Combatintman

@waffelmann - drawing attention to it makes it worse 😏 - don't sweat it.

There are a number of aspects to this which I probably won't cover off entirely but here goes ...
In the early CMx2 days, a lot of people complained vociferously and frequently usually in threads called 'Extra Time for Scenarios' about early AI surrenders along similar lines to your original post i.e., 'I'd tee'd up the perfect plan to nail the enemy only to have the scenario end' - or as you put it ...
"Well I was all lined up for the final strike on the German Tigers. Been getting everyone in position for over 10 minutes."
It took people a while to work out that if you added a few extra units that the player never saw, you could create a scenario that would allow the player to execute their 'perfect' plan.  That is one of the reasons that the trick is widely used by scenario designers.
From a design point of view, I admit it probably isn't perfect and maybe the game should take into account other factors such as objectives held or the morale state of the opposition, although of course with the latter - that only becomes apparent at end game and still leads to the frustration at not being able to execute the 'perfect' plan.  Having a morale dimension would also completely kill certain scenarios at birth - my Ap Bac Scenario for the Heaven and Earth module absolutely would not work if morale played strongly into the equation as about 70% of the total ARVN force have shocking motivational and leadership factors.
Conversely to early surrenders, players don't like schlepping across the map for half an hour having knocked over the enemy and secured all of the objectives at the end of a mission to root out a single unit in a tactically insignificant location, and slot it, in order to achieve a victory.
FWIW, my scenario design philosophy has always been about the narrative and I am mindful of the fact that anybody who elects to download and play a scenario is making a choice.  This means you have to accept that it is transactional between player and designer and ultimately you have to try as best as you can to satisfy player needs.
That means your narrative and design concept has to either hit, or balance some quite often divergent factors and of course no scenario is ever going to tick everyone's boxes, but the closer you get to achieving that aim the better.  As a simple example of this - if I call a scenario 'the Battle of Waterloo' then it ought to include things like La Haye Sainte, an allied defending force, a French attacking force and some Germans rolling up late on in the game because that is what the player is expecting.  I would also do my best within the editor to make sure that the map and forces resemble the real thing as well as ensuring that the moving parts in the AI plan bear some resemblance to real events.  If I fail to do this adequately, the transaction between designer and player fails because the player is expecting to refight Waterloo.  Similarly, if I call a mission (or have as its premise) 'Platoon attack' I would design that mission so that the player gets to execute a platoon attack and can actually culminate that attack.  This means that the enemy doesn't surrender when it loses a handful of soldiers.
Since I learned the 'reinforcements that never arrive' trick I have found that it gives me more control over achieving my scenario narratives.  It certainly isn't the only trick by the way but it is one that I consistently use with what I would like to think are fairly successful results.
The transactional piece for me looks vaguely like this:
Players want to win. Players want to feel challenged. Players want to feel that they are a commander in a realistic environment. CM players expect scenarios modelled on real engagements to bear some resemblance to them. To achieve that, you give them the tools in terms of time, forces available to them (e.g., sappers if there are minefields), clear mission command-style orders, a strong narrative, a realistic setting and you set the objectives/VPs accordingly.
It is usually the latter that is the most nuanced mainly because objectives and VPs are how victory is judged and what the victory-focused player will therefore judge the outcome.  It is also nuanced in terms of surrender points - I'm happy that the AI will trigger a surrender at the point where the player has closed in on the last objective but will make absolutely sure that it doesn't happen before that because the player rightfully feels cheated.  The same is true of unit objectives of any description - you can't give a player the goal of 'destroying all the Tigers' and then have the AI surrender before the player has even seen them.
Your comment about reaching the point where you'd expect them to surrender is absolutely valid but is subjective - some will call a scenario/surrender unrealistic if it doesn't happen at the point at which the force suffers 30% casualties - CM has it modelled at around 60% - yet this didn't seem right to you based on the fact that some gucci armour was on the map in the engagement you were fighting.  There is a lot of truth in what @sburkesaid - you only know you were 'cheated' after the scenario ended and to a large extent are judging based on that godlike information given to you at ceasefire.  I recall testing one of @George MC's scenarios recently and had got to a point in the scenario where I thought - "I'm not getting anywhere here, I'll hit surrender and see if I can edge a win," - an excellent example of how friction and the essence of manouevre warfare works - shattering the enemy's will (or in this instance mine) had come into play.  As it happens, I thought - "I'm testing this scenario so I should play it through in order to give the best feedback" and about three turns later I got the sense that the enemy had culminated and that I could actually continue with a reasonable chance of achieving the set objectives.  About five turns later, the enemy surrendered.  In short - a brilliant example of scenario design which ticked most of the transactional boxes for me.
To conclude - balancing these factors and explaining it in the narrative to manage the player's expectations and then testing the scenario to make sure that the thing works is key to the whole scenario design piece.  Adding a few extra dudes that the player doesn't see to stave off the early surrender is a proven and effective tool that people use to best deliver a 'really good scenario which I recommend' comment versus 'the AI surrendered early' comment.  Not perfect of course and it would be better if the designer could control the ratios and maybe use a combination of tools.

