HerrTom

Well...   you clearly don't live in NY.

+1 to this. I would love to see some of the advice in this thread put to good use. I think it would help everyone to see it all play out in a PBEM. I would throw my name into the ring of possible contenders, but unfortunately Olek has seen fit to block me as he feels I have been too critical of him. 
Not only is Rinaldi a fine opponent, but he creates very well done written/video AARs. A battle between him and Olek would prove to be very educational, and would no doubt be well presented for everyone to see and understand. 

Gotta say I'm with @IanL on this one. If your tracks get hit in masking terrain the dismounts can just dive into fairly dense cover - without what can only be described as total wasteage of heavy arty. I also doubt the efficiency of trying to advance tracks through fields you've just cratered into a mudpile (game models that iirc) with 203.
The ideas in this thread are interesting though, I'd be open to doing a PBEM so you could put them to the test in a flexible environment. Slots are opening up on my end. 

I think this is really an 'eye of the beholder' issue, a real classic one for that. As being part of the 'old guard' myself (at least I think I am after 10+ years and 1000+ posts and having done some beta testing in the past), I don't see any problem with SgtHatred's post. At the same time I understand IanL, Sburke and others because often people that are trying to be helpful on the forum get flak just for having their own viewpoint.
I think everyone is entitled their own viewpoint. Conceptual attributes like 'game-braking' are as subjective as attributes can come, because what exactly defines game breaking? 
Personally I have been so busy with other things that I have rarely had the time and or energy to play CM over the last 2 years. When I tried some 4.0 games, I did encounter the 'run from prepared positions under arty fire' behavior. Because in that particular scenario it did break my immersion, I decided to wait for a patch so I can enjoy the content I play in the most optimal form. I mostly enjoy campaigns when played the first time, so that's why.
In the end we are all here to enjoy the game. It's good that there is an old guard on the forum, at the same time it's good that there are new people on the forums. Obviously opinions about bugs, due patches and other things will differ. That's what a forum is about. 
Anyway, I don't see the problem with this discussion and most of the viewpoints offered here. As long as people keep discussion civilized and not take or make things personal, its all fine imo :).

Try fighting german squads with mg42s firing bursts with your good old british sections with single shot bren guns, i'd say that's pretty game breaking in certain scenarios... after 14 months and no patch people will complain, like it or not, and they do not care how marginal you think the issues are. 14 months are a long time.

I want to avoid confusion from the start of the original thread to this one, since it's technically a different scenario.  Much is the same, but I'm doing it anyway!


SITUATION
Thanks to the successful battle and crossing of the canals near Pryvitnoe by 2nd Battalion, we have been tasked with exploiting the gap in the Ukrainian lines.
We have one final barrier to cross before the total colapse of the Ukrainian defenses occurs on the southern flank: the river Dniepr.  Ukrainian forces are dug in deep alon the major crossings near Kherson and 1st Battalion has encountered stiff resistance further north of us.
Intelligence has identified a weak spot by the town of Prydinprovs'ke.  This will be a tough one, since there is only one bridge in the area.  We'll have to force a river crossing.  Thankfully, the Ukrainian units have only just arrived and not had time to dig in properly.
MISSION
Our job is to cross the Dniepr and move troops further north to further stress the fragile Ukrainian defense.  Thus, we have two main objectives for this engagement:
1. Cross the river and penetrate the enemy lines and continue to Kherson
2. Eliminate the defenders on the river crossing for follow on forces to continue at speed
3. Minimize casualties.  It should go without saying that sacrificing too many of our boys will reduce the effectiveness of our crossing, and no one wants to write those letters.
4. Destroy SAM battery.  Elements of the 208. SAM Brigade are in the area of operations.  Take the site and destroy any equipment you can find.
FRIENDLY FORCES
Our 2nd Battalion, 18 Motor Rifle Regiment has the following assets in the area:
- Reconnaisance platoon
- ATGM platoon
- Grenade launcher platoon
- 2 combined arms companies
    - 3 platoons of BTR-82 mounted infantry (amphibious)
    - 1 platoon of T-72B3 tanks
Support assets are as follows:
- 3 platoons of 2S3M2 152mm howitzers, a total of 18 guns on call for this crossing
- 1 platoon of 2S7M2 203mm howitzers, a total of 4 guns on call from the divisional resources.  We're lucky to have these, so use them wisely.
- 1 flight of Mi-24PN gunships from frontal aviation
ENEMY FORCES
Enemy forces consist of elements of the 28 Mechanised Brigade that our sister battalion previously faced at Pryvitnoe.  These guys are tough, so be careful!
PLAN
There are three crossing points that we have identified.
The first, and most dangerous is the bridge leading into Prydinprovs'ke.  This is a long and wide open approach so should be considered only a last resort until the overlooking areas are cleared.
The second and primary crossing point is Landing Zone Boris, across from the Dachas at point Elena.  The dachas provide decent cover for the approach to the river and point Boris is a fairly flat area also covered by trees.
The final crossing point is to Landing Zone Vasiliy.  There is a narrow path up through the area, but it may be an unexpected direction.

