BornGinger

It's correct that the Soviet-Russian soldiers managed to reach Berlin and other parts of Germany. But I watched a documentary about the war in which Soviet veterans, now old geezers, talked about how they despised the Soviet-Russian generals (and Soviet-Ukrainian generals too) for how they used the common soldier as their chess pieces so they could send a successful report to the Stavka.
In the Chechnya war in the '90s the Russian generals used the same tactics when they tried to storm Groznyi, the capital of Chechnya, with the result of many dead and wounded Russian soldiers. If I remember correctly they assaulted Groznyi twice or three times with great losses.
I don't know much about the Soviet tactics in the Afghan war, but it was probably the same kind of assaults used in that war. When I lived in Estonia in the late '90s early 21 century I talked to some veterans from that war and they were almost always talking badly about their officers.
So, yes, they got results but I don't think they have a good reason to be really proud about the tactics used.
So it doesn't surprise me if they use the same Soviet-type tactics today.

Seems a bit like a repetition of the German Winter offensive to take Antwerp in December 1944. It goes quite well in the beginning but dies out after a while because of problems with the lack of fuel for the tanks and the roads in the Ardenner region of Belgium not really good for the King Tiger tanks.

Every time I see destroyed and burning vehicles it seems a bit silly that the smoke from them always go straight up while other kinds of smoke and dust go sideways.
Is this something BFC has designed to make it easier to spot the enemy's destroyed vehicles so the player can think "Yes! I killed that bloody tank. I'm so good I deserve a lollypop" or is there another reason to this? Strong wind doesn't make much of a difference and the smoke still goes mostly straight up to do a slight bend higher up.
The picture is from DoubleD's youtube video of an H2H battle in Black Sea.

Every time I see destroyed and burning vehicles it seems a bit silly that the smoke from them always go straight up while other kinds of smoke and dust go sideways.
Is this something BFC has designed to make it easier to spot the enemy's destroyed vehicles so the player can think "Yes! I killed that bloody tank. I'm so good I deserve a lollypop" or is there another reason to this? Strong wind doesn't make much of a difference and the smoke still goes mostly straight up to do a slight bend higher up.
The picture is from DoubleD's youtube video of an H2H battle in Black Sea.

Every time I see destroyed and burning vehicles it seems a bit silly that the smoke from them always go straight up while other kinds of smoke and dust go sideways.
Is this something BFC has designed to make it easier to spot the enemy's destroyed vehicles so the player can think "Yes! I killed that bloody tank. I'm so good I deserve a lollypop" or is there another reason to this? Strong wind doesn't make much of a difference and the smoke still goes mostly straight up to do a slight bend higher up.
The picture is from DoubleD's youtube video of an H2H battle in Black Sea.

Something more than just a link to Youtube would have been good.
As Jc chino was too tired to write a few lines to the link I'll do that for him:
"Hiya mates at this formidable forum. Jc chino here on the sofa in my sweet living room with a 37" Samsung tv and home cinema system of five Harman Kardon loudspeakers.
Did you watch the Irish rugby team crush the Welsh in the Six Nations Tournament which was on tv yesterday? The result was 27-9 to the Irish, innit?
27-9 to the Irish! I could hardly believe it!
No, you didn't watch that game? I bet you all were watching my youtube video instead which must have been more fun. At least if you are from Wales, he he. Innit?
Jokes aside. Watch my youtube video and see how the US stryker squad fools those towel head Talibanis and give it in their face, he he.
You won't regret it. Take my words for it."

Do you have a picture to show us exactly what you mean? With contour, spikes and stair stepping effects I understand that you are talking about the elevation and how sometimes the result of changing it is not what was intended.
But a picture, or pictures, could still be of help for those who haven't made their own map yet.
You could for example add one picture with the changes done the wrong way on the 2D map and the result in the 3D map and a picture with the changes done the correct way on the 2D map and the result in the 3D map.
In a map I'm making now I wanted to raise the land a little bit on certain places in a river to  make it look like there are rocks in the river across which the troops could move to cross the river and behind which they could hide if they were shot at. On some parts of the river it looked quite ok but on other parts there was those annoying spikes pointing straight up like stalagmites. I tried to correct those spikes but it didn't matter what I did, those "rocks" still didn't look ok. So in the end I kept only those that looked good enough.
One thing that would make these spikes and pits occure less on the 3D map would be if the action squares were a lot smaller. It would then be easier to raise and lower the elevation on the 2D map without getting unwanted effects. I also think that if the change in elevation wasn't 1 meter but 50 cm the elevation would look better in the 3D map and the troops would lie more corrrectly in the ditches.

I was thinking that just as tanks, assault guns and halftracks in quick battles have different value points depending on how effective they are they could do the same when/if they decide to play an "against AI only" scenario and want to make it more balanced for an H2H game.
To find out the value points they can check the values for tanks, assault guns and halftracks in quick battles or make up their own value points.

