IICptMillerII

This - not sure why people think that the Leopard approach is a winner on this basis.  Comes back to rule one of combat - don't be seen.

It happens in the WW2 titles as well, I've witnessed it many times. I would chalk it up as a quirk/feature of the TacAI, which is universal across all the games. 

To reinforce the point - have a look at 8 Guards Army here:
8th Guards Combined Arms Army (ww2.dk)
Then drill down to the divisions to see the equipment types fielded which conveniently have figures for 1979 and 1985.  Even as late as 1985 the ratio of T-62 to newer types was still higher than most casual observers would expect.  Leaving tanks aside - look at the other equipment - still lots of BMP-1  and BTR-60s sat in GSFG's East German barracks - where many would probably expect more BMP-2 and BTR-70/80.

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. 
 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Great write up! 
I made sure to add the "personally" in there to show its my (non-professional) opinion.
In my opinion, the call in times are realistic compared to real life conbat. For example, a US company commander can call in an organic mortar battery in around 5 minutes. In real life that is very realistic but in Combat Mission that is an absolute eternity. 5 full turns! Even more if the observer has a difficult time seeing the spotting rounds.
I think we can all agree that Combat Mission moves much more quickly than a real battle would. A 1 hour scenario with the objective of taking a town would probably take three times that in real life.
That is why I think new players can get a bit confused with the call in times and I think some it's worth giving them some context.
Again, all my opinion.
 

I would like to point out that there has been a good bit of debate on the forums about the T-64's armor performance. A few posts marshalled significant evidence that the upper glacis is over-preforming against sabot and lacks the top center weak spot. Still, T-64/72/80 were very tough tanks in this time period, so don't be surprised if they can take serious punishment to the front armor.

I asked Domfluff to help me out in creating a video about Soviet military doctrine in the Cold War era, and how those principles can be applied in a Combat Mission scenario/QB. He played a game against me as the Soviet Army, gave me an arse kicking, and then sat down with me and explained why he did what he did. The result is the video down below!
 

Fire & Rubble: Broken Shields

On this cold January morning, Kampfgruppe "Darges" is taking part in the Konrad Offensives. The goal is to break-out friendly forces, out of the Budapest Cauldron.

Kampfgruppe "Darges" is mostly made out of I. Battalion/SS-Pz.Gren.Rgt. 23 "Norge". Half-tracks are in low supply, so we must ride the 5th SS Panzer Division's tanks.
BLUFOR

Task Force North (SS-Hauptsturmführer Weber): 4 Kompanie (Weapons)
Task Force Center (SS-Hauptsturmführer Schmidt): 1 Kompanie (Tanks)
Task Force South (SS-Hauptsturmführer Oldendahl): 1 Kompanie (Infantry)
Kampfgruppe HQ (SS-Sturmbannführer Vogt)
Supports (SS-Hauptsturmführer Wöhler): 81mm Platoon, Aufklärung Pioneers, Self-Propelled Flak (Light)
OPFOR

232 Guards Rifle Division, 68th Guards Rifle Regiment
The enemy must be made out of infantry, backed by anti-tank guns and possibly vehicles. They have not had time to fortify.
Terrain

Phase A: Town
Soviet ambush elements control the northern and southern woods. We must first secure the town, Objective Vertesszoloes.
Phase B: Hill
This wooded hill controls the central road. It must be taken to get a good view, and to protect our convoy.
Phase C : Exit
This is where the central road leaves the forest. It will give us maneuverability, as well as a base of fire, for taking Objective Tarjan.
Plan

 Clear the central road.
Weber and Oldendahl must cover Schmidt, as the convoy moves through the woods. Vogt will divert supports, where needed.
Once we have a more accurate picture of the enemy, the plan may be altered.

First off thanks to all those who have supported the Battlepack by purchasing it, and a shout out to those who have provided their support in the creation of this project – and a huge shout out to those who have freely given their feedback and additional support publicly via various means – online streaming vids, DARs, AARs and various forum posts etc, Its truly heartening to read and see these. 

It’s just as well, being Scottish, that we are renowned for being slow to anger and not prone to unprovoked outbursts. On a personal note a mahhoosive amount of work went into the battle pack, at my end. Work of which I am truly proud off. The lion’s share of research, mapmaking and AI plan stuff was devoted to the two campaigns and the Rakow and the Dying Sun scenario. These all involved painstakingly creating huge new maps from primary sources. Research turned up several ‘loose’ ends regarding accepted historical narrative and I’m as chuffed with these as the scenarios!

I digress… In short this sucked up a huge amount of time and I was also involved in several other projects (which I was keen to be involved in including CMFR and CMCW). Creating new content, AI plans etc for the Battlepack was a significant endeavour. So yup I used bits of various previous maps (which were my own creations and made available publicly) which I then significantly tweaked – mainly because I could not positively ID RL locations, or the fact is I thought the map – like Der Ring (which by the way took nearly a year to produce) to have a new life after some major tweaking. I’ve done this on previous game families with other maps. A few astute observers might have spotted them. 

