IICptMillerII

for me this would be my most preferred time period for a Cold War CM game as well for the reasons you listed, plus for me I am a big fan of the game World in Conflict, which takes place in '89. I would love to recreate some of the missions from that game in a CM Cold War game.
 
I like all of your other ideas as well. I really hope that we eventually get a game set in 1950 Korea (after CM: Fulda Gap of course ) and I think the modern/future Korea setting could be very cool as well, however that would be pretty low on my list. I would want to see a few more titles before CM: Second Korean War, but that's just me. 

Then don't play it. Go somewhere else if you don't like the realism. I for one am sick of games claiming to be realistic and then dumbing down aspects for the sake of gameplay. That is not, and should not ever happen in CM. You want a game where ATGMs can kill hordes of Abrams and the T-90 is equal to or better? Play Wargame:Red Dragon. Luckily there will be no nerfing of the Abrams of Javelin in the game from a patch because the developers of CM strive to provide a realistic simulation. 
 
Thats the other point. Its a SIMULATION. Not a 'game.' How does gameplay even factor into a simulation? Aside from UI< controls, and eye candy, it doesn't. 

I hope this thread is not too old to revive, but I thought I would throw in some World in Conflict music. I love this game and the soundtrack for it, and I think any one of these songs could be great for the main menu. 
 
WiC SA - Incursion:

 
I really like this one because you can almost see the Russian tanks rolling across the line of departure towards their first objectives.
 
WiC - Main Menu

 
Already a main menu theme, its of a decent length and really gets you into the mood. Not over the top or anything, a bit foreboding of the chaos to come. 
 
WiC - Fall of Liberty

 
Has a military theme to it and helps to set the tone as well, more so in the fact that it is implying a serious fight ahead that is of great importance. 
 
WiC SA - Marching North

 
Sounds like after a lot of fighting, battered and exhausted units are marching towards... somewhere. 
 
I like all of these, and there are more in the soundtracks that I really enjoy too, but I wont make this a huge post with all of them listed. Hope you guys like em and may even feel a bit of nostalgia for a great game

Then don't play it. Go somewhere else if you don't like the realism. I for one am sick of games claiming to be realistic and then dumbing down aspects for the sake of gameplay. That is not, and should not ever happen in CM. You want a game where ATGMs can kill hordes of Abrams and the T-90 is equal to or better? Play Wargame:Red Dragon. Luckily there will be no nerfing of the Abrams of Javelin in the game from a patch because the developers of CM strive to provide a realistic simulation. 
 
Thats the other point. Its a SIMULATION. Not a 'game.' How does gameplay even factor into a simulation? Aside from UI< controls, and eye candy, it doesn't. 

This is true. It is possible to simulate 3 week wonders. My point however is that a 3 week wonder scenario is very unlikely considering the time frame and scope of the conflict portrayed in CMBS. For instance, you could set up a more plausible scenario for modern skeleton tank crews by expanding the scope of the conflict (all of Eastern Europe, not just Ukraine) and increasing the length of time of the conflict. A somewhat lesser scenario would be to keep the current setup of CMBS, Brigade Combat Team sized elements cut off from reinforcements who have suffered attrition and must pull infantrymen from rifle companies and place them in tanks (a la WWII)
 
Of course you can just make a battle in the editor and set the morale and motivation to low levels to force-simulate this, but I am personally wary of this. What it sounds like to me is that people want to level the playing field by forcing restrictions. Essentially, the Abrams is too superior to the T-90, so in order to make the battles more symmetrical/balanced you force a handicap on one (or both) sides. The reason I dislike this is because it is not realistic in the slightest (unless you extrapolate a scenario like the ones I described above) Life is not fair. Combat is not fair. I am sure that everyone is aware of the various sayings regarding this; "The only unfair fight is the one you lose." and "Never give your enemy a fair chance." etc. 
 
CM is at its basis a simulation of the chaos of combat on a tactical scale (tactical ranging from the team level all the way to the brigade level, possibly higher if the player so chooses) It is not meant to offer an inherently fair experience, and attempting to force fairness by adding handicaps (read, game 'balance') defeats the purpose of the simulation. 
 
To summarize, yes it is possible to simulate skeleton crews, but it is not the primary scope of the simulation, and to suggest only using skeleton crews in Abrams/all armored vehicles completely defeats the point of Combat Mission. Adapt and overcome like commanders in the field must do. Make your own advantages while negating your disadvantages. There are plenty of historical examples to take inspiration from. find your favorite underdog and emulate him/her!

This is true. It is possible to simulate 3 week wonders. My point however is that a 3 week wonder scenario is very unlikely considering the time frame and scope of the conflict portrayed in CMBS. For instance, you could set up a more plausible scenario for modern skeleton tank crews by expanding the scope of the conflict (all of Eastern Europe, not just Ukraine) and increasing the length of time of the conflict. A somewhat lesser scenario would be to keep the current setup of CMBS, Brigade Combat Team sized elements cut off from reinforcements who have suffered attrition and must pull infantrymen from rifle companies and place them in tanks (a la WWII)
 
Of course you can just make a battle in the editor and set the morale and motivation to low levels to force-simulate this, but I am personally wary of this. What it sounds like to me is that people want to level the playing field by forcing restrictions. Essentially, the Abrams is too superior to the T-90, so in order to make the battles more symmetrical/balanced you force a handicap on one (or both) sides. The reason I dislike this is because it is not realistic in the slightest (unless you extrapolate a scenario like the ones I described above) Life is not fair. Combat is not fair. I am sure that everyone is aware of the various sayings regarding this; "The only unfair fight is the one you lose." and "Never give your enemy a fair chance." etc. 
 
