IICptMillerII

Alright, I did some homework.
With CMAutoEditor now mature enough that I am confident I can do the map making part, I've planned out the first part of this operation, consisting of three phases from the red side. Since I'm still very much in the learning phase, I will start by doing a mini campaign consisting of 3 battles featuring the eastern prong, i.e. the advance of 2nd Battalion/148th MRR/50th Guards Motor Rifle Division.
Both sides will not me equipped with the latest and greates, however, both will probably have something "fancy". Story-wise, the 50th GMRD was a Cat III division and could probably not be brought up to strength in time. So, since this is a high profile operation, it is beefed up with what remnants of other formations could be found. I think an MRB could have a single T-80 equiped platoon. That would make for interesting decision. Use the more readily available T-55s or commit the T-80s which are powerful but rare.
Now, operational planning is really not my strong side, so if you think this would be done differently, feel free to correct me. Unused maps will and up as quick battle maps or something. So...
... by all means, do tell!
According to doctrine, a Soviet division would commit two regiments to the main effort, maybe another one to a supporting effort. A 4th regiment would be held back as "combined arms reserve". I consider this arm to be the main effort, 148th GMRR is the first echelon, 69th GTR the second echelon formation.
On the march, doctrine would usually have a MRR split into 2 MRB front and 2 MRB in the second echelon, however, depending on circumstances 3 MRB in front are possible, too. The Tank Battalion would give a company to each MRB with around a company being held in reserve.
I am struggling with how the US Army would play this. I assume that 5th Infantry Division has sent one brigade (with possible more reserves coming later) to stop or at least delay the 50th GMRD. For flavour, I currently assume this unit is the 256th Infantry Brigade (Louisiana NG). I think the better line of defense would be Cologne/Bonn Airport -> Wahner Heide -> Lohmar. I am assuming the brigade sends a Battalion Task Force ahead to delay the advance and give the rest of the brigade time to fortify the line. The 256th had E Troop, 256th Cavalry Regiment attached, which is sent in addition.
Phase 1 sees each company sending an infantry platoon ahead, reinforced with a cavalry platoon. In turn these are only supposed to be a trip wire and delay the advance to give the respective company time to setup. CM-wise, this first mission (and the others too to some extend) is not about smashing enemy units but about not getting delayed and to some extent force conservation for the following missions. The AI should be programmed to delay the player and give him a bloody nose but pull back instead of being annihilated. In the image below, the "camouflage colored" rectangle is an actual CM map, where the first mission takes place.

Phase 2 is similar in the sense that the main goal is to break through, not destroy the enemy force, with the other side trying to delay and withdraw. The other side has a full company + possible reinforcements. This time there is more place to maneuver, though. If the player managed to finish the first map in time this mission will be somewhat easier.

In phase 3 the mission is to prevent what is left of the US B and C company from withdrawing. On the "losing track", the brigade was able to send reinforcements which can hit the flanks of the MRB. Otherwise the way is clear for the 69th GTR to exploit the breakthrough.

Part 1 will take place on September 14th, I think. Historically, that day had, just like the previous days, light rain. So, I think the morning will see light to heavy rain, ground condition being wet.
Here as some images of the 3 maps:
Mission 1, Schlingenbachtal, view N->S

Mission 2: Marialinden, view SW->NE

Mission 3: Overath, Cyriax, view E->W

I think the area is tactially really interesting. It feels quite different from Fulda Gap. Although there are relatively long site lines, the terrain is more restricted and there are often sneaky approaches. So, this is not really tank country.  TOWs, for example, are - while still quite useful more to prevent the other side from reaching covered approaches. The Soviets may not be entirely happy with the situation, either, because there is usually no place to line a full company and advance.
I also did a concept study of that one:
This is quite unplayable at the moment. Turns out, CM is not happy having to display 6000+ buildings...