Tactical map to show the locations in the briefing.  The objectives have morphed somewhat.  Russian forces gain points for sending troops off-map on objective G, for destroying Ukrainian units, minimising own casualties and finally destroying the forces that are at the SAM site before they can evacuate.

My plan is much the same as before.
EXECUTION
1. Company (1-я pота) will approach the dachas along the western path through the woods in column.  Upon reaching the buildings, they will deploy in line formation and prepare to cross the river.  5. Platoon (1/5-й взвод) will take position along the axis of the bridge to provide fire support.  1. Company will clear the riverbank and advance into the town proper to provide cover for the tanks to cross the bridge.
2. Company (2-я pота) will also approach the dachas along the eastern path through the woods in column.  Upon reaching the buildings, they will also deploy in line formation and prepare to cross the river.  5. Platoon (2/5-й взвод) will advance alongside 1. Company and take positions near the dachas to provide fire support to the crossings.  2. Company will then advance past the buildings and threaten the SAM complex before continuing to Kherson.
The reconnaissance platoon (Разведка) will advance through the dried creek to the west and prepare for their own crossing to the west of the bridge.  They will form a distraction for the enemy, to disrupt the enemy defence as 1. and 2. Companies cross the Dniepr.  They will then continue to cut off any Ukrainian movement to retreat to Kherson.
The weapons company will deploy among the manoeuvre elements and provide a base of fire for each crossing.
Once the main body is across the river, fire support elements will mount and make their own crossings.  Once the area is cleared of heavy weapons, the tank platoons will storm across the bridge.
FIRE SUPPORT
Fire phases will be divided into three phases: DYNYA (melon) will initiate fire plans, with all batteries firing at designated targets with the objective of destruction.  When the order to cross is given, fire missions will shift to phase YABLOKO (apple).  Fire missions during this phase will be aimed at suppressing enemy ability to fire or manoeuvre to protect our assets as they cross the river.  As our forces make landfall, fire missions will shift to phase GRUSHA (pear).  Fire missions during this phase will be designed to cut off the defenders from reinforcements as they are run out of their positions.
The organic 120mm mortars will be on call to strike targets of opportunity, and will be providing smoke for the crossing at fire phase YABLOKO.  Upon fire phase GRUSHA, the mortars will fire on zones 112 and 113 to suppress defenders attempting to contain the landing of the recce platoon.
2 of the 3 2S3 batteries will be tasked with striking target zones 211 and 212 respectively, until fire phase GRUSHA corresponding with the crossing attempt, after which they will shift their fire to focus on zone 213 as forces approach the shore.
The final 2S3 battery will be firing on zone 111 until fire phase GRUSHA, after which it will shift fire to zone 112.
The 2S7 battery will be firing in support of the main crossing effort and will hit zones 211 and 212 until fire phase YABLOKO.  The heavy guns will then shift to suppressing forces in zones 112 and 213 to prevent further reinforcements from engaging the landing.
The pair of Mi-24s will be given free reign of the opposite bank, hitting any targets of opportunity the pilots can find.
----
And in a twist of fate that I'm sure will make @Haiduk happy - the bridge is actually a railroad bridge now!

