BletchleyGeek

Hapless is right. That was a typo. 
Nice! Although it is important to point out that the Soviets likely would have gone out of their way to ensure Sweden remained neutral. Always remember that when looking at old war plans for the Cold War, one must remember that many of them had contingency planning built in. For example, if Sweden decided to join the war with NATO, then the Soviets needed a plan for that. Just because a plan exists does not mean it was destined to be used. 
Finland would have been an interesting case, but I personally think that the Soviets would have deployed security forces to guard the lines of communication (MSRs, supply dumps, etc) but otherwise would have wanted to avoid any confrontation with the Fins. The less you have to fight through to get to the main objective, the better. Plus, there is always the worry of rear area attacks. The Soviets were not prepared (knowingly so) for in depth occupation duties during the war. That stuff comes later. 

As others have said, Norway. 
Norway was extremely important to both sides in the prosecution of the war. Much of the Soviet strategy revolved around shutting down/delaying NATO (specifically the US) sea lines of communication (SLOCs) which is a fancy term for maritime resupply routes. To do that, the Soviets had a powerful combination of surface (fleet ships) sub surface (subs) and naval aviation, such as the infamous Backfire bomber. The goal was to prevent NATO from resupplying long enough to give the Soviet army the time it needed to complete its objectives in central Europe. 
Norway, specifically the coast, would have given the Soviets much more control over the SLOCs through the Northern Atlantic had they occupied it. It would have given them air bases for their naval aviation, as well as ports and sanctuaries for their surface and sub surface forces. Plus, it would have effectively extended their effective interdiction range against NATO SLOCs. 
NATO was quite aware of this, and the US Marines were assigned to the area. They had staged equipment in the country, much like the Army did in Germany with REFORGER. Norway was also considered their AO, which makes sense considering how hilly and mountainous Norway is, and how important amphibious operations would be there. Not even opposed amphibious operations, simple ones like redeploying or shifting forces around, and resupplying them. Both sides would have made use of naval infantry in Norway. As well as airborne and other specialized forces. 
To this day the Marines maintain their partnership with Norway's military, and I think they still have equipment staged there as well. Every year (I think so at least) there is usually a major training exercise in Norway for the Marines, and a lot of the cool footage of Abrams drifting on snow and ice are (were) Marine tanks up there doing training. 

Thanks Steve for moving the progress bar. @BFCElvis explanation of the process was clear and informative too.
 
FWIW I think Battlefront.com is a "proper" company, even if it doesn't follow the standard publisher model of Slitherine. It has to be incorporated according to the laws of the state of Maine (?) at the very least
 
Having deadlines like that are good for managing expectations. But quality at release may be less than expected, as a host of small items which are unimportant individually, and were thus deemed low priority for fixing, in  the aggregate can make quite a dent in the perception of a game. And I am talking about a very big WW2 wargame that came out recently which I was the lead tester for two years until late last year.

Thanks Steve for moving the progress bar. @BFCElvis explanation of the process was clear and informative too.
 
FWIW I think Battlefront.com is a "proper" company, even if it doesn't follow the standard publisher model of Slitherine. It has to be incorporated according to the laws of the state of Maine (?) at the very least
 
Having deadlines like that are good for managing expectations. But quality at release may be less than expected, as a host of small items which are unimportant individually, and were thus deemed low priority for fixing, in  the aggregate can make quite a dent in the perception of a game. And I am talking about a very big WW2 wargame that came out recently which I was the lead tester for two years until late last year.

Glorious March to Victory, Final Post - "Like Tears in Rain"
Well big thank you to all who watched.  I figure I should stop leaving you all hanging, so we cease fired on the last turn (33 I believe).  Now take the end-screen with a grain of salt:

So first off there was a dumb double-accounting error for the Soviet side.  Basically the parameters were:
En Cas 50% = 50 VPs
En Condition 50% = 50 VPs
Dollbach Village = 100 VPs.
The error was the Soviets had another 100 VPs for having fewer than/better than 50% cas/cond, so I subtracted that because if we had paid attention Bil was above 50% too.  So the score was really 100 because I held the town.  (Note, also a small error in that his M150s were counted as tanks...a bug we noted for fixing)
The outstanding question is "could Bil have reduced me to 50% without going there himself"...that one is tougher.   So for Soviets:
215 men: lost 71 = 33%
17 Tanks: lost 10 = 58%
17 AFVs: lost 9 = 53%
For the US:
138 men: lost 56 = 40.5%
12 Tanks: lost 6 = 50%
17 AFVs (also counting his mortar carriers): Lost 6 = 35%
So this was by no stretch a "Total Victory", that was straight up on us for not checking the victory parameters.  I hold the village but given the drubbing I received in taking it, I am not sure I can put a statue up in Red Square for this either.  Add to this the fact I started with a lot more men and tanks, it starts to push the whole thing into Draw territory to my mind.  
Now Bil had much better arty, had air (I had none) and EW which made my arty next to useless without TRPs (which I did not have) so there is that.  And my starting position was not the best but it is a poor craftsman that blames the workbench.  
I will let you all judge for yourselves.  Regardless, was a helluva fight, the kind that comes around only every so often,  and we are all working to get you guys a chance at it yourselves soon enough.
 