350-400m. Don't worry, Comrade. By the time the Yankees wake up we will already be in Paris, drinking wine and dancing with French Ladies. 😉
On a more serious note: This is place has the Mondorf Ferry Line, so it is probably one of the better suited areas for a river crossing. I read that the Soviets favoured river crossings at night but they were rarely trained... Would be interesting but without artillery illumination rounds this is a bit unrealistic, I guess. Anyway, I would probably want to take my chances here instead of trying to cross one of the bridges in Bonn... Then again:
Brigadier General Gavin:
What's the best way to take a bridge?
Maj. Julian Cook:
Both ends at once.
Brigadier General Gavin:
I'm sending two companies across the river by boat. I need a man with very special qualities to lead.
Maj. Julian Cook:
Go on, sir.
Brigadier General Gavin:
He's got to be tough enough to do it and he's got to be experienced enough to do it. Plus one more thing. He's got to be dumb enough to do it... Start getting ready.
U.S. captain:
What was all that about, Major?
Maj. Julian Cook:
Well someone's come up with a real nightmare. Real nightmare.

This is simply incredible work. I will be taking this for a spin in the near future, well done and answers a need that has been left wanting for years.
Bil

Love seeing Cold War get more videos, especially ones of such high quality. Loved the combination of graphics (really well done by the way) gameplay and commentary! I'll echo others in saying that Free Whiskey continues to raise his own bar with each video he releases. Just really well done stuff. Plus, I appreciated the short clip from my tactical doctrine training scenarios of the T-64s all firing on line. Great shot! The commentary from Dom is great as well! Very informative, clear, and well spoken. A fantastic overview of the fundamentals of Soviet tactical doctrine. I can see this video along with the one Hapless did a year ago being go to shares for any newcomers asking about the basics of how the Soviets should fight. 
Honestly one of the most satisfying things I have seen from Cold War is how much intelligent discussion it has generated. Talking about concepts such as Soviet doctrine, US Active Defense and AirLand Battle, higher level stuff, tactical intricacies, etc. Its all been great to see. Dare I say that CMCW might be the high brow CM title.

Some 3D model bugs were fixed by the fans using Blender.
 
1. Numerous titles had long standing unfixed error with Bunker ATG had firing blast from concrete base. Very simple error in the naming of a model component and fix was done.
2. CMCW sprockets on several vehicles not moving. Same issue as above. Model component named cylinder and not wheel.
3. Big ugly turret issues with F&R PzIII. Fixed by grabbing model from other title.
Maybe your beta team can develop an house "repair squad" for these simple issues. Fix before game is released is obvious goal. If not that then post fix in forums as a link to an official mod for z folder versus waiting for a patch. THEN later roll that initial fix into patch brz.
Here is where you must tell how the beta team does catch many errors and a few slip through. Of course. Everybody (should) appreciate/s the beta team. But these 3D errors got through... 
 

I don't know the technical workings behind it, but having used the replay feature and being a video editor myself while maintaining an active presence in the discord community of over 200+ people who have bought at least one of your titles throughout the years you've been in business I have to disagree with your assessment. 

Regardless of all the miniscule little complaints that are petty themself, the community as a whole would appreciate this one specific feature more than anything else. Enough to probably pay an additional fee (albeit small, $10-$15) to have this. It's not only useful for your marketing, but the community itself to bring people closer together / create content. 

Not a single user of Combat Mission: Professional that obtained their license through UK: Fight Club has complained about anything regarding the replay feature. Sure, it's not all sunshine and rainbows and the feature is surely not polished to the standard that you would like to release a finished product in, but as it stands it is more than useable. 

If there is a contract stipulation on deliverable features that cannot be released to the public, that's one thing. Telling the community on multiple occasions that we think we know what we want, but we really don't is a little rash in my opinion and I mean this with all due respect. 

My final point, is that if the community is going to find things to complain about year after year, regardless of what you do sir, then why not give them this one thing that they've been asking for so you can either; 1) Prove your point that we don't know what we want, or 2) Throw the community a bone that is appreciated. 

Either way, I respect your judgement but as a user of both the Pro and Commercial titles I do not think your assessment of the usage in regards to Replay Feature is accurate. 

