sttp

Interesting point that highlights a designers dilemma.  In CMCW we built in 'consequences' into both the US and Soviet campaigns.  The player does need to worry about tomorrow as losses carry over from one fight to the next.  We also added "a" and "b" versions of fights to reflect a win or loss previously and here we added support and position incentives and punishment.  Originally we had these settings as very realistic.  For example in this sort of war scenario logistics are going to be extremely strained and units cannot depend on reinforcements or replacements in a tactical window of a CM campaign.  The Soviet doctrine was designed for this specifically.  Then on play testing it became apparent that brutal realism will put most players behind a loss curve from which they will not recover.
So we design realistic campaigns that most players will only make it half way through...wee.  This required a lot of RRR balancing, particularly on the US campaign.  We left the Soviet March or Die campaign along the lines of the original and I do not doubt that it will be the least popular of the bunch based on feedback to date.
So the CM designers dilemma is that players want 'realism' and I am not being sarcastic here, this is a high end realistic wargame and level of detail is downright crazy sometimes.  This is attractive to die harder wargamers who don't want an RTS or broad chess-like abstraction.  But "real war" is not fair in the least (trust me).  So how does one design a realistic scenario/campaign that doesn't lead to grossly unfair end states that leave a player that has invested money and time completely and irreversibly screwed?
The answer is very carefully and accept the fact that you are not going to make everyone happy.  In CMCW, the Soviet campaign specifically, we went with two options, Standard which is more forgiving and "March or Die" where if you play loose and reckless you are not going to make it that far because the MRR you are fighting will be in tatters by the end...and we even dialed it back.
Now what I would like is the ability to make "tomorrow" operationally significant in a much broader context but given the current engine that ability to effectively create meta-campaigns is just not there.  Maybe on CMx3.

I have no idea how what you say is relevant to the current discussion.

Any wargamer, including a CM wargamer, has the luxury of not needing to 'worry about tomorrow', or in other words "what happens after the scenario clock ticks over to 0:00". A real world commander has to worry about his formation's combat effectiveness for whatever unknown objective may come at them next. CM commanders can by default be far more risk taking than their real world counterparts given they don't have these burdens. They also don't have to watch as their buddies getting their heads blown off or needing to write letters home to grieving mothers. For example, "Your son died heroically as I ordered him to charge a suspected enemy held trench system on his own so I could spot the location of enemy machine guns. He was the last man in his squad anyway... and was close by... it was his turn."  
I'm using WW2 here, but when you read a historical account of an engagement it will likely take many hours more than what is depicted in a CM scenario as the process of advancing in enemy territory is at a glacial pace versus wargamers who don't have the burdens listed above. Forces are also more likely to disengage a lot sooner than a CM Commander, (MikeyD's comment about CM Commanders being French WWI generals is great!  ). You can read about engagements ending after one side experiences 10 casualties, while the CM commander throws in everything to make it happen, again because they don't need to worry about the shape and combat effectiveness of his force once the scenario clock reaches "0:00". (Okay, campaigns can be slightly different). To remedy this, a scenario designer can be brutally harsh with victory points assignment to force the player to try and preserve his force no matter what, but I'm guessing the posts about overly hard scenarios would skyrocket on this forums.
Does this make CM bad? No. In the end CM is a game based on reality, not reality itself. Thankfully! I'd hate to have me as my commander on the battlefield given my CM performance!  

My gosh, I have never seen one person share so much bad information on these forums!! But then again I've only been here for 7 years, so I'm sure I missed some real doozies back in the day.

FR Rumble at Reitwein
2304x976
This in an out-take from Fire&Rubble that didn't get time to have tested to standard (though I have done many runs on it in Scenario Author mode, and in my own playtesting).
Meeting Engagement just to the west of Reitwein between Soviet 370 RD and attached armor elements versus elements of Reitwein area Volkssturm, Panther-Battalion "Brandenburg", a KG from the "Kurmark" Division, and attached stragglers from 9th FJ Division.
The scenario is fictional, but is derived from actions and forces in the area in attempting to enlarge/reduce the Soviet bridgehead over the Oder.
Play as either side. 1 plan for Axis, 2 for Soviet side. May also be suitable for HTH.


 
FR Rumble at Reitwein.btt

The Church Of Klaus:
Extremely rudimentary scenario, should be extremely painful to play. No briefing, two objectives, and a few unit objectives. Played as Soviet vs AI. Requires CMRT with F&R.
Santa refused to deliver gifts this year, the partisans were sent in to investigate the Klaus Haus. Word is that it's lightly defended, but the Toy Factory isn't far away. Good luck and try to enjoy the pain.

https://ufile.io/nd9lgz6r
Edited to provide more AT assets. I guess soviet infantry don't have AT grenades as standard, and they aren't arbitrarily equipped.

