Heirloom_Tomato

@Bil Hardenberger Do you have a blood board going for this battle?

It is a scenario with AI plans for one side, no briefing, no briefing maps, no extra goodies. In its current state it is only playable for someone looking for a quick battle experience with all the fun of not picking your own forces or having a clue what you are up against. 
When I compare what this file is to the scenarios uploaded to TSD3, most people would consider this to be 75% complete. I have no plans to upload this as a completed scenario.

I will happily send you the file. If anyone else is interested let me know. 

I did this for mistermark, and it was simple. We talked about the battle he was looking to fight, I took his parameters and the map he wanted to use and then crafted an enemy force and AI plan. The whole process took me a couple of hours to do, including a quick play through to make sure the AI plan worked as intended.
The bonus part for me anyways, is now I have a quick scenario to play in year or so, once I have forgotten all about the details of this battle. It seems the older I get, the quicker I forget things, so maybe it will only be a few months from now!

SUCCESS.  Although I am embarrassed as to how simple it was once I got my hands on the full install.  I remember these forums as being helpful and friendly.  Even to those who just don't seem to get it  😳.   I appreciate everyone's help.

While I have always admired your ability to use western techniques like the recon pull, this illustrates issues that I see a lot of gamers facing when using Eastern Bloc forces.
Attack by echelon is brutal, simple, predictable and effective. I would suggest focusing on a command push, using the forces you have at hand, and using the appropriate doctrine for them. A T-72 is not a worse Leopard, it is a lethal weapons system when used in its intended role.
This post by JasonC in the CMBB forum fundamentally changed how I think about Soviet forces and has made me a much better player at not only CMRT and CMBS but any wargame that puts me in command of units that start with "T" instead of "M".
And from US Field Manual 100-2-1 The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics.
 
In summary, use the tactics developed for the equipment you have. By analogy, I often see players in CMFI complain about Italian forces. While there are obviously shortcomings with the equipment and organization of the Italian Army in the Second World War, many of the complaints stem from trying to accomplish missions using doctrine tailored for other forces.
Take for instance the Infantry Battalion: The Italians do not have MG focused squads like the Germans, and do not break down into small 4 man teams like the Germans and Western Allies. This breaks down the fire-and-movement tactics at the squad and platoon level players are used to. Instead, the Italian Army has an exception light mortar in large numbers that provides the base of fire for platoon attacks and medium mortars and heavy machine guns used to support the company and battalion attack.
The Syrian Army will always lose if using tactics developed for NATO forces. As demonstrated in the Golan, and even more-so by the Egyptians in crossing the Suez, Warsaw Pact equipped forces can beat Western forces if used with the appropriate tactics.

Here is an updated link to the scenario now that the repository is gone.
http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-black-sea/cm-black-sea-add-ons/vega-force/

Contributions like this help make the game better for us all. Thanks for sharing @DougPhresh. 
Now if @IanL loses this battle to Bil it will be because his men didn't have the correct optics.😁

Bit late but I just played this scenario and it's great.  Short but intense infantry action, then you have to exfil your SOF operators before they get mashed by reinformcements.

I agree, that if there is an issue (that isn't glaringly obvious) the person who discovers it should present their case with evidence beyond an anecdotal comment. Just saying something doesn't make it so. And saves are a sure fire, easy way to do that. Yes, there have been a few times where Bf was hard headed and it took some work to convince them to take a look at a problem but that is as it should be or they'd end up chasing their tails over every little thing. We have a decent vetting process here, which means a lot of the trite complaints are weeded out by the more experienced players, a sort of quality control on b****ing vs substance. LOL. How many times have we witnessed some pet peeve labelled as "game breaking"? Having said that, I believe that BF has shown a willingness and passion to fix and maintain the games much more than they don't. Anyone that's been here longer than a few years would be lying if they denied that. Once we get past the new website teething and some of the new modules are released, I believe we'll see quicker responses to such issues.
 
Mord.

It is neither, it is simply reality. The view that somehow they are supposed to find and or fix every perceived issue is simply unrealistic and follows the vein of entitlement that we hear so often. I may be a little more sensitive to it working in an arena with a user base of 20 something’s who think because their mom sliced the crust off their sandwiches that the whole world is gonna cater to their every whim. Still let’s say you think in a particular circumstance the TAC AI behaves counter to what you think it should, where do you think that should fall in BFs priority list and how closely should they follow every conversation on possible issues that pop up on the forum? 

Ahem... since it was brought up...
 

 
 

Minute 156: Orders

With the ambush in the valley now blown. The tanks of 18 Troop reposition to catch anyone coming over the crest. Sgt Laurin pulls back. His tank can still see the opposite ridge but no longer has eyes on the valley floor.





 
Sgt Gagnon will move forward to protect their flank but also positioned to catch any one coming over the edge.