The tool to make maps is painful to use. At the very least the format for combat mission maps should be open sourced so that someone could build a better tool. I saw the recent thread about a terrain mapper tool, but the way it has to work is pretty hilarious.
Expecting adoration for profoundly negative news is unrealistic. Besides, since no progress is made, new bones have no point.

This mirrors my thoughts almost exactly. Problems in the game last for years without being addressed, both gameplay and technical, and nothing ever seems to move forward. Even the new content seems lesser these days (CMRT, CMBS, and CMCW seem to have the same list of quickbattle maps, more or less.). Hell, I posted about the T-90 issue in CMBS 9 months ago, and finally heard a month ago that it was fixed and we would see it "very soon". Well, very soon has been a month so far, and now it seems like maybe there are months left to go. Not that it matters, without some sign of life from Battlefront, I doubt I can convince any of my friends to turn up for another CM2x game. This copy paste of last year's status update has not helped. Seeing features for the Professional version that have been wanted for years veto'd from ever seeing the light of day on the commercial version is especially demoralizing. 
 
Battlefront seems to be a company with the output capacity of a single guy in his garage, but the agility of a company with 50000 employees. It's frustrating.
I will disagree here. There is nothing wrong with OpenGL for an older game. I wouldn't recommend it for new projects, but it is still strongly supported in Windows environments, and some top quality games run great with it. You just had to have implemented it correctly, or if not, kept up with maintenance when your spaghetti code breaks down with new driver updates. As for Apple support, nothing can really be done about that. Apple has always been willing to pull the rug out from under customers and developers with little notice.

That's profoundly disappointing. The reason I know about CM and bought the games is due to AAR videos on youtube created by the likes of @Hapless
I've created my own videos in a similar style, and it is an incredibly time-intensive task to load and reload saves in order to create recordings. The replay feature present in CMPE would make life an awful lot easier for people like me to create videos. I recently made a video which contained 11 minutes of footage, and it took approximately 3 hours to record and edit it, without any attempt at music or voiceover.
Making it easier to review game footage  would allow more videos to be made, which would then reach a wider audience and create additional revenues for you at zero cost beyond the implementation of the existing CMPE replay feature into the commercial games.
For PBEMs, the save files already exist in the incoming and outgoing email folders. Why not make use of them?
@Hapless

I hope that this is taken in the spirit in which it is meant - CM may just need a reasonable competitor in order to push the series forward.
We all enjoy and appreciate the effort that is put in by BF. We would not be here otherwise. It is unfortunate however that CM is resigned to years of semi-releases and updates rather than the great leaps forward that I think we would all appreciate.
The gulf in the trajectory between OpenGL and DirectX have been there for all to see for decades now. Unfortunately it doesn't really hold water to say that it's a surprise that development is limited by not taking a decision to re-engineer the engine in DirectX years ago.
The new modules, battle packs etc are all well and good, as are the steam releases, but I can't think that I am in a minority who would sacrifice significant releases for a period for the knowledge that a new engine was being created, with current technology, which would allow an even more realistic experience. Much less talented game designers are out there creating games which, given the 'CM Treatment' would solve a lot of the on-going issues which cause issues with the current experience.  I realise BF aren't a tripe A developer, but it's not as though we see a new release every year anyway. And they have moved to a different engine before.
At the moment the competition is either too 'gamey' such a Regiments for example; or like Mius Front, has a UI which is totally unintuitive. Both things which CM excels at. Then we have Squad Battles by John Tiller for example which are great games but very abstracted given they are trying to emulate Squad Leader. Even Second Front which I had high hopes for looks like a cartoon and I can't take it seriously. 
Anyway - I'm going to keep playing the games because there's nothing better, and therefore little incentive to update the system. Perhaps I'm part of the problem.

Some Cold War love of recent PBEMs of @Bartimeus scenarios..

what will come first, a 2023 update or 2000 pages in how hot is Ukraine gonna get ?
My guess is 2000 pages

The lack of composite armor on the M60 series is tough. It makes Soviet ATGMs that much more of a headache, which is a problem considering how prolific those ATGMs are. 
 
