General Liederkranz

Post count is a measure of absolutely nothing other than the opportunity others have had to have interaction with you.  You walk up to a person on the street and they start telling you how you should do something that is an area you have spent a lot of time on and discussed openly with a lot of others.  Are you simply going assume they should have the same basis of evaluation as someone you may have talked with for years?   That you immediately jump to an issue of "pig headed bullies" does concern me.  In your case you joined the forum less than  a day ago.  For all anyone knows you could have been a lurker since the first day BF ever launched a forum, or you could have discovered the game last week.  It does look like you have been a lurker for a while so welcome to posting!  Now relax and don't get defensive   Pull up a chair grab a beer if that's what you like and have a heated but friendly discussion.
 

You can see my response there. Have you played it? I found the rockets, with a 15-minute delay, plenty useful. It's entirely realistic that the mortars would be on-call to the infantry as they advance--maybe they were used earlier along with heavy artillery in the prep fire, but that's mostly over before the scenario starts (and in contrast to Apocal, I found it pretty easy to call in the mortars--there are plenty of German positions that are "Reverse Slope--No Aim Point" but that's just fine for calling indirect fire). Would the Soviets *want* to make an attack this way, with the preliminary bombardment having failed to do much damage and infantry lagging a few minutes too far behind it? Probably not. But did they do it sometimes? Surely. Things go wrong, and CM often pays particular attention to the occasions when things didn't go exactly according to doctrine.

In open area mortars were used centralised, under control of battalion commander. In forested or urban areas mortar platoons could be attached to companies. In some cases single 82 mortars were given to forward platoons.
If mortars were used "centralised", company commander would direct fire with the help of command detachment. He communicated with fire positions by telephone, messengers, signs, signals and "by chain" ("цепочкой"). I don't know exactly what "by chain" means, I guess that "chain" of soldiers would stretch from OP to mortars and they would shout to each other: "Add 200m! 0-05 to the right! One more spotting round!" So if you roleplay, just make a chain of units and call mortar strike.
In regulations (БУП-42) typically is said: "machiengun and mortar fire". Fire sector was assigned. Also fire tasks at frontline and in the depth of enemy defense were assigned. So direct and undirect fire was used.
There is regulation about mortar company: http://militera.lib.ru/regulations/russr/1942_bup/09.html
You can use google translate. Ask me if something is unclear.
 

to make this a more constructive discussion it might be worthwhile to see how you'd design the scenario. You'd noted above how you've edited a few.  How about editing a RT scenario and doing a comparison?  It is all well and good to critique design but you've painted a broad brush about how many of them "get it wrong"
I left everything after the but off as it isn't relevant.  Don't take this the wrong way, but you have 9 posts on the forum and have made a very broad claim.  No one here really knows your background, knowledge, experience etc etc.  There is nothing really to evaluate your feedback.   The designers (both the ones who are doing stock scenarios and campaigns for BF and those producing user made content) as a group are all over the map.  Some are extremely knowledgeable and well versed in Eastern Front history and tactics.  Some just like bang em up tank engagements with some real beasts.  In terms of the Hammer campaign I think it is a compilation with a couple designers (that is a guess, it was a long time ago developing RT).  There isn't necessarily consistency as to design of each scenario in the campaign.
To see an actual comparison of a scenario and how'd you'd consider changing it would make this a more clear cut perspective.

So now you've thrown a separate argument into the mix.
My response to your original post demonstrates by using an example of divisional organisation, that your assessment of AT guns being too common is incorrect. It also demonstrates that your assertion that "Players are usually not informed enough to realize that no one would realistically expect them to fight their way through defense lines as deep as usually encountered in a CM scenario. " is also incorrect because in reality lines were deeper than can be shown on a CM map and that they were indeed attacked.
To address your latest assumption, if you do not think that divisional organisation effects the Order of Battle for a given scenario and that in turn does not then effect scenario design then you are talking nonsense as I am sure one of the many scenario designers will point out to you. If you think the scenarios are unrealistic perhaps you would like to give specific examples so that the designers can address the accusation.

I put together a short film of the 56th Stryker Brigade Combat team's recent NTC rotation. It occurs to me that w CMSF 2 coming out some might find it interesting. My son provided much of the helmet cam footage.. You can see the opfor makes liberal use of smoke for mounted movements..
Los
 

So, 3.0 had yellow and green tracers? I wonder which weapons got which one.
I think with 4.0, tracers have become much more authentic. I think they could still be more "mixed" into the ammunition. With different weapons having different frequencies of tracer, maybe some get tracers at the end of a mag/belt. I think that's already partially implemented, isn't it?
Aye, I shed a tear for the Commonwealth infantry. I found that BARs kinda fulfill their intended purpose -- they weren't really designed as LMGs. Ha! When I saw those white tracers, I was stupefied. At first, I thought something GODLY was producing those white bolts towards my foxholed GIs. Turns out it was one of the crappiest LMGs in the war-- but, hey, at least it had style.

