Heirloom_Tomato

I have no set rule.  Your weighting will depend on the type of scenario it is.  If grabbing or not losing bits of terrain is the key bit of the mission concept then it is logical to weight VPs towards terrain objectives.  If your mission is about killing the enemy or not being killed then you can weight towards parameters and unit objectives.  If you then follow that logic and you have a mission which emphasizes grabbing a piece of ground but not losing too many troops in the process then you're looking at balancing your terrain, parameters and unit objectives.
That should be the starting point but always needs refinement.  If your scenario is going to be playable by both sides, how do you stop one player getting a turn one victory by hitting ceasefire because they are the defender sat on all of the high VP terrain objectives?  How do you keep one or both players in the game by ensuring that neither side has an advantage until just past the mid point in the scenario?  The mechanism I use for the latter eventuality when testing is to save and ceasefire at between five and 15 minute intervals and screen capture the end game screen.  The numbers there inform me as to how the casualties tick over and allows me to adjust unit objective values for instance.  It is rare that my original VP schema survives testing so you shouldn't think narrowly about 'terrain is the most important' or whatever.  You need to just use what is perhaps the biggest and most flexible toolkit in the editor to get the right scores on the doors.

you expect me to remember something from April?  I can barely remember yesterday... what day is it?  Is the Canadian module out yet?

really just last year?  Recognizing bigotry is somehow "politically correct"  Okay sign me up as being PC cause I hate frickin obnoxious arrogant racists.  Racist slurs aren't acceptable in ANY form of English. 
Markshot, you may have started the thread, but there are forum standards that apply on every thread.  I am sorry yours has had to deal with this, but it is what it is.  I have not asked that anyone be blocked or have any other action taken, I have simply asked they stop using certain terminology.  It seems that is too much for certain members of this community who'd prefer to continue to behave in a manner that reflects the worst in us rather than show a modicum of respect towards others.

The fire direction center does the calculations for defection (azimuth) and elevation for the firing unit. There are two general types of fire missions "Adjust Fire" and "Fire for Effect" that a FO would call for, and they are exactly what they sound like. So for adjust fire, one round at a time is sent out, the FO sends back corrections, and the last correction should be 50m, so you get close and then call, "Drop 50, Fire for Effect" and the battery or mortar section sends the FFE, whatever that is determined to be (which is determined by the FDC normally, based on the FO target description in the call for fire).
Fire for Effect is exactly that. FO calls in a fire mission with coordinates, FFE, and target description and gets, say a batter 3 rounds on target. The possible error here is greater, unless the FO has a pretty much perfect location coord of the target. Sometimes that's possible (crossroads visible on a map for example).
And of course, if you are in a hurry (and who isn't in combat?), you can abbreviate the adjustment, maybe "Add 200, Fire for Effect" rather than a couple more rounds to get within 50, realizing that the FFE might be less accurate, depending on how good you are at estimating distances at a distance, target movement, etc.
What a TRP does for you is cut time by having firing data to that point already calculated, and typically TRPs are selected so that their location is accurately placed, such as a crossroads, the tip of a treeline, a bridge - anything that can be very accurately picked from a map. The battery (or mortar section) would have pre-calculated firing data to the TRPs on the list, including time round data, so that a FFE call can go out quickly. A typical use would be to specify "From AB001,  Add 400, Fire for Effect, Infantry Company in the open"   AB001 being the TRP number. We had TRP numbers assigned by maneuver unit in blocks when I was doing this. 
In either of these cases you are still going through the FDC, just different procedures/data.
Of course if your FO is standing next to you or can shout, the mortar crew just dials in the pre calculated data. Keep in mind that 60mm mortar crews will be moving around a lot so TRPs are kind of useless for them. They'll know where the TRP is but have to recalculate the data anyway. 
As an artillery battery we knew we'd be moving a lot too, because counter battery location radar was something that WAS quite good back then. Rule of thumb was 6 volleys from a position and time to move. So when you set up in a new position first thing is to recalculate all the TRP data, which you may be doing in between on call fire missions. We had 2 plotting boards, but they'll be busy, because one is primary, the other is the checker, and they'd be plotting a mission AND repotting the TRPs simultaneously. We practiced this a lot.
Now with the more modern titles, like BS, and SF2, the FOs have the advantage of GPS, so they at least know their own positions very accurately. Cold War, GPS was just coming available, not in wide use and certainly not to the FO level. Laser designators were just making their appearance, usually for designating for air strikes. Our XVIII Airborne Corps Artillery did have a limited supply of rocket assisted 155mm rounds (can't remember the name - first ones available), and those were final guided by laser. Pretty much just in field test mode then. Computerized fire control was in its infancy during the time covered by CMCW. TACFIRE was just being tested - computerized fire control system. Very bulky, kind of balky. We had FADAC (Field Artillery Digital Analog Computer). We never used it. It weighed 400 lbs, didn't work after being airdropped (we broke several) and was really slow. We could easily beat it with good old charts and darts, which did not change significantly from WW2, through Korea, Vietnam and the CW period. Same techniques, updated data, more radios to comminicate.
I think most of this is represented in game pretty well. There are 2 things I'd love to see in CM:
1) The ability to call a FFE on a map location, without having any eyes on it or a TRP. In real life this is common. You might have a sound contact or saw a unit that went out of sight behind a rise or treeline and you'd call in a FFE on a map location. Might be accurate, might not. But you'd do it.
2) An initial call to shift from a TRP, rather than wait for the TRP mission and then adjust. Again a VERY common call for fire.
Your last part is correct. Without a FDC and being significantly off line, corrections are going to be iffy for accuracy. I expect you'd do very rough in your head conversion of the adjustment, or the FO would do it before stating the correction. For example a 45 degree offset means .7x the stated correction, that sort of thing.
Dave