That said, I honestly like the M60. I know it’s a bit cliche to say but the first line of defense shouldn’t be the armor of your tank. Survivability onion and all that, but not being effectively engaged is much better armor than getting hit, no matter the armor package of the tank. Which brings me to the next major benefit of the M60, its height. Height is an asset for vehicles, not a detriment. Not sure where the “height=bad” myth came from (I blame Pentagon Wars and Sherman WW2 myths) but a myth it is. Height is great because it gives you a better spotting vantage, and more importantly it makes hull down easier to do. Tanks not fighting from hull down are either attacking, caught by surprise, or wrong. The height of the M60 means it can find and fight from hull down positions easier which is a huge advantage. Especially against the Soviets who are both generally on the attack, and their squatter tanks make it very hard for them to fight from hull down positions that haven’t been engineered for them. 
 
Regarding mobility, speed is mostly irrelevant on the tactical level. No matter how fast your tank is, you will never outrun a sabot traveling at 1,500m/s. 

Love seeing Cold War get more videos, especially ones of such high quality. Loved the combination of graphics (really well done by the way) gameplay and commentary! I'll echo others in saying that Free Whiskey continues to raise his own bar with each video he releases. Just really well done stuff. Plus, I appreciated the short clip from my tactical doctrine training scenarios of the T-64s all firing on line. Great shot! The commentary from Dom is great as well! Very informative, clear, and well spoken. A fantastic overview of the fundamentals of Soviet tactical doctrine. I can see this video along with the one Hapless did a year ago being go to shares for any newcomers asking about the basics of how the Soviets should fight. 
Honestly one of the most satisfying things I have seen from Cold War is how much intelligent discussion it has generated. Talking about concepts such as Soviet doctrine, US Active Defense and AirLand Battle, higher level stuff, tactical intricacies, etc. Its all been great to see. Dare I say that CMCW might be the high brow CM title.

Love seeing Cold War get more videos, especially ones of such high quality. Loved the combination of graphics (really well done by the way) gameplay and commentary! I'll echo others in saying that Free Whiskey continues to raise his own bar with each video he releases. Just really well done stuff. Plus, I appreciated the short clip from my tactical doctrine training scenarios of the T-64s all firing on line. Great shot! The commentary from Dom is great as well! Very informative, clear, and well spoken. A fantastic overview of the fundamentals of Soviet tactical doctrine. I can see this video along with the one Hapless did a year ago being go to shares for any newcomers asking about the basics of how the Soviets should fight. 
Honestly one of the most satisfying things I have seen from Cold War is how much intelligent discussion it has generated. Talking about concepts such as Soviet doctrine, US Active Defense and AirLand Battle, higher level stuff, tactical intricacies, etc. Its all been great to see. Dare I say that CMCW might be the high brow CM title.

Love seeing Cold War get more videos, especially ones of such high quality. Loved the combination of graphics (really well done by the way) gameplay and commentary! I'll echo others in saying that Free Whiskey continues to raise his own bar with each video he releases. Just really well done stuff. Plus, I appreciated the short clip from my tactical doctrine training scenarios of the T-64s all firing on line. Great shot! The commentary from Dom is great as well! Very informative, clear, and well spoken. A fantastic overview of the fundamentals of Soviet tactical doctrine. I can see this video along with the one Hapless did a year ago being go to shares for any newcomers asking about the basics of how the Soviets should fight. 
Honestly one of the most satisfying things I have seen from Cold War is how much intelligent discussion it has generated. Talking about concepts such as Soviet doctrine, US Active Defense and AirLand Battle, higher level stuff, tactical intricacies, etc. Its all been great to see. Dare I say that CMCW might be the high brow CM title.