There are a number of aspects to this which I probably won't cover off entirely but here goes ...
In the early CMx2 days, a lot of people complained vociferously and frequently usually in threads called 'Extra Time for Scenarios' about early AI surrenders along similar lines to your original post i.e., 'I'd tee'd up the perfect plan to nail the enemy only to have the scenario end' - or as you put it ...
"Well I was all lined up for the final strike on the German Tigers. Been getting everyone in position for over 10 minutes."
It took people a while to work out that if you added a few extra units that the player never saw, you could create a scenario that would allow the player to execute their 'perfect' plan.  That is one of the reasons that the trick is widely used by scenario designers.
From a design point of view, I admit it probably isn't perfect and maybe the game should take into account other factors such as objectives held or the morale state of the opposition, although of course with the latter - that only becomes apparent at end game and still leads to the frustration at not being able to execute the 'perfect' plan.  Having a morale dimension would also completely kill certain scenarios at birth - my Ap Bac Scenario for the Heaven and Earth module absolutely would not work if morale played strongly into the equation as about 70% of the total ARVN force have shocking motivational and leadership factors.
Conversely to early surrenders, players don't like schlepping across the map for half an hour having knocked over the enemy and secured all of the objectives at the end of a mission to root out a single unit in a tactically insignificant location, and slot it, in order to achieve a victory.
FWIW, my scenario design philosophy has always been about the narrative and I am mindful of the fact that anybody who elects to download and play a scenario is making a choice.  This means you have to accept that it is transactional between player and designer and ultimately you have to try as best as you can to satisfy player needs.
That means your narrative and design concept has to either hit, or balance some quite often divergent factors and of course no scenario is ever going to tick everyone's boxes, but the closer you get to achieving that aim the better.  As a simple example of this - if I call a scenario 'the Battle of Waterloo' then it ought to include things like La Haye Sainte, an allied defending force, a French attacking force and some Germans rolling up late on in the game because that is what the player is expecting.  I would also do my best within the editor to make sure that the map and forces resemble the real thing as well as ensuring that the moving parts in the AI plan bear some resemblance to real events.  If I fail to do this adequately, the transaction between designer and player fails because the player is expecting to refight Waterloo.  Similarly, if I call a mission (or have as its premise) 'Platoon attack' I would design that mission so that the player gets to execute a platoon attack and can actually culminate that attack.  This means that the enemy doesn't surrender when it loses a handful of soldiers.
Since I learned the 'reinforcements that never arrive' trick I have found that it gives me more control over achieving my scenario narratives.  It certainly isn't the only trick by the way but it is one that I consistently use with what I would like to think are fairly successful results.
The transactional piece for me looks vaguely like this:
Players want to win. Players want to feel challenged. Players want to feel that they are a commander in a realistic environment. CM players expect scenarios modelled on real engagements to bear some resemblance to them. To achieve that, you give them the tools in terms of time, forces available to them (e.g., sappers if there are minefields), clear mission command-style orders, a strong narrative, a realistic setting and you set the objectives/VPs accordingly.
It is usually the latter that is the most nuanced mainly because objectives and VPs are how victory is judged and what the victory-focused player will therefore judge the outcome.  It is also nuanced in terms of surrender points - I'm happy that the AI will trigger a surrender at the point where the player has closed in on the last objective but will make absolutely sure that it doesn't happen before that because the player rightfully feels cheated.  The same is true of unit objectives of any description - you can't give a player the goal of 'destroying all the Tigers' and then have the AI surrender before the player has even seen them.
Your comment about reaching the point where you'd expect them to surrender is absolutely valid but is subjective - some will call a scenario/surrender unrealistic if it doesn't happen at the point at which the force suffers 30% casualties - CM has it modelled at around 60% - yet this didn't seem right to you based on the fact that some gucci armour was on the map in the engagement you were fighting.  There is a lot of truth in what @sburkesaid - you only know you were 'cheated' after the scenario ended and to a large extent are judging based on that godlike information given to you at ceasefire.  I recall testing one of @George MC's scenarios recently and had got to a point in the scenario where I thought - "I'm not getting anywhere here, I'll hit surrender and see if I can edge a win," - an excellent example of how friction and the essence of manouevre warfare works - shattering the enemy's will (or in this instance mine) had come into play.  As it happens, I thought - "I'm testing this scenario so I should play it through in order to give the best feedback" and about three turns later I got the sense that the enemy had culminated and that I could actually continue with a reasonable chance of achieving the set objectives.  About five turns later, the enemy surrendered.  In short - a brilliant example of scenario design which ticked most of the transactional boxes for me.
To conclude - balancing these factors and explaining it in the narrative to manage the player's expectations and then testing the scenario to make sure that the thing works is key to the whole scenario design piece.  Adding a few extra dudes that the player doesn't see to stave off the early surrender is a proven and effective tool that people use to best deliver a 'really good scenario which I recommend' comment versus 'the AI surrendered early' comment.  Not perfect of course and it would be better if the designer could control the ratios and maybe use a combination of tools.