Even if they were based on non-Soviet publications those so-called "Western assertions" were solidly based.  I know from experience that both the US and UK had some pretty swept up Soviet studies branches staffed by Russian speakers and specialists in the discipline and no doubt other NATO nations had similar capabilities.  On top of that the intelligence operations with which I am very familiar, having worked on one of them, were enduring, comprehensive and multi-disciplined.  The doctrinal pamphlets therefore benefited from the results of the massive collection effort.  The Soviet Army was largely a conscript army which in time of war prioritised getting to places quickly, en masse supported by massive amounts of firepower.  To achieve all of this, it needed forces that were well-armed, reasonably well-protected and mobile that could deploy quickly and with the minimum of coordination.  For this it employed a series of simple but highly effective drills in offensive operations.  Those drills were practiced on exercises which were overtly publicised and often attended by Western military attaches.  Fine if you want to go with the 'yes but they will only show what they want people to see' argument but other exercises were tracked by NATO intelligence and in Germany these were covertly tracked by the three Allied Military Missions (BRIXMS, MMFL and the USMLM).  Skepticism is fine in limited doses but it is not so in this case.

OK, I see what you mean. Cannon Battery is a name. The piece, for example the US 155mm Long Tom in CMBN, is a gun, as opposed to a howitzer. A gun has a higher velocity, lower trajectory than a howitzer. Both are cannons. As a newly commissioned officer, you would attend "Field Artillery Officer Basic Course" and then "Cannon Battery Officer Course"  Cannon is an encompassing term.
In the game, using CMBN to check, a US 155mm howitzer battery when Personnel is specified, fires a mix of airbursts and ground bursts together, and so does the 155mm Long Tom, which is a gun. US 105mm, and 75mm pak howitzers will also give you the same mix of air bursts and ground bursts if you specify Personnel.
If General is specified for the target, then you'll get ground bursts (Point Detonating). 
The way this is done is similar to reality. The FO specifies the target - "infantry company in the open", "infantry in trenches", and the FDC picks the fusing. VT fuses were valuable and even in the Cold War era we didn't have a ton of them - maybe 25% of our load. The majority was PD or Time (for calculate airbursts as opposed to VT which goes off when the round reaches a height). A Time fuse is calculated to go off 7 meters in the air at a point where the trajectory crosses over the target. Takes a little extra time to calculate because you have to figure the target hit firing data, then adjust that to be higher and calculate the time of flight to the target point on the new higher trajectory. VT you don't calculate time - just the new trajectory.
For mortars, there were no reliable VT fuses until 1983. Since mortar shells are coming down at extreme angles, having a fuse that is precise enough to detonate the round 3-7 meters off the ground was quite a technical challenge and mortar VT fuses didn't enter production and distribution until then. 
In general VT fuses in WW2 were used for AA guns long before they were used for field artillery. Less chance of the secrets falling into enemy hands from unexploded rounds.
Time fuses for mortars don't work well. The time increments are 0.1 seconds and with an almost vertical trajectory that 0.1 seconds is a huge margin of error. Same with howitzers firing high angle - you can hit the same point by elevating the howitzer below 45deg and above 45deg. Guns can't do that. But for the same reason as mortars, it's not recommended to use VT or Time fuses in a high angle mission. Trajectory is too high for it to work the way it's supposed to.
Dave

In scenario design, the only real difference will be in the strength of the attacking force and in the distribution of points. For the player, the type of battle should give you an indication of what the scenario will entail. 