Love seeing Cold War get more videos, especially ones of such high quality. Loved the combination of graphics (really well done by the way) gameplay and commentary! I'll echo others in saying that Free Whiskey continues to raise his own bar with each video he releases. Just really well done stuff. Plus, I appreciated the short clip from my tactical doctrine training scenarios of the T-64s all firing on line. Great shot! The commentary from Dom is great as well! Very informative, clear, and well spoken. A fantastic overview of the fundamentals of Soviet tactical doctrine. I can see this video along with the one Hapless did a year ago being go to shares for any newcomers asking about the basics of how the Soviets should fight. 
Honestly one of the most satisfying things I have seen from Cold War is how much intelligent discussion it has generated. Talking about concepts such as Soviet doctrine, US Active Defense and AirLand Battle, higher level stuff, tactical intricacies, etc. Its all been great to see. Dare I say that CMCW might be the high brow CM title.

I thought this made a higher tank easier to hit, as you have more latitude for inaccurate rangefinding/estimation. However, as you pointed out, you should be hull down; in that situation, there is little difference in the turret heights.

The lack of composite armor on the M60 series is tough. It makes Soviet ATGMs that much more of a headache, which is a problem considering how prolific those ATGMs are. 
 
That said, I honestly like the M60. I know it’s a bit cliche to say but the first line of defense shouldn’t be the armor of your tank. Survivability onion and all that, but not being effectively engaged is much better armor than getting hit, no matter the armor package of the tank. Which brings me to the next major benefit of the M60, its height. Height is an asset for vehicles, not a detriment. Not sure where the “height=bad” myth came from (I blame Pentagon Wars and Sherman WW2 myths) but a myth it is. Height is great because it gives you a better spotting vantage, and more importantly it makes hull down easier to do. Tanks not fighting from hull down are either attacking, caught by surprise, or wrong. The height of the M60 means it can find and fight from hull down positions easier which is a huge advantage. Especially against the Soviets who are both generally on the attack, and their squatter tanks make it very hard for them to fight from hull down positions that haven’t been engineered for them. 
 
Regarding mobility, speed is mostly irrelevant on the tactical level. No matter how fast your tank is, you will never outrun a sabot traveling at 1,500m/s. 

Glad to have helped!
I think you will find that the M60A1 and M60A3 are more than a match for the T-62. Not a cakewalk, especially considering all the other assets the Soviets get (ATGMs, artillery, etc) but certainly much less of a "Panther vs Sherman" dynamic.

This is worth pointing out. It is a known bug that has been logged and is on the list of things that need to be fixed. When that fix will happen I have no idea, but best practice would be to not expect it anytime soon. 
As others have said, yes it is possible. Even given the above caveat that the frontal armor is overperforming a bit, T-64A/B, T-72A, and T-80/B were all very well armored for the time they were introduced. 
However:
It should be pointed out that during the span of years Cold War covers (1979-1982) the vast majority of Soviet tanks forward deployed (specifically in Group of Soviet Forces Germany GSFG) were still T-62s. Something like 75% of all Soviet tanks in GSFG were T-62 variants. Warsaw Pact allies were even worse off, as by 1989 the vast majority of their tanks were still T-55 series. Further, the majority of T-64/T-80 tanks were concentrated in NORTHAG (3td Shock Army being infamous for having lots of modern Soviet MBTs). All of that is to say that the Soviet tank you should almost always see is the T-62 in Cold War. 
Why is T-64/T-80 so over-represented? Cool factor mostly. They are the shiny new toys (and also new vehicles in the Combat Mission catalog) and they also make REDFOR much more competitive. This is a big deal compared to the other modern CM titles where REDFOR is at a disadvantage in CMBS and a severe disadvantage in CMSF2. The problem is similar to how CM and other games over-represent things like Tiger/Panther/King Tiger/etc in the WWII titles. People generally are more enthralled by a King Tiger than a Panzer 4, even though in reality the vast majority of German tanks encountered were a Panzer 4 variant. Same phenomenon. 
A final note on T-72. There were none in GSFG, and so its appearance in CW should be even more rare than T-64/T-80. During the Cold War the T-72 was an export tank. In Soviet service it was relegated to second echelon and peripheral forces. The Soviet army in Czechoslovakia had some for example. Had the war gone on long enough for Soviet reserve formations to get to the front, T-72 would have started to appear here and there, but it still would have been pretty rare. 
 