Thanks. Yeah, I know that one. If it's an AI-only scenario, giving the AI groups a demo team or two each (reduce if H2H also), along with such orders (as you know, they sometimes use them without orders) can really keep the player guessing and throw him some curve balls!
Of course, if you have something very specific in mind for a scenario, you can get very detailed with the AI.
Speaking of AI, again, I really encourage folks to give the Editor a whirl. Once you get comfortable with it and learn some techniques, you really have a goldmine of unlimited play value. I put in the AI plan for my current SE slice map test as fast as my fingers would go. And yet, without consciously anticipating it in the plan, I've now got an enemy AT gun thwarting my only chance at flanking a Panther holding up my attack. Along with that, a second Panther just bolted in outta' nowhere, skipped past my flanking fire and proceeded to take out 9 soldiers holding a jump off point in buildings at the center front line, waiting for heavy arty to finish working on the objective buildings across the street. That finished off the morale of that platoon...and thus that company as well. -Finishing up the first hour and getting ready for fresh troops to take over -- at least on that section of the front (not playing the whole thing, just sections of the slice).
Of course, this is just map testing for the H2H campaign. But this is user friendly, helps me spot map issues, and gauge force levels vs. scenario time and gaining a feel for the "phases" in the 4-hour battle concept. So far, I think the concept is going to work.
Of course, should I end up doing a solo-campaign, it give me ideas for that, too. But I'm not committing to that...yet.😀

How do you zero in indirect fires support without radio feedback? I think for the Soviets, for the most part, the answer was "you don't". Their doctrine had evolved dependent on the various tools you mentioned.
From what I understand, they would scout out, mark and triangulate reference points/lines as part of initial planning for offensive/defensive plans. Soviets LOVED plans. They also loved the mortar, and after 41, they began shifting an insane proportion of their production to them. Funny enough, heavy infantry weapons were found more critical than tank production. After 41, they tried to centralize the organic fire support assets -- so, often decisions regarding mortars would be made at the divisional level (plans, plans, plans).
The doctrine of "artillery preparation" relied on LOTS of HEAVY mortars to make up for potential inaccuracy. A hammer would be applied, where the Allies would use a scalpel. Area denial and even psychological warfare were expected effects, rather than destruction of specific fortifications. You can see why they adopted mass rocket artillery as early as they did. They generally treated mortars, even the 82mm, as general purpose artillery.
All the while, direct fire capable guns were very emphasized in their doctrine. Divisional guns, especially. These would be put close to the front, and quickly wired via telephone to observers. The wire was extensively used, and almost exclusively, in 1941. You often see photos of guys lugging those big rollers of the stuff around. Soviets were damn sneaky. Prepared observation posts would be camouflaged right under the German's noses. They'd even sneak horse drawn artillery up to the line.
As the fighting on the eastern front became more mobile in '44. Those radios, including observation vehicles, which the soviets loved, came into heavy exploitation.
My general source has been: TACTICS & FIRE CONTROL OF RUSSIAN ARTILLERY IN ATTACK AND DEFENSE DURING 1941, 1942, and 1944 AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT IN RECENT TIMES BY OBERST (I.G) HANS-GEORG RICHERT
The source covers infinitely more on the topic than my overly-enthusiastic rant has -- got plenty of real life examples to boot. Highly suggest checking it out.

There is no trust about acquire.  I acquire what I need based on the mission I need to accomplish.  Do I want AT4 rounds, Jav rounds, mortars, small arms, what type and how much, 40 mm rounds.  There is no way the game can know what I want when I go to acquire.  What I would like is the ability to designate smaller loadouts of small arms and unacquire jav launchers.  Beyond that "resupply" isn't a generic option.