But, and I should stress this, in the case of Der Ring it was heavily reworked and I created brand new AI plans (I had to as I’d chopped and reused bits) etc. So yes whilst some stuff is based on sections of der Ring they are more the offspring – rather than the map wearing a false wig and a pair of dodgy specs…

Re the rather offensive swipes about scamming, well,  re the master maps it’s pretty clear that as stated on the BFC website that they are “New maps based on maps from the Battle Pack missions”. 

Years back I used to be with a punk band – another life another story…. One of the bands (way more successful than we were) we did some gigs with, had their singer on one of their records state this quote, it was along the lines of – “Whatever you do they’ll slate you off and criticise you to the ground…” It’s stood me in good stead through life.
So aye happy to take the constructive knocks, but I’m less inclined to give credence tae whingers.
 

You're full of Christmas cheer aren't you.  Der Ring der 5 Panzer you got for free in the first place as @George MCreleased that as a community scenario .  So let's say 30% is 'old content.'  Looks like you're owed $3.  Let me know where to send the money to or maybe we'll set up a crowdfund.

Into Lithuania by SeinfeldRules. A neat little scenario.

Almost at the end of Broken Shields, only one mission left. It's been one hell of a slog.

For those wanting more content, feel free to jump into the editor and build some new scenarios for the community.  Trust me there is nothing special that the CM Betas get that you don't when it comes to the editor. The unit editor is already incredibly powerful if you know how to use it. Oh and it's part of the package if you've already bought the game.
For those wanting fantasy weapons and a vehicles like tanks with automatic 120mm cannons, I reckon you'd love it for about 15 minutes before the novelty wore off and you never used the content again. There's a reason WW2 remains a popular time period for wargamers after all this time, and it isn't because of questions like: "What if the Panzer VIII Maus was deployed in 1945?"
Can vouch for each of those guys listed and the effort they put into creating official content, I'm desperately trying to scramble to keep up with that standard. I still bow in awe at benpark and his effort to recreate 1945 central Berlin. The research undertaken to try make the most accurate recreation of historical engagements and help out in designing accurate TOE/OOB is in my mind second to none among the BFC official staff and the wider volunteer circle.
Want an example? A small tidbit from my own work last Friday night. I've been recreating an engagement that includes the US 2nd Armored Division and been drawing from various historical and printed sources. Well I stumbled across digital scans of the divisional day by day reports and hand drawn maps of unit movements from June 1944. What was there was information that went against what was printed in some major history books by some big name historians. Though it was clear where the confusion over the years has come from given certain 2nd Armored battalions were detached from the Division in early June. Well this discovery slowed down putting the scenario together as it required me to go and edit my unit files and swap formations to ensure the scenario you play is the most historically accurate as possible.
Finally, keep in mind that many of us have day jobs so working on CM content is on the side of "paying the bills"* and because we have a passion for wargaming, CM and most importantly history.
* Feel free to send next weeks winning lottery numbers my way.

Recently I didn't have all that much time to spend on this... I'm still mainly working on getting buildings right. Single buildings are one thing but of course you want to have larger buildings that are composed of smaller buildings. There is an example of an industrial/commercial zone below.

You'll have to do the roof and textures yourself but the algorithm does its best to deconstruct larger polygons into smaller rectangles the size of different modular buildings in CM.
Also there are still those pesky linear features... Look at the conflict between road and railway above... 😉
Anyway, I'm thinking about releasing a beta version soon (tm) so that I can gather feedback. (There is no way I can test all the fringe cases myself...). My main concern is having a good tutorial or something...
EDIT: I also looked into the ALOS satellite data for @Artkin . Unfortunately that kind of data is really not very good - It is raw elevation, meaning tree tops, buildings etc. which is not what we want here.

Here is a quick and dirty AAR for a scenario I've been working on for Combat Mission Cold War. It should be noted that this is a test run through of this scenario. It features two Soviet tank battalions in the attack against a US cavalry troop, with me playing as the Soviets. The goal for the Soviets is to force a breakthrough. High losses are expected but acceptable if a breakthrough is achieved.

The goal of the initial fires and maneuver plan is to compartmentalize the battlefield by isolating the far left and far rear enemy positions with smoke, while pummeling suspected strongpoints with massed artillery fire before reducing them with massed direct fire

The results are rough.