In scenario design, the only real difference will be in the strength of the attacking force and in the distribution of points. For the player, the type of battle should give you an indication of what the scenario will entail. 

Here is a grenade exploding literally right in a dude's face.
 

Four of the scenarios you have listed are mine. I made the recommendation to play as attacker in each of them as attacking was the inspiration for the scenario. There are an equal number of AI plans for both sides and you might find the battle to be more enjoyable playing as the defender. However you decide to play, I hope you have fun.

Four of the scenarios you have listed are mine. I made the recommendation to play as attacker in each of them as attacking was the inspiration for the scenario. There are an equal number of AI plans for both sides and you might find the battle to be more enjoyable playing as the defender. However you decide to play, I hope you have fun.

Ok, I have my new website up that will be hosting the WWII scenarios that I've made. There are links on it to all the scenarios I've done to date, including a new one I finished off yesterday. There is a contact form there if anyone runs into problems downloading the games or if a scenario is defective in some way. Now, I'm a rank amateur at this still so these may or may not be up to the level of some of the top scenario designers here (almost certainly "not"), but I'm learning something new with each new scenario and hopefully they will at least be entertaining enough to have made the download (never mind the price  ) worth it. 
I will tell everyone up front, my scenarios aren't always "fair". If I have a reference to a particular battle from something I've read, and the battle sounds interesting to me yet rather one sided, chances are that's how the scenario will come out as well. It won't mean that the side with the weaker forces can't win. It's just unlikely. However, given a strong player taking the weak side, anything is possible. Where situations like that have come up, generally I will try to make the time limit be somewhat restrictive, or introduce other characteristics (such as unit objectives, parameters, etc.) balance things somewhat. One example might be my latest, "The Beach House". The Allied forces dramatically out number the Italians, however, they only have 30 minutes to get off the beach and get north off an exit zone that isn't huge. The Italians, even if they are totally annihilated, may pick up considerable points if the Allies don't make it there. Anyway, I tend to play these scenarios for the enjoyment of the tactics rather than wracking up points and that's largely how my scenarios will be defined. If that's not your cup of tea, then you may want to pass them by. As long as some people get some enjoyment from them (and me too ), then I'm good with that. 
Ok, you can head over to My Site and have a gander at your leisure. There are only 4 up there now, but I hope to add at least 1 more by the end of May. My goal is to add 2 to 3 a month, but don't hold me to that (I do have other things that really need tending to since I blitzed learning to make these and those things got neglected in the process). I hope you enjoy them and a huge thank you again to the many, many people here who have helped me get over the hump, as it were. None of this would be possible without you guys.
My Site

Ok, well lets unpack this.  I, for one, do not think you are a troll (perhaps trying hard to impersonate one but...), you are a paying customer who appears uninformed and we aim to both educate and entertain.
So looking at the the ol' scenario list AND not counting the extra versions based on dates (more on this later) AND the US Campaign (1982) ones we are at 23 standalone scenarios.  Now one could say that the Soviet Training Scenarios do not count, which based on the number of YouTube videos is pretty unfair, but let's be brutal on ourselves (sorry Justin).  This would bring our paltry total down to 19 standalones.  Now BFC policy for a base game release is 15-20 with emphasis on the 20, if we can get to it.  So here we fell one scenario short of the upper end of content range.  Now in our defence CMCW requires large maps in order to really show things off, much larger than other titles, so that played a factor.  
Now as to the "why the multiple years?" question.  Well we did that because CMCW covers off a 4 year period in which available equipment varies significantly year to year.  These differences create pretty interesting and noticeable variations in gameplay.  For example in 1979 you could see M48s vs T55s and in 1982 we have M1s vs T80Bs, the balances is very different between these dates.  So we thought, "hey there is a lot of kit here and maybe players don't really know the ins and outs of all of it.  We should create different time versions so they can easily see and learn how different equipment stacks up."  
Now as to "rushing".  I am not sure what your scenario design and building experience is, or is not; however, it is no small task to create multiple versions of the same thing.   For example, the work that went into the 1982 vs 1979 US Campaigns was such that it probably would have been easier to simply do two completely separate campaigns.  The testing and play balancing is a long process, as is the deploying of units and AI.
Finally, as to the the "cheating" US Campaigns ported over as standalones, there are 10 in total.  Well the thinking here was that these should really be bonus content.  First, not everyone is going to finish the US Campaign, or play all its battles, so this gives the player a chance to play and try any of them up front.  Second, it allowed us to offer them for H2H play, which should be very interesting for some.  Again, as to "rushing", porting the campaign scenarios over into standalones actually took more time as Red side briefings and Human vs Human considerations had to be made.  The US Campaign alone has over 190 square kms of map work btw, again very big maps required all tied to the actual ground in the region (seriously, check it out on Google maps). 
To this we add one NTC campaign, and two versions of both the Soviet and US campaigns, I would sincerely hope that the average player can squeeze out at least of 60+ hours of quality play time, before hitting the QBs or Scenario editor.  
So there you have it.  As per content guidelines, based on past titles, we are safely in the upper end of content requirements by about any metric.  I will leave the qualitative judgement to all you fine grognards.