The same can be said about documentaries and films about the sionist political organisation which apparently has the goal to create a greater Israel even if that means to steal the land of the Palestinians or to kill them and other people they call "goi".

Quite a nice picture that one.

Is this really necessary? How many are actually reading the number plates on the vehicles in the games? And in what way would different number plates make the games better? It won't make the games more tactical or more challenging.

Very quick and easy to pull that backflap down not only for a visit to the toilet but also when it's time for some fun and games.

Well, whatever you like. But if there ever was to be a game about the American civil war or about conflicts of the late 1800s it could still contain some of the battles and skirmishes from that period no matter how large and long some conflicts actually were.
Just as the WW2 CM-games we have today don't give us all battles that happened and don't give us a true representation of the battles because of time and scenario map limitations, a game about the American civil war or about the conflicts of the late 1800s wouldn't give us all battles and skirmishes or a true represenatation of the battles because of limitations.
I still think it would be fun to have a CM game about the American civil war, or about conflicts of the late 1800s, with some kind of C&C system where messengers on horses would have to be used to spread the knowledge of enemy movements to the different batallions and have other kinds of weapons than we have now.
I doubt that Battlefront will make such a game. But who knows, one day Steven maybe wakes up with a brilliant idea about making a game that effected USA for a very long time and wants to make it a bit different than the other games about the American civil war.

Just a little correction on the language. As Brigada and Rota are feminine words and end with an "a" the adjective should also end with an "a". So Strelkovyj Brigada should be Strelkovaya Brigada. And the same with Rota. Division is also a feminine word and should be diviziya and have the same adjective as above.
The information above is probably not so important when searching but could be good to know if someone has an interest in the Russian language.

All cars are too expensive, not only Mazda cars.

All cars are too expensive, not only Mazda cars.

All cars are too expensive, not only Mazda cars.

The AI-scripting isn't that difficult if you plan for it. One thing that helps is to take screenshots of your 2D-scenario map and copy-paste them into one picture which can be used as the image overlay picture. On this new image overlay picture you can write down the moves and actions of the AI-groups which will make the AI scripting a bit quicker and easier as you will see that info when you do the scripting. Below is an image which shows an example of what the new image overlay picture can look like.

If you are asking me I used IrfanView for the screenshot, Microsoft Paint to draw and write on the screenshot and imgbb.com to upload the picture.

Every time there's an abandoned anti-tank gun in the game, belonging to either my troops or the enemy, I wonder what the reason is for this rule which says that a gun crew that are leaving a gun to avoid getting killed aren't allowed to man the gun again.
 
If it is for so called "reasons of game balance" the question is what the game balance is in a situation where: A tank is approaching a house where an anti-tank gun is hiding in the corner of it. The gun crew shoots at the tank but misses. Almost immediately after that, and at the same time, the tank is shooting at the gun and the gun is shooting at the tank. The gun hits the tank and the tank crew gets scared and leaves the tank although it isn't destroyed. The tank hits the corner of the house and the gun crew gets scared and leaves the gun although it isn't destroyed. In the next few minutes both the tank crew and the gun crew feel brave enough to continue fighting. The tank crew is allowed to climb into their tank and continue the attack but the gun crew isn't allowed to climb onto their gun and continue their defense.
 
Where is the game balance when a gun with more than two wheels, and which also is much quicker and more mobile, is of more importance than a gun with only two wheels?
 
I hope there will be a change to this behaviour so that gun crew can man and use their gun again although they have left it for a few seconds or minutes.

I have mentioned some time ago that I'd like the action squares to be smaller, for example 4 game m2 (2m x 2m) instead of 16 game m2 (8m x 8m). This would make it easier to place your pixeltroops on more functional positions instead of having them on a position where they can't do what you intended or are too visible to the enemy.

The Combat Mission games are quite outdated so it's only on par with it that the system is as well.

Wasn't it also quite slow to shoot with? I think I read somewhere that it took a while to make it ready to shoot each time. Or was it maybe another one of the Soviet behemoths that was slow?

When I take a look at towns and cities in my copy of Final Blitzkrieg I often feel that they seem unfinished. There are quite a few things that could be added to the scenario editor which would help to make cities, towns and villages look better. One small thing that I think could make a great change would be to add pedestrian walks to the editor. It is possible to use for example cobbled stone tiles for the streets and other tiles to serve as pedestrian walks. But that method still doesn't make the streets look the part.

When I take a look at towns and cities in my copy of Final Blitzkrieg I often feel that they seem unfinished. There are quite a few things that could be added to the scenario editor which would help to make cities, towns and villages look better. One small thing that I think could make a great change would be to add pedestrian walks to the editor. It is possible to use for example cobbled stone tiles for the streets and other tiles to serve as pedestrian walks. But that method still doesn't make the streets look the part.