Creative and well tested scenarios and campaigns make it more interesting to play 🙂
Dave

sounds like someone has discovered why ww1 was a meat grinder.

Here's the campaign run-down for the ones not described yet. Ithikial has an additional campaign that he has been outlining, so that's another campaign in the mix, additional to the below.
The German and Soviet main, and more traditional campaigns are each around 9 battles, depending upon track. These each have some limited branching to keep things interesting.
Each of the below has some degree of variable set-up for each campaign scenario, again-to keep things interesting over more than one play-through.
3 AI plans are the norm for each, as well. A lot of attention has been given to the AI in both the attack and defense, and I hope it shows when you are hunkered down in the Hegyikastély, or countering attacks outside of Naugard.
I am a proponent of letting everyone discover the thing "as new" as much as possible, so I'll be posting just the thumbnails for the settings and forces for now, with a brief description of the Berlin campaigns.
The two central campaigns are somewhat "phased"- The Soviets have 3/3/3 phases- 3 battles in Poland, 3 in Germany, and 3 in Berlin. The Germans are phased by KG assignment, as Regiment "Norge" is the through-line. It is about half KG Darges, half KG Phillip. Some branching may impact that, but the variable AI should keep it interesting between plays.
Soviet campaign:

German Campaign:

Berlin. Two versions, one for the Soviet side (pummel away, but watch those Panzerfausts), and one for the German (enjoy the pummeling).
The following campaigns (roughly the same, from two different perspectives) cover the fighting for the Lehrter Station and Kroll Oper in the first battle, the Reichstag and to the Staatsoper in the second battle. Forces are retained over the two battles, with some limited replacements/reinforcements. Two battles each.
The idea for these was to somewhat recreate the feeling of the old CMx1 Operations. One force, during a single battle, linked terrain. There isn't persistent damage, but creative map positioning gives a sense of advancing over the ground fought over.


 

M43 and M44 mix is in. I'm away from my FR churner at the moment, but here's some other bits about uniforms-
There was a lot of research throughout this, and models were added for the gaps in RT that we had, as well as for the near 100-Years War level of uniform chaos that is 1945. Here are a few of the additions (there may be more, so I'll leave those for discovery).
There is an M43 cap in, used by the Volkssturm "Military" Appearance. That covers RAD troops, and just about anything auxiliary that saw combat that would have been in some form of uniform. I believe those also have helmets mixed in.
The other two Appearance options for the Volkssturm are "Standard" and "Greatcoat". Standard is the civilian-type kit, Greatcoat is civilan-type hats and...a greatcoat.
We have tried to add more targeted visual variety, as there are a lot of different, odd formations active in this time period, each with their own characteristics that I tend to prefer to have some visual representation of. Better than looking at icons to know what the enemy may be, or the UI if it is on-screen.
I believe random helmets and ushanka mixes are also making it in for winter conditions (headgear is a headache!). Getting the Soviets some additional visual improvements was a goal. There will also be the slung greatcoat (skatka, bedroll) model, which has shown up in the images previously.
Gebirgsjägers are a bit different. Those uniforms I did (using Mike's base) were a last minute add for CMFB, I believe. Steve had to do some magic to get the uniforms to show, so changing the headgear is another layer of complexity beyond the others. Better than not having the uniform at all, in my book. Possible in the future, but these seemingly small changes are prone to break lots of stuff.
I have some other things that I'll release as ideas or mods that didn't make it, post-release. This module has the largest accumulation of cutting-room floor in memory, and is already packed. Even with the years of development, there wasn't enough time to test all concepts and scenarios that were deemed nearly there.

accidentally I did a check today, due to some problem in my back up PC, so I do have downloaded all the games I own (including the big Upgrade pack, some 45Gigas) from the BF site, weir was that at the begining it started telling that it would last 2 days even for the smaller CMFI and then in less than 5 hours everything was in....

A The Night of the Refresh Monkeys...that brings back memories.
I will let BFC-central answer most of this but I can say we are on track with the initial announcement:  in Apr, post-Easter.

Probability of spotting increases, not probability of hitting. You can increase probability of hitting by placing a TRP in the expected engagement zone.

It's stuff Steve has said on this forum. There are five heights that the heightmap uses - crawling man, standing man, small, normal and tall vehicles, and the LOS table is built from each height to each other height, in each square.