My second scenario is now up on my site. It's called "Changing of the Guard" and is for CMBN + CW. It's a tiny battle between the Canadians and Germans, just after midnight prior to the D-Day landings. It's very important to read the Briefing for this one as timing is everything. Unfortunately, I wanted to make it do-able for either side to play the AI but due to the importance of troop movements, it just wasn't going to happen. It can be played H2H, but if the German player doesn't follow the Briefing instructions, then basically the Canucks stand little chance. Anyway, hope you enjoy. The site hosting it is The Art of Glenn Davy as before. Click on the text to enter, then at the top left click on Battlefront Scenarios. It's the second one down.

Ok, so while I get things sorted out at The Scenario Depot, I have made a dropbox account and will host some scenarios in the interim. Rather than providing bunches of links to the scenarios (as they grow in number), I'm providing a link through my own website located here:  The Art of Glenn Davy. Click on the text on the front page and on the navigation bar (top left) you will see a link to "Battlefront". In there you will find my scenarios. At this time the only one up is for Red Thunder (F&R not required). I hope to add a couple more tomorrow. Simply click on the image and you will be taken to the dropbox link for the download. Note this is for the Soviets as the human player and the Germans as the AI/computer player only.
If you have any problems getting the file or something's wrong with it when you load/play it, please let me know here. This is the first "real" scenario I've done so there will probably be a few things with the AI that may or may not make sense. Right now it is what it is, but I've gained a vast amount of new knowledge over the past 2 or 3 weeks thanks to people here, so the improvements should be fairly significant going forward. Anyway, I hope you enjoy. 

Well, when a player losses and complains there is something wrong with the battle. I do not give it much weight normally.
paying $35 bucks, jumping into a battle and playing the game does not make them great military minds. So normally its something to review and weigh once again maybe at the most.
But as to the feed back you have received so far it sounds like to me you have a great and challenging Scenario and it might need no real adjustment.
 
I mean, even in the comments  you can tell that the methods that lost, there was a reason for it and it had nothing to do with the Scenario design. but the players use of their force.
 

Muphry’s Law right there.

Worst. Day. Ever. for you to miss checking in! A one day only, one-in-a-million release; Sept. 1939 through August 1945. ALL theaters, including PTO, CBI and Finland! BFC figured they made enough yesterday that they decided to retire knowing we'd have enough CM goodies to last the rest of our lives. All of us here bought it, of course, but we were all commenting like "Where's Probus? Man is he gonna be pissed!"
Sorry bro.

When making a quick battle map only two things are needed, terrain occupy objectives and AI orders. Everything else is determined by the battle type; meeting, probe/attack/assault. The game sets 1000 points for each quick battle with the casualty parameters as well as the amount of points for terrain objectives adjusted automatically. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head but in an assault battle terrain is worth more than casualties for the attacker where as a meeting engagement should be closer to 50/50.
When I am making a QB battle, I use the size of the map and battle type to determine how many objectives are reasonable. I then set the points for each objective as a ratio, for example lets say the battle is an assault on a small town with a few outlying houses. Those houses are objective 1, the town center is objective 2. Based on the narrative I want to tell with this QB map, the town center is far more important for the attacker to capture so it is worth 3 times as many points. I would name objective 1 "*" and give it a value of 100 points. Objective 2 would be named "***" and have a value of 300 points. Players should be able to determine Objective 2 is worth more points and worthy of expending greater effort to capture. This ratio system will ensure whatever type of battle you set, Probe vs Assault vs Meet the game will attach 3 times as many points to the more important objective. 