I'm no East Front maven, but I think mostly this. The mortar itself would likely set up somewhere where it would not receive fire from the enemy's direction, and a member of the crew would move forward to a position from which he could observe and call back corrections. Also, I would guess that they would have some means of communicating with the company commander (maybe quickly laid wire/field telephone). The Soviets also used a lot of signal flags to send messages. Doesn't really answer your question, but maybe some directions to start thinking.
Michael

Since all the WW2 titles are all sold as the newest and most up to date there will be no difference in how the game functions between titles. That said, the game with the most variety you are looking for is the CMFI+ Gustav Line bundle. July '43 to May '44, only game with this long of timeline. Only game with two Axis nations, and yes the Italians play very differently. Only game with summer heat and winter blizzards possible. The variety of units is also unmatched for a base game and one module.
There is only $20 difference between the base game and GL bundle. If you are looking to only buy one game, for now, and will be playing a lot, the extra $20 goes a very long way to expanding the game. As well, Battlefront have a new module for CMFI in the works and hopefully it will ship in the next 6 months to a year. This will expand the game through to May '45 as well as adding new nations, units and TO&E changes. 

I think they added that to the WW2 titles recently. Could just be something I imagine, but I think I see many more lightly wounded in CMFB 4.0 than I did in CMBN 3.12. Or maybe it's just because they now made the squad icon flash when taking a "yellow wound", whereas it used to only flash when somebody went down.

Work and computer power permitting, I am going to resume work on this long shelved BN base game campaign, which includes a 2 x 3 km master map of the east bank of the Vire River above Pont Hebert, from la Meauffe to the German fortified heights at le Carillon.... 
Below are a few key snips from the old thread... 
 
La Meauffe had been the front line since mid June, when 175th Infantry occupied it, then withdrew (under fire) to higher ground further north.
 
So I did some more research online and was gratified to find a French chronology of La Meauffe's war. And it turns out the elusive "Gestapo château" which anchored "Purple Heart Corner" is the Chateau Fors, commanding the key T junction and railway crossing at the south end of La Meauffe. Many historians place it wrongly at St Gilles, which was the LXXXIV Corps HQ, rocketed by Typhoons on D-Day and also heavily fortified.
So at long last I have confidence in the start lines and the July 11th objectives for 1/137.

Ok, enough history, what's going on with the map?
First objective: La Meauffe.
Vermanoir and Eglise St Martin, linchpin of the German left.
The thick-walled sandstone church and cemetery "bristled with firepower and atop the bell tower was a German machine gun nest that commanded the approaches to the area. Close behind the church was a chateau, another thick-walled building with excellent facilities for fortification.... A labor battalion of impressed Russians had been forced to build heavy reinforcements and a bomb shelter of concrete with walls three feet thick." Moreover "every house and shop had been converted by the Germans into individual pillboxes."
. 

Thanks for the response. That sounds similar to what I've been doing (mentioned in post just above yours).
Another thing I've been doing is adding "blank" move orders to upper levels periodically (multiple instances of the order per group, like say, every 10-30 min) to make AI troopers that have engaged and been driven to lower levels go back up to engage again from higher levels. That keeps the player guessing! It's been so long since I did testing (before my summer break) that I can't remember if I had any significant issues with AI troopers changing buildings (and thus perhaps exposing themselves in open ground). I think the blank move (no painted squares, so it copies over the previous painted moves from the most recent order that had them) works pretty well, IIRC.
The map has a huge number of "faux basements" created by having no windows on the bottom floor. That allows the defender to "skulk" down away from enemy fire and then return later. (also adds a lot of protection from arty). An AI defender driven to lower levels that lacks orders to get him back up can still use the faux basements to ambush the player should he stumble on them.
I had big fun and a very realistic grind digging a number of those units out in my last playtesting in the center area of the map. Did my A-game and still took a decent number of casualties. One time, I had a faux basement enemy squad leader ambush one of my squads (3 dead) and proceed to run through 3 connected building sections, disappearing, reappearing in an unexpected place and then ambush a totally different squad, killing another 2 guys before a third team finally took him out as he ran outside. -One of those epic CM moments that seems like a movie or real story of heroic deeds from the war.
Occasionally, the rout bug causes problems, but the map is so dense, with so many connected building locations, that they often survive and even find their way to a decent or even better position.  
 

The more advanced image-intensification systems have "auto-gating": 
"This maintains the optimum performance of the I² tube, continuously revealing mission critical details, safeguarding the I² tube from additional damage and protecting the user from temporary blindness. The benefits of ATG can easily be seen not only during day-night-day transitions, but also under dynamic lighting conditions when rapidly changing from low light to high light conditions (above 1 lx), such as sudden illumination of dark room. A typical advantage of ATG is best felt when using a weapon sight which experiences a flame burst during shooting (see figures below showing pictures taken at the impact zone of a dropped bomb). ATG would reduce the temporary blindness that a standard BSP tube would introduce, allowing them to continuously maintain “eyes on target”."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision_device#Auto-gating
Googling around, it looks like the US PVS-14 is auto-gated. 