And for those interested in a play-along, I've attached the scenario to this post!  There is no AI at the moment - H2H only, and I haven't a clue if it's balanced!
An der Schoenen Blauen Dnjepr.btt

Thanks for stating it that way.
I will say, as a beta-tester, coming to grips with this behavior has been difficult. The NDA prevents a lot of what I'd like say (and is a nice way to dodge ) but realize that the HE fleeing behavior was not seen as a deal-breaker before v4.0 was released...or it would not have been released.
Think about the myriad of situations your pixeltroops have been in. Think about how often they do the right thing...and you don't even notice it. Think about when they do something wrong...and the situation which it took to get that behavior.
Without giving too much (anything?) away, I follow two basic courses of investigation: there are areas I dig into to find stuff; and there are times when I get a whiff of something not quite right. In the first case, I start with a set of presumed behaviors and try to stress them to their outlying limits. In the other case, I happen to notice something in passing...and then the Eye of Sauron focuses upon it.
There are fewer and fewer of each. And the gameplay effect of most are very minor.
I can field multiple battalions and have total mayhem reign for four hours...and notice only a few odd cases of behavior. Most (all?) can be explained by men panicking under fire or other reasonable explanations. Think about the magnitude of that achievement: several hundreds of "men" acting realistically over multiple square kilometers whilst killing and being killed and trying to achieve a terrain objective.
The HE behavior slipped through. Now, what if the fix is worse? Maybe men will stick in their locations, but then tanks reverse towards threats. But only if unbuttoned and the threat is known but out of LOS. And only on odd numbered turns. 
Occam's Razor: if the fix were simple, wouldn't you have it already?

To all you girls out there...
 

+1  This.  It would be very cool to have late war US, Commonwealth and Soviets in the same game title.  Maybe as a battle pack just porting the CMRT Soviet TOE into CMFB or into CMFI.  Charge whatever a fair price is to make that work.  Think of all the early cold war conflicts and brush wars that could be created / modded by the community.  Fulda Gap, Korea, Suez Crisis, French in Vietnam, 1948 Arab Israeli war, Cuban Revolution, numerous Coup d'etats..................          

Someone mentioned sandbox - that'd be a big plus in my book.  One of the things that I'd love is to have all the games wrapped up as add-ons to a main engine.  Plug in CM:RT and CM:FB into a single game, and grab formations from either.
I had a hell of a time in Graviteam Tactics Operation Star pitting Tigers against T-55s.  I lost, but I gave the Soviets a bloody nose!

An Mi-24 flies over a knocked out Tiger over the Steppes.
 
I'm sorry man - call it a bad day and I was unaware that you didn't know the story line.  Seemed almost like revenge fantasy lol 

Actually, BS ends with both sides backing off. So it's literally about WW3 NOT starting, and the Ukrainian War remains regional. It's also about NATO reacting and very specifically NOT crossing the border. Because auto-nuke. 
Of course, that could also be read as simply the opening stage of a far broader and very muddled war, possibly consisting of multiple regional conflicts gradually combining into a general state of confused conflict across theaters/continents. 

+1
 

The US has a distinct advantage in fires integration, targeting and precision.  

The greater question for artillery in the next few years is being able to achieve effects in the face of frankly terrifying counter-battery capabilities.  The idea a M777 battery is going to be able to fire off more than 1-2 rounds before having to displace or face total destruction is certainly sinking in.  The traditional massed and persistent Russian fires are basically inviting ruin on the firing batteries.  

From that fires and effects are going to have to be able to answer the question of how to achieve the same effects, with less time/rounds to do so.  Precision will certainly play a role  although the current laser/GPS guidance trend will be challenged by EW (while the laser itself is not subject to jamming, the spotting element's communications, let alone if it's a drone are), as will advances in non-kinetic ADA (or whatever we care to call lasers or similar hard kill non-bullet options) observation. 

One thing that will be interesting is the historic fires integration piece taken to a more refined output, in that it may be still possible to put dozens of rounds on a target while still only doing so from a small number of guns by coordinating and allocating fires across a wider collection of units, or as far as several batteries firing very small missions, but sequenced and coordinating digitally (Battery A shoots 1 round per gun, displaces while Battery B fires 1 salvo then displaces, then BN mortars drop 3 rounds before displacing then Battery A opens up again).  

Or to visualize, artillery will spend more time in motion than firing, and each firing opportunity will need to mean more, and each target will need to be more relevant (or the historical US/and to an even larger degree RU ability to simply dump fires on anything that's being troublesome will be deeply challenged).

Basically it's going to matter a lot less about the gun, or how the gun is loaded, and more about how the round gets where it needs to go, and how we accomplish effects while someone tries to kill the gun.  The Russians especially historically have counted on massed non-precision fires, which may be lethal but again it won't take too many "missed" displacements to start to reach parity in numbers and greater effects disparity in terms of fires.