 
Lt Finnegan calls in some mortar fire on the far side of KT1 where MCpl Morrison spotted the ATGM team setting up. Look at those call times – less than a minute for organic mortars on a TRP. Sweet.






 
MCpl Morrison’s team continue their track to the ravine.






 
Members of 14 Platoon are very nearly in position on KT8

Minute 1:57-1:56:

MCpl Ray Morrison’s team make a clean get away.





 
Members of 15 Platoon can see a handful of contacts now. A T55, three BMP2s and a truck with an ATGM team. Here is the view with the icons on.





 
From the team’s perspective.






 
18 Troop’s ambush is blown. Bil has infantry leading the advance over the edge of the hill. That is not really a surprise, disappointing that their presence is now known but on the up side they dispatch the scout efficiently.

I had posted this to the repository at the start of the week and so far it has not come up. I am not sure what is going on but thought I would post a link for anyone who is interested.
 
This is a small scenario, Ukrainian Special Forces vs Russians. Playable as UKR vs AI only. There are two AI plans for the Russians. I have not tested the scenario for H2H play. It might work and it might be terrible.
 
Here is the link:  https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ct81paat2vii58c/AACX3IZ0Rv5dyr9W1v0ibJnNa?dl=0
 
If you have any feedback please PM me.
 
Enjoy

I was in real life (a cannon cocker - FIST Chief, Btry Fire Direction Officer, Bde Fire Support Officer, and Arty Bn Fire Direction Officer). Although it's been a while, for preplanned fires your comment about delay times, from my experience, is the case. The fires would be timed toward expected movements. Having things in 5, 10, 15 minute intervals is about as close as you could think of for someone arriving at a specific location, or be ready to jump off from a LD while the fires are underway.  I get the point about "gaminess" thinking that it's 5 minutes into the game so take cover, but I never timed anything to the minute.  
For on-call fires of course, we would calculate and get rounds downrange ASAP.  That is UNLESS the call for fire requested some particular time on target. That would be a very unusual situation though. Normally on-call CFF is someone in need of assistance NOW!!

I'm going to cut and paste your comments a bit.
 
 
^^^
This and the below seem to related.
 
 
Honestly, I've never noticed either of these behaviors. I'd have to set up a test and see what's up. It may be a simple user error of not unbuttoning, or not being stopped long enough, for the weapon to fire. Or it may be a bug. Or it may be something else. More information (not that you should feel responsible for providing it) would help.
 
M1 behavior comments: I've bolded part of what you wrote. Yeah, pretty cool that the game shows how much the men want to survive, yes? IRL, tankers will not sit there thinking they're invulnerable. If they get a laser warning, they'll pull back. If something is hitting the tank, and it's hard, they'll pull back. If men are swarming about, they'll pull back. Just the way it is...and that's fine. To me. If you think the uber-M1 is nerfed in the game, please give a SPECIFIC savegame. That'd do wonders for finding/fixing or explaining the behavior.
As to the "spending whole game panicked", well, savegame or it didn't happen. Seriously. I've never seen any behavior like this...unless the GLOBAL morale has these guys shaken to the core. Meaning, that particular unit has not been engaged or attacked, but they've heard/seen everyone else in their battalion get slaughtered. In that case, the game models the fragility of their morale. So, the particulars DO matter.
 
 
 
 
This is a pretty straightforward TOE question. Proof that the equipment was issued (in some verifiable quantity), fielded, and used, would be beneficial to getting new gear in the game. It is not simple to change the game TOE, but Steve/BFC/et alia take great pride in how accurately this game portrays TOE. (Heck, it's the linchpin for how units behave at the tactical level.)
 
 
Modern vehicles do have jammers. Obscurants, inability to acquire and then guide missiles does happen, sometimes a random lemon, but, overall, if your AT missiles are flying off as if they are spoofed, maybe they're being spoofed? Again, a savegame would be worth it's weight in gold.
 
Hmm. I know the Russian AGL has, in-game, caused many a casualty, so I know they can move, deploy, and fire. A single man? Maybe he has no ammo, just the AGL? Or vice versa? I hate to get repetitive, but savegame would be awesome. Or else, if I can find a few hours to set this up by randomly whittling down the AGL teams to one man, I may never see the behavior you say you've seen.
 