Graveyards up until tonight have been giving me a hissy fit - in particular, lining up the graves.  I think I've found a solution ...
Step 1
Make your graveyard boundary and select your grave flavour objects.  My cemetery is a German military one so we need gravestone 4.  Pick as many as you need and them plonk them on the map in the area of your cemetery.
Step 2
Make a grid in your cemetery using the cross shape fence tile.  Top tip - use a wire fence or one that you can see through rather than a wall or hedge.  I have used a wire fence.

Step 3
Go into 3D view and line up your gravestones.  This is still fiddly, but I find that having the grid gives a better alignment and when you look to check the alignment you have a reference point.

Step 4
Go back to the editor, delete your fence grid and go back into 3D mode and wonder at your awesomeness ...

Clearly, I have just done the one row in the image above - but you get the picture.

I found it first
 
 

As I said earlier - this dynamic is primarily numbers - why do you think scenario designers use the 'reinforcements that never arrive' trick to stave off a premature AI surrender?

Now that is cool - kudos to the NAM for being on point, and now I'm feeling thirsty
P

For those not familiar with the 'yellow handbag' cultural reference ...
https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=2018-04-3-1
 
Made up that this is from the National Army Museum, although in my day 4 Armoured Division was Herford-based.

The breakfast of champions ...

You'll probably have to send some screenshots of what you actually did in the editor.  I'm more of a scenario rather than a QB expert having only converted an existing QB map for @37mm's Heaven and Earth CMSF conversion.  What little I do know is that you do not have to assign units to AI slots when making a QB.  Conceptually they are simple but doing them well is a bit of an art that not many people have mastered.

So working as intended then ... 😉

 

It is a thing that crops up across most of the titles - certain pieces of kit that are in the editor aren't available for QB.  Even though I go nowhere near QBs It is something that needs a fix for sure.

It was actually the village of Kham Duc - although there was a military compound where a lot of the tribesmen and their families were hanging out along presumably with some US Special Forces types.,
The purely military bits on the map in my previous post were the airfield of which the buildings to the south of it formed part and one of the clusters of those buildings was an SF compound.  There were also about half a dozen outpost positions scattered across the various high features surrounding the airfield.  This is why it would have been a great mini Khe Sanh type battle as you have the fight for the outposts plus the battle for the airfield itself.  When I first looked at it, I could see that theoretically I could do it at one to one scale (the original map area was 4km x 2.7km).  Unfortunately the combination of elevation changes and number of trees were what caused it to CTD even after I'd cropped it to 3.9km x 2.2km, stripped a bunch of trees out and dropped the elevations.  I could probably eventually have got it to load with a bit more tree stripping but there was still a bunch of work to be done with all of the buildings (facades, roof and door/window layouts) and of course I hadn't even started purchasing units.  To make it representative of the action that would involve at least a battalion of US and irregulars, about a company's worth of spies to represent the tribesmen's families, a sh1t tin of fortifications to plonk around the airfield perimeter and to build the outpost positions and then at least a regiment's worth of VC.
I might try another crop at some point just to do the assault on the airfield but we'll see.