Thanks @General Liederkranz I suspected technology had improved but having no experience or information I could only speculate. Your google-fu is superior. 

Thanks for the compliments, guys! They are much appreciated and motivate me to keep my nose to the grindstone.
I don't want to give too much away yet, but here is one detailed shot, along with the corrosponding google map area that inspired it:


 
I've lowered building heights in some places to reduce the modern look. There are a ton of balconies on the map, but only a tiny number of them are actually functional. Almost all are cosmetic -- the door removed to prevent troops from becoming more vulnerable by going out on the balcony.
Yeah, I hope folks take this and do interesting things with it. It won't be everyone's cup of tea, though. SMG troops or no SMG troops, you really gotta' split teams and put in detailed orders for coordinated micro-tactical play. Otherwise, attacking troops just evaporate. And, pretty much every inch of the map is tube guy paradise. The attacking Soviets will have T-34/76 as base and they're gonna' need every round of that HE loadout for area fire. Keeping them alive to use it, though...😈

Reported.

It would be nice if the purple line that comes up when you select "Pop Smoke" extended out the distance the smoke would go. As it stands it extends (and says) 20m, which I guess is accurate for defensive smoke launchers but not for these. It could go out the full 150+m to show what'll really happen.

Everyone seems annoyed that the inevitable happened and the release date slipped but all I can think is how annoying it is that this means that the patch for 4.0 games has also slipped.

On my blue moon wishlist for sure. More options for soundfiles and varied explosion textures based on the cause (for example direct shot vs indirect) would be a nice cosmetic bump up for the CM games.
Going back to the OP....
Just my opinion. The problem with Nebelwefers is they are incredibly unbalanced for the majority of the map and force sizes we play with 99% of the time. Should that mean they have no place in the CM TOE? No, but like 'rare' vehicles they won't (and shouldn't) show up in many scenarios. I remember playing the Commonwealth Campaign from CMBN-CW where a mission had the infamous moaning minnies. The Germans were able to use them to shell the British deployment zone with a pre-planned bombardment. The result ended up effectively wiping out a company of my troops before I'd even set off. That turned into an immediate 'save scum' situation since there was no point in me trying to push ahead in the scenario or the campaign when you take a hit. Then in the back of my mind I know that there are limited forces for the rest of the campaign.
When I made 'Lions of Carpiquet' I ran directly into the 'Nebelwerfer' problem as a designer. Historically, the 12 SS used Nebelwerfers on the Canadians who took the village. Actually a crude equivilent that was more like an early form of napalm rather than high explosive. I didn't want to ignore this part of Operation Windor's history but was well aware of the problems of giving the AI access to such a potent weapon during a pre-set bombardment. The solution (minor spoilers) was to mark the area I wanted the AI to try to destroy with off map support slightly in front and away from the Canadian/player deployment. By default the Nebelwefers will always scatter over a wide area regardless and this meant only a fraction would seriously hit the Canadian player unless he was really silly leaving his dug in defensive positions to charge Panthers with infantry. You still got the 'cinematic' effect without the possible lop sided hit to scenario balance.
Tips/Rules I've come up along the way with off map support (as a designer):
- 'Nebelwerfer trick' as above.
- Use the heavier support options only for larger and/or heavy hard cover maps. (155mm 'Long Toms' are not assigned to a platoon trying to take a lone farmhouse).
- Manage AI and Player off map ammo very carefully.
- Don't be scared (in an AI battle) to have the enemy forces come onto the map from reserve timed to coincide with the end of a player prebombardment. I use this 'gamey trick' in Lion's of Carpiquet for the opening mission where the player is instructed to use all of their off map support to reflect the final stages of a carpet barrage from 30 odd artillery battalions. Historically the Germans sheltered in stone basements which are not modeled in game. It takes lots of testing and careful timing but as a designer you'll know how many troops you'll have to go up against the player at all times. Unfortunately you can't take off map support away from a player after a preset time in game. ie 'use it or lose it.' So a level of trust between designer and player will need to exist here.
- Give the player warning in the briefing if they are going to be shelled on turn one. Have his troops set to hide intially so they don't stick their heads up as much.
Hope that helps.
 

I've just checked this in CMBN under 3.0, at about 60m, and back in that version the Thompson also doesn't fire on Target Light. I like this behavior and wish other SMGs would behave the same way. 

The Thompson will not fire at all past 160 meters due to the hard coded range cap.  Under 160 meters the Thompson will only Target.  It will not ever Target Light.   It has been this way for a long time (over a two years since I noticed?) in all the titles.  I thought it was intended behavior.