Sometimes the in-game spotting seems oddly poor...and other times very good. Overall, with a few exceptions about men who cannot see a tank 10m away, it works very well. I'd like to see the savegame. I know. I'm not disbelieving, I just have to point out that the incredible complexity of this game means that outliers (like you've described) are hard to replicate unless you can see the screenshot (and that's not a very good substitute), or a get the actual save.
Back to the M Shmel and RPO-A. The flames in-game are small, because most fires are not such big conflagrations that you'd be forced to flee. A bit of boot-stomping, blanket smothering, or pushing the flammables aside, and you're probably okay. For the most part. Would I like to see expanding and spreading fire? Oh yes. I think that'd be a bit nice. Heck, I'd make a 4km x 4km very dry pine forest and set it alight and use it as a screensaver in winter.
Overpressure/blast effects were nerfed to make up for the infantry bunching. These both are gradually getting adjusted. Yeah, I'd boost up the in-game effect due to blast for these two weapons. However, a counter-argument is that the smallest obstacle makes a huge difference in the amount of blast an individual feels. The building interiors are modeled to be quite complex (hence the spotting behavior when a unit enters a room). Visually, the game does not show any interior; it is abstracted. Imagine dividing walls, furniture, etc., are present to mitigate some of the blast. That, at least, is one explanation. Another would be that it is not modelling the blast well enough. I lean on the "give it more blast" side.
Recognize that any desire to CHANGE the game (you say "fix"), puts the burden of proof on the petitioner. The game is created in the state it is because that's what BFC thinks is how it should be (blatant bugs excepted). If you/we want a change, you/we have to show what is, what should be, and why or where the evidence it. Once that's done, BFC is pretty open to adjusting the code if it is possible and after it's been thoroughly tested.
As you can see from my long-winded answer a savegame is critically important. I know...that's not your job. For a beta-tester to try to replicate something based on a few words of description is a pretty hard thing to do, unless it's a blatant problem. In that case, it's more than likely already been noted. (But not all the time...so don't be shy about posting.)
 

Contributions like this help make the game better for us all. Thanks for sharing @DougPhresh. 
Now if @IanL loses this battle to Bil it will be because his men didn't have the correct optics.😁

Anecdotal, but the C9A2 was filtering into battalion at least in '04.
The manual also specifically includes the C79 as an integral component of the weapons system.

http://biblioteka.mycity-military.com/biblioteka/Diemaco/C9 Light Machine Gun.pdf

This just happened to me in a pbem I am playing where I am trying to play with all icons off. I lost two AFV's in one turn due to missing some critical information. When I reloaded the previous turn and had icons on.... yeah I wouldn't have given the orders I did. 
I agree it won't make the game any easier or less frustrating.  We have three options right now and if it is easy to add a fourth, and I am not saying it would be, but if it was, it would be fun to have the option.

I would like to have the option to make it more difficult for me to remember where the enemy is at all times. With icons off, I find I miss the flashing notice of when my men are taking losses to much. With spotting contacts on, it can still feel like I am getting access to more information about the enemy than I should and can react in ways that may be considered unrealistic.  I feel my icons on and enemy icons off completely would be a happy balance.

Don't worry, my feelings were not hurt. 

Minute 1:59-1:58:

Things started to happen. The sniper team at Rutsey acquired a couple of sound contacts near the road. Looks likely to be a tank and an IFV.






 
Right at the end of the turn the sniper spotted an ATGM team. As the turn ended he was taking a bead for a head shot. First blood could be mine. In the shot below look carefully in the right hand side of the upper pane of the window.





 
A wider shot of the sniper aiming.






 
The infantry at KT3 also can hear armoured vehicles in the valley below.





 
Infantry moving to KT8.






 
One of them carrying a SRAAW.

Minute 158: Orders

No new orders repositioning members of 14 platoon.






 
The squad from 15 Platoon on KT3 need to spread out more. I split the teams and have them crawling forward .






 
To ambush whatever is coming up the valley I will move one of the C2s to a position where they can be hull down to the valley floor a head of where the contacts are. I want the enemy to move into our LOF not the other way around.

This shows a good example of how I use the hull down command. I laid down some basic move orders to get close to the location I want to be. Then I switched to the hull down command and picked a spot where I would be OK with ending up. From there I use the target command on the hull down command’s way point to pick the area I want to be hull down to. In this case it is the valley floor. The hull down way point location has hillside rising up to the left, so the location where the enemy is now does not have LOS to my new location.






 
I also verify that that previous way point does *not* have LOS to the location I want to be hull down to. This is so the hull down command can work its magic – when the vehicle starts the hull down command it cannot see the location of interest and as vehicle moves along the hull down route it will watch for when I can see the location of interest and stop when it can.

I was in the military at that time (well, until last month actually!) and we absolutely had C79s on our C9s.
Maybe Reserve Units didn't (set eq. to Poor maybe?) but we sure did even in the Artillery.
Also, can so-sign on LAV commanders being lower down, additionally the MG on the LAV and Coyote was not remote operated.
We carried as many LAWs as possible as it was the only way to bust up what we called "Grape Huts" which were thick mud brick agricultural buildings.
I'm happy to answer as many CF related questions as I can as one of the things I liked best about CMSF was seeing "myself" represented in a major wargame.
 
e: The C9s we had in Afghanistan were the improved C9A2 which has the same buttstock as the C7 and comes issued with the C79 and has green furniture like the C7A2.