It was actually the village of Kham Duc - although there was a military compound where a lot of the tribesmen and their families were hanging out along presumably with some US Special Forces types.,
The purely military bits on the map in my previous post were the airfield of which the buildings to the south of it formed part and one of the clusters of those buildings was an SF compound.  There were also about half a dozen outpost positions scattered across the various high features surrounding the airfield.  This is why it would have been a great mini Khe Sanh type battle as you have the fight for the outposts plus the battle for the airfield itself.  When I first looked at it, I could see that theoretically I could do it at one to one scale (the original map area was 4km x 2.7km).  Unfortunately the combination of elevation changes and number of trees were what caused it to CTD even after I'd cropped it to 3.9km x 2.2km, stripped a bunch of trees out and dropped the elevations.  I could probably eventually have got it to load with a bit more tree stripping but there was still a bunch of work to be done with all of the buildings (facades, roof and door/window layouts) and of course I hadn't even started purchasing units.  To make it representative of the action that would involve at least a battalion of US and irregulars, about a company's worth of spies to represent the tribesmen's families, a sh1t tin of fortifications to plonk around the airfield perimeter and to build the outpost positions and then at least a regiment's worth of VC.
I might try another crop at some point just to do the assault on the airfield but we'll see.

It was actually the village of Kham Duc - although there was a military compound where a lot of the tribesmen and their families were hanging out along presumably with some US Special Forces types.,
The purely military bits on the map in my previous post were the airfield of which the buildings to the south of it formed part and one of the clusters of those buildings was an SF compound.  There were also about half a dozen outpost positions scattered across the various high features surrounding the airfield.  This is why it would have been a great mini Khe Sanh type battle as you have the fight for the outposts plus the battle for the airfield itself.  When I first looked at it, I could see that theoretically I could do it at one to one scale (the original map area was 4km x 2.7km).  Unfortunately the combination of elevation changes and number of trees were what caused it to CTD even after I'd cropped it to 3.9km x 2.2km, stripped a bunch of trees out and dropped the elevations.  I could probably eventually have got it to load with a bit more tree stripping but there was still a bunch of work to be done with all of the buildings (facades, roof and door/window layouts) and of course I hadn't even started purchasing units.  To make it representative of the action that would involve at least a battalion of US and irregulars, about a company's worth of spies to represent the tribesmen's families, a sh1t tin of fortifications to plonk around the airfield perimeter and to build the outpost positions and then at least a regiment's worth of VC.
I might try another crop at some point just to do the assault on the airfield but we'll see.

Neither do I, but basically it is most of the armoured vehicles and the ECM fit is actually modelled in the artwork for the vehicles so you can see in-game which ones are equipped with it if you don't want to scroll through the UI panels.

Or you could remember stuff, stop assuming and read the briefings maybe?

Or you could remember stuff, stop assuming and read the briefings maybe?

Or you could remember stuff, stop assuming and read the briefings maybe?

You obviously haven't played any of my stuff then.  I always add a ballpark of about 1/3 of the on-map force whenever I'm designing anything that I want to go to the wire.  Most of my stuff is company and above so there'll be about a platoon of them every time.

You obviously haven't played any of my stuff then.  I always add a ballpark of about 1/3 of the on-map force whenever I'm designing anything that I want to go to the wire.  Most of my stuff is company and above so there'll be about a platoon of them every time.

You obviously haven't played any of my stuff then.  I always add a ballpark of about 1/3 of the on-map force whenever I'm designing anything that I want to go to the wire.  Most of my stuff is company and above so there'll be about a platoon of them every time.

Red Army mission briefing .... Lie down comrades and hide your badges ... 😉

Red Army mission briefing .... Lie down comrades and hide your badges ... 😉

There'll be at least one.