You must have a different edition to mine then, in my version the backstory for most of the characters simply states what position they occupy and vaguely how long they'd been in it.  Character development is complementary to the action narrative and in the main that revolves around the straight out of armour school lieutenant evolving from someone whose every peace time action involves an interview sans coffee to combat actions which earn him the trust of his superiors and subordinates.

This is a pretty good summary, specifically on points 1 and 3. 
Point 2 however needs a bit of context. CM call in times for artillery are pretty spot on, for both the WWII titles and for the modern ones, for all sides. Yes, the call in times are averages, but that is a product of the CM system and really can't be helped. 
More importantly, the methodology for Soviet artillery is not the same as its Western counterpart. The way most players tend to play CM is via "recon pull" or by constantly reacting to new information and exploiting it. This roughly translates to one of the strengths of US artillery in that it is highly reactive. If you have a unit driving down a road and it takes fire from an unexpected enemy position, US artillery is flexible enough to be called in quickly against the unexpected enemy position. That is now how Soviet artillery worked, or was intended to function. 
Soviet artillery was designed to be part of a larger plan. (US artillery is too, but the Soviet application is more rigid). The vast majority of Soviet artillery was templated, or pre-planned. Even the reactionary fire. Soviet preparatory bombardments were complex and involved a constant shifting of fires from the "deep fight" (rear area targets such as command and control, logistics, assembly areas, etc) to the "close fight" (enemy defensive positions directly opposing friendly forces). The term rolling barrage is incorrect, but probably is the most relatable concept to start wrapping your head around. 
Unfortunately, CM is fairly limited in its ability to represent a proper Soviet fires plan. Under ideal circumstances, the vast majority of the fires plan would all be pre-planned missions, hitting suspected enemy positions and key terrain that moves with the advance of the attacking ground forces. This cannot be done in CM because you cannot plan more than one pre-planned fire mission per battery, and because the time delay option only goes out to 15 minutes. The best way around that is to use a lot of TRPs. There are issues with that as well though both from a gameplay perspective (covering the map in TRPs is considered gamey) and from a technical perspective (a TRP in real life is different than what a TRP is in CM in a few notable ways), but it is arguably the best workaround. 
A certified CM teaching moment! So in real life, the general rule of thumb is that all fires must be observed. Inversely, unobserved fires are useless. The reasoning is simple; if you cannot see what you are hitting, how can you know if you are in fact hitting anything? Now, there are contexts and examples were firing at a target that you cannot see is a good idea (counter battery comes readily to mind) but the key takeaway is that in CM the most effective fire missions will be the ones that you can directly observe. 

Thanks! 
Very fair points, especially the one about CM moving faster than real life and how long 5 turns (or 12) can be in CM. I always wished there was more modularity in the difficulty levels. Something like reducing the call in times without getting borg spotting, for example. Would go a long way to helping to ease some of the gameplay quirks of the CM system, but I also understand that it would open up a can of worms too. 

The lack of composite armor on the M60 series is tough. It makes Soviet ATGMs that much more of a headache, which is a problem considering how prolific those ATGMs are. 
 
That said, I honestly like the M60. I know it’s a bit cliche to say but the first line of defense shouldn’t be the armor of your tank. Survivability onion and all that, but not being effectively engaged is much better armor than getting hit, no matter the armor package of the tank. Which brings me to the next major benefit of the M60, its height. Height is an asset for vehicles, not a detriment. Not sure where the “height=bad” myth came from (I blame Pentagon Wars and Sherman WW2 myths) but a myth it is. Height is great because it gives you a better spotting vantage, and more importantly it makes hull down easier to do. Tanks not fighting from hull down are either attacking, caught by surprise, or wrong. The height of the M60 means it can find and fight from hull down positions easier which is a huge advantage. Especially against the Soviets who are both generally on the attack, and their squatter tanks make it very hard for them to fight from hull down positions that haven’t been engineered for them. 
 
Regarding mobility, speed is mostly irrelevant on the tactical level. No matter how fast your tank is, you will never outrun a sabot traveling at 1,500m/s.