As far as "Alas Babylon"

It would be a mistake to attribute too much of the damage to US fires, or to at the least, indicate somehow they were responsible for causing more damage that would have occurred anyway.  Both Mosul and Raqqa were subject to lots of dumb artillery and direct fire weapons from the non-US elements rolling in (some of whom conduct "recon by fire" and little else), and ISIS rather relies on booby traps or other scorched earth type techniques.  

Basically several bulls went through the China shop.  The US precision (either in guided or digitally aided) fires certainly did some damage, but it's a bit obtuse to pretend they made it especially bad after looking at the other actors and factors at play.  

Another minute of trading fire across the river while I wait for an opening to bring my forces to cross.
 

The tanks by the bridge attempt to destroy the last visible T-64.  It is hull down and a number of shots land short.

The ATGMs of 4. Plt, 1. Company join in, but there just isn't enough of the tank visible to land a good shot.

But they don't go without notice...

Kaboom!  The shot lands short and fails to do any real damage, other than to the ATGM team's eardrums.


A Ukrainian ATGM manages to land a hit on one of the T-72s and knocks it out.  It appears to have come from the church, so I'll make sure it doesn't last to fire a second shot.

The ATGM section attached to the scout team manages to guide true on the troublesome T-64 and knocks it out (hopefully for good).

Smoke is beginning to land on the far bank, so hopefully in the next couple of minutes we can assault the Ukrainian positions and turn this into a more dynamic battle!

Anything late 70s/80s would be awesome. Even though I love CMBS, some more evenly matched, but still modern forces would be great. I don't need no stinkin' APS!

I'd contend that this point needs some slight change in wording - Near misses within 10/20/30m should sometimes result in total immobilization and/or considerable module damage.
From my investigations before the amount of damage and what gets hit will be highly variable - especially as you get further and further away.
Good work though, I love the data!
Do you have a link to these sources?  I'd love to take a look
 
 

Personally, I would rather see resourced directed towards CM: Fulda Gap than Black Sea 2. 

You may well be right.There's some hard data in "Report on protection..." - they have the number of penetrations for M107 at 20 and 50 feet against different armour thickness. So it gives the number of fragments with different energy levels. Can be extra/interpolated.
I've gone through good WWII-era ML-20 data but it was quite a time ago. They specifically tested HE and HEFRAGs against German armour. I don't remember where I took the reports. Most interesting were PzV and PzVI tests. For Krasnopol/Excalibur there're some show-off vids against tank targets. Overall it's also proved by Haiduk's Lostarmor pics. And here are the pics from the Field Artillery Journal.

Description:
A bit different setup to speed up testing - 100 experiments in five batches of 20 each:
All tubes and spotters are Elite Fire mission is preplanned to the points where tanks are Mission effect is set to General, I assume it denotes something like Variable-Time vs. Point-Detonation, HE vs. HEFRAG Results:
Direct hits 3 4 10 6 7 Module damage 1 0 4 0 1 Knock-outs 1 2 6 4 3 Analysis:
Unlike previous tests I had module damage here - weapons, smoke launchers, targeting etc. If direct hit does not result in the module damage then it resulted in severe tracks damage though ALWAYS a step or two short of total immobilization. I didn't count tracks as modules in the table so these cases are reflected in direct hits less module damage and knock-outs. Comparing to the 100% of severe damage from the direct hits as given in the Field Artillery article I gave above we'll have different results depending on what we count as severe damage in CMBS context: If we equal knock-outs AND module damage AND severe tracks damage to "severe damage" then 100% of direct hits resulted in severe damage If we count knock-outs AND module damage as severe damage then 22/30=73% of direct hits resulted in severe damage If we use only knock-outs then we have only 53% of direct hits Since I used different experience level and point fire command instead of direct aiming the ratio of shots to direct hits is not comparable to the first data set. Near miss NEVER results in module damage - only tracks damage. I didn't do all distance measurements between tanks and points of impact in near misses but a rule of thumb is: Light tracks damage starts at ~8m from the tank Total immobilization requires 1-2-3 meters In-between those two we have varying degrees of track damage IMHO:
All non-airburst direct hits from 155mm HE should result in total knock-outs - whether PD or delayed. Arguments: All direct 155mm HE hits are named as lethal for tanks in "Who Says Dumb Artillery Cannot Kill Armor" by Maj. (Ret.) George A. Durham, Field Artillery Journal, Nov-Dec 2002 Even at 10 feet airburst for each M107 there are three fragment penetrations for 2" RHA plate. Source: Report on protection from fragments from HE ammunition by Aberdeen Proving Grounds of 1961. At point detonation there should tens of them with much higher energies. I figure even Abrams top of the nose should have multiple perforations save turret or engine compartment Assorted Russian language sources: Krasnopol 152/155mm HE testing. Krasnopol is a Russian equivalent of Excalibur WWII tests of ML-20 152mm howitzer Near misses within 10/20/30m should result in total immobilization AND considerable module damage BUT NO crew casualties. Arguments: Field Artillery Journal gives 30m as "considerable damage" distance Russian 152mm HE damage tables give 20m as an equivalent distance Judging from "Report on protection..." give 6-10m as the distance with enough fragments to penetrate 25-30mm RHA; tracks and wheels are not RHA but side/back tank armour is thicker