So you dont want to accept a simple duel between them which is reasonable.
But you also dont want to accept looking at the vehicles individual stats that they derive their cost from to compare them
Can you please lay out how you would want a comparison because to me it looks like you just dont want to compare because the conclusion is too obvious.
Ive yet to see you put forward a coherent argument why the price should be at the point where it is.
The player experience im referring to coms from players consistently playing HvH QBs and Turnaments. I have yet to hear anyone consider the Stug to be deserving of the price it has no matter how you try to compare.

That's actually mostly linear to the power of 3 for the HE filler (plus the thinner mortar outer shell), as it should be for volume. And linear to power of 2 for the lethality, which is also correct because of the 2D shockwave.

As a new player to CM (CMBN specifically) I admit I'm probably not qualified to be making change proposals without earning my stripes so to speak, but hey, I will anyway.
I'll state up front I'm absolutely loving CM and as a new player I wish I'd found it sooner.  I feel like I've missed out on years of fun.
Anyway, from my relative noob perspective and having now played and experienced both "games" I'll make what is probably a sacrilegious comparison with a different game series, Graviteam Tactics and suggest some changes I think CM would benefit from and because once you've had them - you miss them when they're gone:
1. Campaign generator.
2. AI capable of reacting to the players actions.
3. Dynamic strategic campaigns and battlefields that leave destruction, lost units and vehicles in place over the course of future battles on the same terrain.  The immersion and feeling of awesomeness this gives you as a player when you notice it for the first time is seriously cool.
4. Ability to review, assign reserves your troop and vehicle load outs between engagements.
5. Better review and breakdown of engagement statistics and casualties etc.

Hello, I have designed  a large detailed map that can be used as a QB map, or if you want create a H2H battle. The map is 3632x1296 rural-agricultural.  Later I will have completed the actual Scenario for this map.  Enjoy and let me know your thoughts.  You can download the map here.
Ghost Rider CM Missions - Dropbox   If you have any issues, please pm me and I will remedy any issues.
 
James.

The peanut gallery is weaponized and in cahoots with the enemy! Silliness aside, that is annoying. Forum block feature might be in order.
Great screenshots and mission graphics for the first turn of action! 

Great job! Always love seeing another high quality AAR. It is a lot of work but I always find it to be worth it. Those arrows can be much more of a pain than some may think. 
I'll be following along. Ignore the peanut gallery and carry on. Looking forward to seeing this play out!

Playin with infantry. It's hard to get a feel for what they can actually see when the lowest camera level is the height of a low apc.
Is there a config file I can mess with etc?

Wow, just saw what Steel Division 2 is doing. Come on, this is really cool, and should have been in CM first.

Right through the tracks. The Pak40 crew that sent this shell my way was dead about 15 seconds later, killed by the very tank they "missed." It's the little things like this that make Combat Mission so ridiculously enjoyable.
 

 
 

They told you no such thing.
This has been pointed out to you before.
 

These are pdf's with large, labeled pictures for every QB map, covering CMFB, CMFI, and CMRT. I always get frustrated trying to remember which QB map is which, and having to load up the scenario editor just to find one gets really, really old. So I created these.
I'll eventually put these on CMMODS. As soon as I finish the CMBN one, which is a significantly bigger task, and has had to take a back seat to a different project I'm now invested in. So I decided to just post these here, now.
Can someone please let me know if these links work for plain ol' public download / access? If not, I'll repost proper links in a new thread. Dropbox recently got rid of its "Public Folder" feature, and the new way to accomplish almost the same thing is not very intuitive....
Here ya go:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jffokwaq2w017bj/CMFB - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3l4xpbdhps0mgq6/CMRT - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4rh9ya8wbe3tldr/CMFI - Alol QB Maps - lower quality.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p9vhj33u708h0f9/CMFI - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0
*NOTE:  the "lower quality" CMFI pdf is actually the same quality as CMFB's and CMRT's -- plenty good enough. The higher quality CMFI pdf was my first, though, and features lossless images... which is great, except that the file size is almost 300MB.
 

Just uploaded a new scenario for CMBN + CW forces. After getting a few things straightened around, things went well for the remainder of the design. It's the Canucks again, vs the German AI or H2H. Check it out on my site (in the signature) or at The Few Good Men. Hope you enjoy it  .

Willkommen zuhause, Womble!

+1    Well, well, the Womble has returned.  Welcome back, my friend.  About time.      

Holy s***! Look who is back! Nice to see you, man.
 
Mord.

I'm well. New employment means I have a little more time for computer goobery... Been out for a while. Some catching up to do, evidently.
 

Oh, the Womble resurfaces - hope you are good mate
P

I miss the easy 180-degree arc, too!
I normally use this workaround you mentioned but just got lazy this time. It would be so much easier and more natural if I could just press "L".