CM is at its basis a simulation of the chaos of combat on a tactical scale (tactical ranging from the team level all the way to the brigade level, possibly higher if the player so chooses) It is not meant to offer an inherently fair experience, and attempting to force fairness by adding handicaps (read, game 'balance') defeats the purpose of the simulation. 
 
To summarize, yes it is possible to simulate skeleton crews, but it is not the primary scope of the simulation, and to suggest only using skeleton crews in Abrams/all armored vehicles completely defeats the point of Combat Mission. Adapt and overcome like commanders in the field must do. Make your own advantages while negating your disadvantages. There are plenty of historical examples to take inspiration from. find your favorite underdog and emulate him/her!

Pardon me, I misspoke. I am agreeing with you that any scenario that leads to taking infantry and making them into overnight tankers is unrealistic, for the reasons you have pointed out. 
 
To tie this into what I am saying, I do not want to see people trying to use an unrealistic scenario like the ones we have described as a forced handicap in order to 'level the playing field.'

I was wondering what you are going for here, realism or gameplay? I have to admit my bias here and admit that the primary reason that I play CM games is due to the extremely high level of realism and historical accuracy involved. The idea of injecting "gamey" elements into CM in an effort to "improve" "gameplay" is an idea that I whole-heartedly dislike. Is your goal here is to say that tanks need to suffer from some kind of stunning or suppression to improve the gameplay, or are you simply trying to determine what the effects are in real life and if they are being accurately modeled in CM?
 
I'm not trying to insinuate or demean you here, just clarifying. As I said in an earlier post, if you are trying to determine whether or not tank crewmen in real life become stunned or suppressed (combat ineffective not due to injury or death) then the answer is no, tank crewmen do not suffer these effects. The only way the crew itself suffers negative effects is if the armor of their vehicle is penetrated and the crew is wounded or killed, or put in direct danger of something such as an internal fire.
 
As to the historical anecdote about the JagdTiger, I do not doubt the historical accuracy of that at all, but I think there are a lot more factors at work there. The biggest one being the training level of the crew. Both American and German tank crews towards the end of the war were essentially skeleton crews. They were scrounged up from anywhere they could be found, given a crash course on the tank and their crew position, many times mere hours before being thrown into combat. That is not the way things currently are in the modern era. Even in CMBS, it is assumed that neither side has suffered attrition levels to their tank crews to simulate vastly under trained crewmen. The scenario is assuming trained crews, which even though may not be combat experienced, are more that proficient at their jobs. The American example of unbloodied but proficiently trained crews is the First Gulf War. So, while it is true that crews (specifically under trained crews, and this is true for any profession, military or not) panic and react in silly and many times fatal ways, this is not what is being simulated in CMBS.
 
Just want to clarify again that I am only trying to answer what I think you are asking and that I am in no way attempting to insult you or imply that you have less than honorable/meaningful intent with your question. Hopefully my ramblings could be of some help to you!

I like the idea and would contribute as well. Personally I think that there are so many exciting time periods that they could do. My personal wish is for them to make a CM game based around 1985 with a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I would also very much like to see a game covering operation Torch and the following campaign for North Africa (with an expansion covering Monty and his Desert Rats) as well as a game/expansion covering the beginning of the war on the Eastern Front. 
 
In short, most everyone here would agree with you in wanting more games/expansions covering more time periods. It is a testament to how fantastic these games (calling them games feels almost insulting. They really are top quality sims) really are. 
 
That was a lot of blabber so I'll summarize by saying, yes. If a kickstarter would allow BF to produce more games faster at the same (or better if even possible) quality then I am all for it!

+1
 
This is a really good idea. It wouldn't require and new skins or anything like that, just scenario creation. It would be really cool to make some scenarios based around real world training exercises and tactical problems that would help to get commanders accustomed to the modern battlefield in CMBS as well as hone their skills, both newbies and salty vets alike. 

I do not know exactly what it is like in game, but I do know that the rubble of buildings generally does provide more cover and concealment than the building itself. (Concealment when in the rubble) The battle of Grozny in the First Chechen War is a great case study of this. The Russians bombed and shelled the city to ruins and then moved their tanks and infantry in, but it actually gave the Chechen fighters better positions to ambush the Russians due to all of the rubble. Stalingrad is another example, if a bit older. The city was flattened, but this ended up aiding the defenders more. The Soviets learned a lot during that battle that went on to influence how they fought in urban conditions for the remainder of the war and after. they essentially wrote their urban warfare doctrine based on what happened in Stalingrad. 
 
It does seem like it should be the other way around, but there are a lot of battles that you can look into as case studies as to why rubble is actually better cover/concealment. 

Just a quick update for me. I got a response to my ticket and all has been sorted out for me. I'll mention that the download from the website did work for me today. Perhaps it was some kind of glitch in the system that was taken care of over night? Not really sure what to think of it, but I now have my copy of CM:BS downloaded and installed, issue free and I'm really enjoying the game. 
 
So my advice would be to maybe wait a few hours or a day and try downloading again from the website, and submit a ticket to the helpdesk. Both should be a solution, as they have both been for me. Good luck!