CMBS setup
12 T-90As vs 12 spotters and 12 Paladins, firing Excaliburs. Three runs in three columns. Damage indicates only tracks damage as even direct hits are able to damage no module but tracks (though one can destroy the vehicle outright).
destroyed 1 2 1 immobilized 5 1 2 red circle 1 0 1 yellow circle 0 2 3 yellow square 2 1 1 no damage 3 6 4 Penetrations / Direct hits 1/3 2/3 1/3
Reality check source
Who Says Dumb Artillery Cannot Kill Armor by Maj. (Ret.) George A. Durham, Field Artillery Journal, Nov-Dec 2002, results of the four year US Army study for 155 HEs
Effect of a direct hit:
Real-life: "A direct hit with an HE round with a PD fuze consistently destroyed the various target vehicle" - I assume they mean 100% destruction CM - 4/9 ~44% destruction Effect of a near miss:
Real-life: "155-mm rounds that impact within 30 meters cause considerable damage". I'd say from the context and photos by considerable they mean enough damage to take the tank out of battle though it may be available for further out-of-battle repairs. Out-of-battle repairs would be out of the CM context so they equal to total kills.
CM:
The damage model provides for track damage only - no damage to gun, targeting etc. whatsoever. I didn't test with other vehicles but it may be CM engine models the damage only for penetrations. I.e. the engine first calculates whether the projectile is able to penetrate and IF it penetrated CM calculates the damage it may cause inside. It may be true for all the armour present in the game or it may be limited to ERA-equipped vehicles and/or tanks/heavy armour. Moreover I saw cases when a projectile hits ERA (text label) then it "goes though the tank", creates the crated and disabled the tracks.
Track-damage - approximate meters, except for 2-3 cases all craters were at the sides of the vehicle
1-2m - immobilized
3-4m - red circle / yellow circle / yellow square
5-6m+ - no damage whatsoever
@Battlefront.com, does it qualify for a steps 2-3-4? To propose a remedy one has to know how the engine works inside. Or it will be wild dreaming.

Have you guys really never used Civ's "Just... one... more... turn" button?  I mean, I obviously could go back and change the victory conditions and play through the whole game again... but am I really going to get to that point where I'm defending my capital from Montezuma and just built a nuclear bomb when Washington wins the game with a culture victory and... the game prevents me from continuing?
I mean, I'm not saying to drop everything and do this right now but I agree that it would be a handy feature should the opportunity present itself.

This was posted in a thread in CMFB page but I thought it should also be posted in the general forum. Here is a link to a very large and free collection of period maps of Europe from 1943-1944. For the Italy section there is also the City Map plans available. The central Europe section should cover the area for the next module for CMRT. I think a few people here will find this to be very interesting. Big shout out to @AlsatianFelix for the original find.
https://library.mcmaster.ca/maps/ww2/ww2_topos_home
Here too is the map collection from the University of Texas. They also have some amazing maps.
http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe.html
As a side note McMaster is not too far from home and in a few years when my oldest is ready for university, I think I will have to encourage her to take a campus tour and I shall get lost in the map room.....

My understanding of Soviet theory is that by the time you are dismounting the enemy should mostly already be dead! 

I think artillery is underpowered versus armored vehicles. Haiduk's evidence on the matter (They were T-64's?) solidified my views. I hope BFC will respond on the subject sometime. 

Rather than say "get good" I'll point you to some real examples of AFVs hit by artillery shells that Haiduk provided.
I think Squarehead has a solid point here.