domfluff

That map in particular is unusually complex - the save files are massive, which is typically more complex geometry. I haven't had a major problem with it (any more than any large map), but the file size did make PBEM uploads slower, and is a likely culprit for poor performance.

Cold War games on that scale aren't common. Two spring to mind though: Fireteam https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2699/fire-team Firepower https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3692/firepower The latter was Avalon Hill, and seems to have been fairly popular (I saw a copy in a charity shop not long ago).

An aside, but I still chuckle at Schwarzkopf's quote about Saddam: I do agree that the basic strategy was sound. Its implementation was not, and a lot of that practical application seems fundamentally unsound even before taking into account the revolution in weapons technologies.

It could, and the M60A3 TTS is basically an Abrams turret on an M60 hull, but that hull is the issue - you're moving from a glass cannon, which can out-spot everything Soviet, but will die to everything it's engaged with, to one which can out-spot and survive being shot. That's a massive uptick in capability. "Abrams worship" is a stupid way to put that, of course, but it's more the point of capability - the transition from M60 to the M1 is a generational one, and it's as much of a leap as T-62 to T-64, and probably more.

Aside from the usual caveats of seeing the Russian export equipment being used by non-Soviet actors, T-62 was certainly effective against the Chieftain (as it should be against the M60 and Leopard-1). Indeed, the BMP-1's 73mm main gun fires a HEAT round which is sufficient to penetrate the three main NATO tanks of the period frontally. There was, after all, a reason why the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard-2 existed. In Cold War, the T-62 is pretty much in the same class as the M60A1 - they should be a fairly even match for each other, and trade with each other fairly well. The later M60's gain better optics and ultimately thermals, but the armour protection remains - it took until the next generation of NATO tanks for that to change, The same can't be said for the T-64. There is a massive uptick in armour capability between the T-62 and T-64 - it's not uncommon to see a T-64 shrugging off multiple hits to the turret for no appreciable effect, and the same applies to the T-72 and the T-80 variants. The Abrams is cheating, obviously, and represents a generational leap that the Soviet equipment never caught up to.

Yup. COIN operations are not high-intensity invasions of Europe - a given squad in a BTR might *never* make small arms contact ever, but IEDs were a constant threat. It's also not the most pleasant ride in the world, and it gets pretty warm - I could see it from an ergonomic point of view as well.

I'm 100% okay with this feature not being in Shock Force or especially in Cold War. I'm also okay with it not being in the other WW2 titles - it's just not tactically relevant to anything besides the Eastern Front. I'm a little surprised it's even in Final Blitzkrieg, really. US armoured infantry did ride directly on tanks sometimes, but not into actual combat, as the Soviets did out of necessity, so it's a nice-to-have, and not something that adds significantly to the game. The one title which actually might benefit from it, counter-intuitively, is Black Sea. It's remarkable how well the various "lessons learned" reports from the real conflict in Ukraine match up to the experience of playing Black Sea - many of those hard-won lessons (like the importance of drones and their correct usage in the Russian context) match up extremely well. One that does not is the field-expediency of riding outside the IFV, rather than internally. Clearly NBC concerns are low in Ukraine, but lethality and tempo are high, so there's apparently been a movement towards IFV-riding, to increase the speed of dismount on contact. That kind of tactical decision is relevant on CM-level scales, and despite being a terrible idea, might also make sense as the least-worst option, given the circumstances.

Not yet, but there's a big patch due soon - it's reasonable to presume that there wasn't any point in a hotfix in the interim.

The Market Garden maps were the first of the concept (there were some vague plans mentioned around the idea of making generated maps, built from pre-made tiles, but this didn't come to anything). I think the idea of keeping master maps in their own directory came later. Functionally, they're just scenarios (big, empty scenarios), so there should be no harm in moving, altering or deleting them.

There were quite a few WW3 games, but there's a fair chance you're actually talking about the boardgame of Red Storm Rising.

Yeah, this is a CM thing in general. A similar problem happens with a scenario that ends with a number "Scenario Title 1982" will save as "Scenario Title 1983", then 1984, 1985, etc. Not really a bug, but it's a poor choice of formatting for the titles.

Every infantry unit can grab ("share") ammunition from an adjacent vehicle, regardless of formation. That's important to allow things like the Supply platoons to work. I don't believe this works whilst mounted, for the same reasons that tanks in the same platoon can't share ammunition. I do think the Vickers MMG teams should be able to Acquire ammunition from their carrier (it'll be more to do with the way the carrier is set up than the MMG team), but it's a minor point.

As mentioned, the MMG carriers can be fired mounted or dismounted. They can use the ammunition in the carrier if they are nearby, but they can't Acquire this ammo for some reason. They could be resupplied from other sources, certainly.

Doctrine and the TO&E go hand in hand - each absolutely lead the other. You're certainly free to use any tactical approach you'd like, but the kit is designed to be used in a particular way, and trying to force it into a different direction will usually be deficient in some manner. The Tutorial scenarios do a very good job of demonstrating the core principles of Soviet doctrine. The first (attack) will teach you about mass, maximising firepower and coordination with a layered plan for fires. The second (meeting engagement) will take those same core principles, and then show how they apply in a much more fluid and subtle battle of manoeuvre, in a manner which is suitable for implementation in the campaign, but also in the context of multiplayer quick battles. This kind of tutorial scenario is something which I think is lacking in CM generally - there are an awful lot of questions that could be answered by this kind of thing. Typical examples have included how best to employ a Commonwealth rifle formation, and what the purpose of the two inch mortar is - if there was a simple, doctrinal setup that you could point to and say "if you can't win this with minimal losses, you don't understand it", that would be extremely useful, across all titles and factions. The Cold War campaigns do an excellent job of demonstrating the doctrine of the two sides, but often with additional complexity, since we're no longer in a tutorial. There is at least one US campaign mission which is an excellent demonstration of Active Defence, and the Soviet stuff is well represented throughout their campaign. There could always be more documentation, naturally, but field manuals exist and they're mostly very accessible. A "strategy guide" would mostly involve re-writing those.

The Carrier platoons in the British rifle battalion are a really interesting unit, with multiple roles. They provide a level of mechanisation at the leg infantry level, and therefore can act as a reconnaissance element, a cavalry screen, a base of fire, limited transport or a base of fire - there isn't one single role for it, and there's a lot you can do with it. Your basic carrier platoon is perhaps most similar to US Cavalry - they punch well above their weight in terms of firepower (the platoon has about as much firepower as a rifle company, including PIATs, 2 inch mortars and the Brens), but obviously suffer badly from any losses. The machine gun platoons also ride on universal carriers, and these *do* mount a Vickers MMG, which can be fired whilst mounted or dismounted. The Vickers performs well for it's class in CM in terms of putting out suppressive fire at range, and the carrier will provide some mobility, protection, and additional ammunition. One of the downsides to the Vickers MMG with comparison to something like the US 1917 on a tripod, is that the latter has a much larger squad attached to it to carry around the ammunition. This is negated by the carrier. Those Carrier-mounted MMG teams can't acquire ammunition with the Acquire command, for some reason, but if they are mounted or within an action spot or two they'll use the ammunition anyway.