The enemy strongpoints along their main line of resistance are reduced, but it costs the entirety of 1st battalions tanks to do so

2nd battalion (having arrived as reinforcements) is tasked with carrying on the attack to affect a breakthrough

To support their efforts, the artillery fires are pushed deeper into the map to suppress known/suspected enemy strongpoints. The town will be bypassed unless an AT threat remains, in which case 1st battalion's infantry will assault and clear the town.
And the result of the effort:

2nd battalion is able to reduce the remaining strongpoints and force a breakthrough, taking relatively few losses in the process.
Of the 40 tanks lost in the attack, 30 are from 1st battalion in their effort to smash through the MLR.
Brief Analysis:
Could this have gone better for the Soviets? 

I think there are two answers to that question.
1) The entire scenario is a forced breach against a solid defense, so heavy losses are inevitable. A big part of the Soviet dilemma is choosing where to take the inescapable beating, or put nicer, spend the combat power. In this case I chose to spend 1st battalion breaking the enemy main line of resistance. The result was 1st battalion getting destroyed, but it was not in vain. 1st battalion reduced enough of the strongpoints that 2nd battalion was able to blow through and achieve a breakthrough with minimal losses.
2) The fires plan could also have placed the smoke in a way that would have isolated all but one strongpoint (as opposed to leaving two open). By blinding all but one, it would have made the initial direct fire engagement with my tanks less one sided, but would have created more difficulties later. I've drawn up another graphic of this modified fires plan, this one:

The downside to this is that while it shields the attacker at first, it also puts them in a tough spot that they still have to fight out of. With the far right strongpoint reduced, that still leaves the center and rear right strongpoint to deal with, and the far left strongpoint can still put fire into the kill zone (engagement area) as well, which means follow on forces are more at risk.
There are a few tweaks I'm planning to make (the addition of another battery of 152mm 2S3's as noted in the revised fires plan graphic) and I am also waiting on a friend of mine to finish a playthrough to see those results. This will hopefully be revisited and given a more detailed AAR in the future, but for now I thought this would be a fun pocket sized AAR. 

You must be new around here 😉 
P

Yup I agree. Keeping the big picture in mind is hard to do because in CM it is usually just extra narrative fluff that people tend to skim or skip entirely.
One of the better ways to make that context more relevant to the player is to impose restrictions, such as the time limit. Giving the player too much time to slowly recon forward and pick apart the defense can be largely mitigated by having a tight time limit on the battle. 

Here is a quick and dirty AAR for a scenario I've been working on for Combat Mission Cold War. It should be noted that this is a test run through of this scenario. It features two Soviet tank battalions in the attack against a US cavalry troop, with me playing as the Soviets. The goal for the Soviets is to force a breakthrough. High losses are expected but acceptable if a breakthrough is achieved.

The goal of the initial fires and maneuver plan is to compartmentalize the battlefield by isolating the far left and far rear enemy positions with smoke, while pummeling suspected strongpoints with massed artillery fire before reducing them with massed direct fire

The results are rough.



The enemy strongpoints along their main line of resistance are reduced, but it costs the entirety of 1st battalions tanks to do so

2nd battalion (having arrived as reinforcements) is tasked with carrying on the attack to affect a breakthrough

To support their efforts, the artillery fires are pushed deeper into the map to suppress known/suspected enemy strongpoints. The town will be bypassed unless an AT threat remains, in which case 1st battalion's infantry will assault and clear the town.
And the result of the effort:

2nd battalion is able to reduce the remaining strongpoints and force a breakthrough, taking relatively few losses in the process.
Of the 40 tanks lost in the attack, 30 are from 1st battalion in their effort to smash through the MLR.
Brief Analysis:
Could this have gone better for the Soviets? 

I think there are two answers to that question.
1) The entire scenario is a forced breach against a solid defense, so heavy losses are inevitable. A big part of the Soviet dilemma is choosing where to take the inescapable beating, or put nicer, spend the combat power. In this case I chose to spend 1st battalion breaking the enemy main line of resistance. The result was 1st battalion getting destroyed, but it was not in vain. 1st battalion reduced enough of the strongpoints that 2nd battalion was able to blow through and achieve a breakthrough with minimal losses.
2) The fires plan could also have placed the smoke in a way that would have isolated all but one strongpoint (as opposed to leaving two open). By blinding all but one, it would have made the initial direct fire engagement with my tanks less one sided, but would have created more difficulties later. I've drawn up another graphic of this modified fires plan, this one:

The downside to this is that while it shields the attacker at first, it also puts them in a tough spot that they still have to fight out of. With the far right strongpoint reduced, that still leaves the center and rear right strongpoint to deal with, and the far left strongpoint can still put fire into the kill zone (engagement area) as well, which means follow on forces are more at risk.
There are a few tweaks I'm planning to make (the addition of another battery of 152mm 2S3's as noted in the revised fires plan graphic) and I am also waiting on a friend of mine to finish a playthrough to see those results. This will hopefully be revisited and given a more detailed AAR in the future, but for now I thought this would be a fun pocket sized AAR.