When making a quick battle map only two things are needed, terrain occupy objectives and AI orders. Everything else is determined by the battle type; meeting, probe/attack/assault. The game sets 1000 points for each quick battle with the casualty parameters as well as the amount of points for terrain objectives adjusted automatically. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head but in an assault battle terrain is worth more than casualties for the attacker where as a meeting engagement should be closer to 50/50.
When I am making a QB battle, I use the size of the map and battle type to determine how many objectives are reasonable. I then set the points for each objective as a ratio, for example lets say the battle is an assault on a small town with a few outlying houses. Those houses are objective 1, the town center is objective 2. Based on the narrative I want to tell with this QB map, the town center is far more important for the attacker to capture so it is worth 3 times as many points. I would name objective 1 "*" and give it a value of 100 points. Objective 2 would be named "***" and have a value of 300 points. Players should be able to determine Objective 2 is worth more points and worthy of expending greater effort to capture. This ratio system will ensure whatever type of battle you set, Probe vs Assault vs Meet the game will attach 3 times as many points to the more important objective. 

I was in the Swedish military from the first half of the 90´s, to the beginning of the 20´s century. And when the Berlin wall fell. We got 5 T-72M1´s from Germany, allmost for free. To test amunition on, and to test the East German amunition, and to share the results to Germany (and other NATO contries). 
The T-72 M1 fired the BM22 and the arrows went straight through the S-Tank. When the S-Tank fired at the T-72 M1, it could not penetrate other than on weakspots! And remember, Sweden as a neutral country. Always bought the best (non DU ammo), if we could not developed it ourselfes (For political reasons, we could not buy DU ammo, nor develpe it ourselfs). And the S-Tank, had a longer barrel than any other 105mm L7 tanks out there at the time. So it compensated with higher muzzle velocity, for not using DU rounds (<10% higer penetration for DU rounds, and much more pyrophoric effects after penetration. Values are for 120mm rounds though). 
The same after we bought the Strv 122 for our armoured brigades, and rented 160 Strv 121 (Leopard 2 A4) for our mechanized brigades from Germany in 1994-95. We wanted the best non DU ammo, and it was not in Germany at the time. So we bought Israeli APFSDS ammunition after comprehensive testing. 
So I think that CM:CW is quite spot on, from my own experience!

@Splinty with his guess of when its done.

Are you sure you didn't mix up your units of measure here? I am pretty certain they are 100 yards, 300 feet, 91.5 meters long.
But I might be wrong as we play real football up here, on a field 110 yards or 101 meters in length with CFL rules, Go Bombers Go!

Let's take a closer look at the AOK 9 records on this Hungarian excursion:
Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 is last shown on AOK 9 list of einsatzbereiten (operational) panzers on Oct. 10, 1944.  

There is then no mention of Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 in the operational panzer holdings or transport records until Oct. 15, when the company is noted as in transport from XXXXVI Pz.K. to Budapest by train:

However, departure from Warsaw does not happen until the evening of Oct. 17:

Two days after departure, Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 has switched from the Abtransport section to the Zuführung section. It is on the train to Budapest, but will be returned to the Warsaw area:

The following day the company arrives back in Warsaw at 12:10 a.m.  The entire "Hungarian jaunt" was no more than 52.5 hours.  Today (not 1944, not wartime) the train from Warsaw to Budapest one way takes 10.5 hours. I have serious doubts the company even made it to Budapest before being rerouted back to Warsaw.

Then the next day Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 is back on the operational panzer list, but with one Sturmtiger instead of two: 

Does this mean that one of the Sturmtigers was lost during the "Hungarian jaunt"? Not necessarily because this is a list of operational panzers, not all panzers.  It's quite possible that one of the Sturmtigers suffered some sort of irreparable mechanical casualty during this period and remained off the operational list until the company returned to Germany Nov. 22. In fact, given the shuttling back and forth, this seems plausible.
Source: NARA T-312 R-348

I'm sorry, but you are just simply mistaken or being willfully obstinate here.
 
So Guderian says that the Sturmtigers were prototype vehicles crewed by factory workers and the 9th army report says that two Sturmtigers from Sturmtiger Kompanie 1000 (not 500, not 1001, but 1000) arrived in their area of operations as indicated by the army status report.  Two Sturmtigers at least one of which was the one with 'light steel' armor.  The other one may or may not have had the light steel armor we just don't know because it is unsaid by Guderian so we can't say one way or the other.  TWO STURMTIGERS not THREE.  TWO STURMTIGERS from 1000 Sturmtiger Kompanie as indicated on the official army status report.  TWO.  
Okay, now that we have that out of the way, apparently some Sturmtigers were sent from Warsaw to Hungary.  Since only TWO were sent to Warsaw then those sent to Hungary must have been the same two that were at Warsaw.  Not THREE, and not FOUR, but TWO.  Those two were then sent back to Warsaw and then subsequently sent back to Sennelager in Germany for refitting.    
That should be pretty definitive unless someone wants to say that Guderian was a liar or that the official 9th army status report was wrong.  If someone wants to die on that hill then I don't know what to say about that.  Keep on believing what you want to believe in I guess.