 'best played as (insert side).'  Designing H2H is even more variable:
How do you know how skilled every single player is who buys the title? Which of those players is going to take Blue/Allied in your scenario? Which of those players is going to take Red/Axis in your scenario? Is one of those players going to play to their skill level or just have a bad day? Is one of those players going to have a good day and play above their skill level? Steve from Battlefront posted some time back that the data/feedback he has indicates that most people play the title in Human vs AI mode.  This would likely explain why the rule of playable in all three modes was introduced.  It also reinforces the point that your assumption is not well-founded.
Nonetheless, designing for all three possible combinations is achievable but it generally involves employing most of the victory point combinations, asymmetric objectives and time limits.  Achievable of course does not necessarily mean that your scenario is awesome in all three play modes.  It should be in one of the three and if you can do it in two, then so much the better.  If you can do it in all three then your name is @George MC
Linking the above to your point that designers 'boost' defenders with 'tons of points' - that is correct in many instances.  I 'boost' one side or the other or both sides with victory points in order to achieve the effect I intend.  As an example, to avoid a turn one cease fire resulting in a victory for a defending force that typically occupies all of the high victory point objectives that the attacking player needs to capture I will 'boost' the attacker by giving that side the equivalent number of victory points for friendly casualties at a threshold that will only be achieved by the defender's actions half way through the battle (ballpark figure for illustration would be 20% casualties).  The turn one ceasefire would; therefore, result in a draw.  The intent here is to make both sides commit to the scenario and play it through.  If both sides commit then the attacker will not get those victory points and is not intended to.  You confirm these thresholds by testing and adjusting as necessary if that 20% (or whatever) threshold is achieved too early.  Some of those 'boosts'; therefore, are never intended to take effect if the scenario is played with good intent by both sides through to its time limit or to a point where one player or the other genuinely elects to cease fire.

The NORTHAG Centre of Gravity was said to be the Minden Gap and the crossing over the River Weser at Bad Oeynhausen which was pretty much on the 1 (GE) Corps and 1 (BR) Corps boundary.  Either of the two corps could have been on the wrong end of the GSFG/WGF main effort but I suspect the Germans would have got more of the good news from the Soviets than the Brits mainly because of where the 2nd operational echelon (20 GA) was located (NE of Berlin).