Oh dear.  Ok, my point of view on these things is pretty simple...."you get what you paid for, CM is good but it is not Jesus".  CM is a really good tactical level game that borders on simulator (BFC MOD work is proof of that).  It is very good, maybe the best, at Battalion and below tactical engagements; a test of skill and a challenge that provides a lot of entertainment.  The level of accuracy and detail is crazy...at that level.
Now if we are going to start to expand beyond that then a lot of other factors come into play and frankly we move out of entertainment and start to encroach on professional military problems.  And hey, if the game takes you there, then that is great but you will likely get frustrated trying to port those lessons back into the game.
So, for example, the quality of T64 manufacture is not a tactical problem.  Sure, a few extra dice rolls for throwing a track but in reality poor manufacture is an operational or strategic problems that in CM you may see in the course of an entire campaign as narrative.  For example, the outrageous cost and slow production of the M1 in the early 80s has little effect on the CM battlefield beyond "rarity", which means little when the beast shows up but was a significant strategic shortfall.  
Vehicles and systems are simulated "as they would normally function" in a 1-2 hour window of a tactical engagement.  Here a fully functioning T64B is one tough beast.  
In fact if you want to get into a "battle of logistics" the west is at a significant disadvantage overall.  All of our systems took ridiculous maint-ratios to keep in the field and we did not have a steel mountain of replacements to pull on.  In short the Soviets did not care if 1/3 of their T64s failed to show up when they had a 6-to-1 advantage.
Here is a good analysis of the maint require for the M60 series...and it is not small.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/463382.pdf  

Me too.
Not sure if it has been lock down contributing but I certainly have a hankering for this period and really never thought I would see it come to fruition. So what a good surprise and the AAR has really given us a great insight to the game with two well matched opponents.
They will no doubt keep one another happy in the care home of their choice, playing on the local LAN.
I am glad Steve and Charles were persuaded to do this before they sail off into the sunset, which they will do at some stage... (as we all will...) 

This would have probably been a good slice of the Advance Guard for a TR (or the toothy end of a MRR).  Tank types are a bit off but still in the realm of realistic (T64 and T62 mixes) but if we go with TR then there would have been the rest of the lead Tank Bn about 30 mins behind this force.  In reality they probably would have crashed into this scenario, right about the time we call ceasefire. 
A quick look at the tables say that would mean around another 2 x Tank Coys, plus a boatload of arty who would slice through this little tussle without breaking stride.  Behind them by about 20-30km  (so an hour) is the rest of the Regt, so 2 x more Tank Bns and the rest of the MRB.   The ACR over on Bil's is basically down a Squadron by this point, so they would have two left, screen along the axis of advance.  So this little scrap would be a historical footnote in reality.
The power of Active Defence was not so much at the front end, it was the plan to attack the entire Soviet system while defending.  This was smart as the Soviets' had pretty rudimentary logistical support.  So the theory was to attrit and delay in the front while creating breaks and gaps in the rear so that the entire monster grinds to halt.  I honestly doubt it would have worked in 79 but odds get better when we move forward from there.  By the mid-80s the deal was sealed and any fight would have needed tac nukes for the Soviets to stand a chance, which despite the rhetoric they would not have used unless it really was the end of the world.  SDI, scared them so much because if their strat nuke option was blunted, then it meant all of their options for tac nukes were also blunted...all at the losing end of conventional competition as warfare moved from mass to digitized speed.  
Or at least that is how it looked to me...

Thank you all sincerely and you are very welcome.  I am very glad people got enjoyment out of this. 
Once the game is released I will post the scenario so you guys can take a run at your own stories (someone remind me if I forget).
We will do up a final post-game once Bil finishes up his final turns.  I see many congrats at "my victory", I am kinda split here because 1) Of course the glorious forces of the Soviet Union were victorious in crushing the corrupt capitalists, but 2) in reality...when the commissar is not looking, this was pretty much a Draw in my books.   You guys can be the judge when the numbers go up but neither side is doing much with what is left on the board, Soviets do hold the objective but we failed to achieve any real breakout, breakthroughs or overwhelm the US forces.  The only good news is that there is probably another dozen Soviet outfits like the one I just lost behind me.  
But does winning or losing really matter (*duh, of course it does, it is why they keep score*)?  A game well played between two old friends as we enter our autumn years (Bil is on the doorstep of winter) is the best reward in itself. 
 
 

If wide open map then distance is your friend - fast forward to hull down - pause 15s to observe - then reverse. Or dismount crew and move to good place to observe. The have one of their pals fast fwd into view of enemy, pause - very briefly to draw fire (hopefully first shot will miss if at range...), then reverse. This works better if enemy far enough away e.g. 1000m plus. Not so good if very close or oppo is using TRPs in which case first shot could be on target.
If close terrain then dismounts better.

😀

This week is perfect for release.
1.) I´m back from our Spain vacation 🙂
2.) Pre-Easter release
3.) The 2nd Shock Army of the 2nd Belorussian Front captured Danzig
😉

Bro...do you actually play CM or? I'm asking this in good faith because you have me conflicted. 

 

@The_Capt.. Warren, this has been a brilliantly written and presented AAR.  Bravo.  I actually laughed out loud a couple times.
Well played game as well... as always you have been a worthy opponent.  
Bil

Yep, I have a couple more turns to post and then Warren and I will start the debrief.  I'll get to those tomorrow...in the meantime I'm going to go read Warren's thread and the peanut gallery.
Bil

Sorry, had to show this one (MikeyDs pic by the way),  ATGMs working just fine behind cover.
Oh, ya, game has concluded so now I can finally see Bil’s side and comment.  We will probably do the full debrief/post game here.