Aej2000

In honor of the imminent release of CMSF2, I figured I would get a heads start on the time honored tradition of complaining about every new release by making it into a fun game!
I give you, CMSF2 BINGO!

All in good fun of course.

Um... no. CMx1 was Pong compared to vastly superior CMx2 game engine. Much of what you ascribe to CMx1 was your interpretation of highly abstracted functions that were limited in the extreme.
Fond memories of CMx1 reminds me of people idealizing their first high school girlfriend from 20 years ago and lamenting how they've never been able to meet another woman who matched her.

Apparently you are too busy being your contrarian self ("opinions that are not my own are rubbish, but do not take me to task for my rubbish opinions") to truly grasp the point being made:
AI is objectively broken, making even the most fine-tuned AI plan impossible to evaluate in testing. This is a direct result of AI cutting and running after the lightest of indirect fires; a botched, if well-meaning, implementation of additional self-preservation features. This guts singleplayer play, and trivializes it. Which brings me back to the salient point of: why bother wasting my time attempting to code AI plans in that environment? Which is a key part of single-player scenario design.
Note I didn't say I've stopped designing maps or indeed even scenarios for head to head; which if you spent more time walking around with your eyes open you'd have noticed: a map has been published and a second scenario based on another's map is currently being playtested. I don't make maps for the piss of it, I create them for a scenario, and the current singleplayer projects I was helping create are impossible to evaluate with 4.0 in its current form. Was the AI plan trash, or did the human tester fire some off-map 105 and make an entire platoon cartwheel into a MG? Do I need to draw a picture for you?
Yawn. Not when the issue is fundamentally beyond the scope of a scenario designer.
Next time you have a go at me, or decide to call something I say rubbish, make sure all your synapses are firing, your contrarian drivel is truly starting to bore me now. 

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2017/Fall/4Duplessis17.pdf
ARMOR is always an interesting read, and this article in particular was a great one; shows how long it can take a military to shake off the cobwebs of COIN related environments.

Yes, and? The Russians and the US have ample experience with their current-gen MBTs in two semi-recent conventional conflicts and a smattering of low-intensity deployments each. Their main chassis have undergone or are undergoing extensive upgrades and RnD. This is (i) much more cost effective than trying quantum leaps in armor technology when the resources are lacking and (ii) much saner and realistic than re-activating museum pieces to 'cook the books' roster wise.
I think you are either taking my point too literally, or deliberately failing to understand: there is an entirely fallacious circlejerk going on here about having wild amounts of armor 'in service' (despite being an outright display of ignorance, and don't take that as a personal shout @Erwin) over what the Russians can actually deploy, but the analogy was about little-deployed "super tanks" versus many "good enough tanks." At the risk of sounding like a goddamned broken record, because apparently what I type is Swahili to a select few on this forum:
1) In terms of tank fleet sizes, NATO as a whole, and US individually, outweigh the Russians ponderously in 'current-gen' or 'near-current' MBTs. @IMHO has already said this, multiple times, in various ways throughout this thread, as have others. You shouldn't be thinking in raw numbers, you should be thinking in GDP, manufacturing potential and relative fleet sizes. 
2) "Operational requirements" seems to be getting tossed out as a catch-all phrase here meaning 'there isnt going to be a conventional war' - there isn't, yes. That's no excuse for either side to let their top-line equipment atrophy. We're not talking about tin-pot dictatorships who's armies are meant to merely quell and control their own domestic population. The first, middling and final 'operational requirement' of any of the armed forces being spoken about here is the ability to defeat enemy threats that are at least equal to their own. Its exactly this type of fetishizing the small-war that got both sides in a serious state of conventional decay to begin with.
3) In terms of reliability, the Abrams has both of its major conventional combat experiences in sandy hellholes. Both times it, and the logistical tether supporting it, rose to the challenge. Operational ready rates were entirely satisfactory. What exactly is the point here about fragile/over-engineered Western MBTs? It flies in face of all evidence - which is amazing given the 2003 deployment of Abrams was done on the closest thing the US army has had to a wing-and-a-prayer logistical shoestring since September 1944. 
Oh Goodness, totally irrelevant to the post I was responding to: someone was trotting out the notion that re-activating a bunch of museum pieces is the perfect solution to a perceived imbalance in military capability. A naive notion at best.
Since you brought up the subject though, yes; the T-72B1 is what I would call a last-generation tank; hence why the Russians are scrambling to make the B3 a more universal product  
If I sound terse, its because I am - the constant referral to WWII in a modern conventional context has slipped from being mildly annoying to exasperating; it smacks of armchair strategist on a scale that even this forum usually doesn't produce and is comparing oranges to rotten apples. 

Hello this is an AAR of my quick battle with @Oleksandr  It's a Russia vs Ukraine medium size meeting engagement. 

I haven't played much Black Sea (I mostly play Final Blitzkrieg) and I went with what I figure would be a standard force.  I have four platoons of mounted infantry, 5 T-90AMs, six mortars, a mounted grenade launcher platoon, and an igla platoon and a Tunguska for AA.  

I don't have a very advanced plan.  Essentially move forward and see how the match develops from there.  But I assume the major objective will be the main contest and the minor objectives won't be very contested.  I send two platoons of infantry, the T-90AMs, and the grenade launchers to the center.  I send a platoon of infantry on each flank, one to secure my minor objective, the other to contest his minor objective if possible.  I dismount my platoon that is securing the minor objective since it is rather exposed, the BMP-3s will be first to the objective.

Damn!  I lose two BMP-3s at the same time and I don't even know what killed them, looks like tank rounds though.  Good thing I dismounted.  This doesn't change my plans but I do am now aware of how dangerous the area around the minor objective is.  Going to move my infantry platoon in the forest next to the minor objective.  I spotted a Tunguska while the rest of my units move forward uneventfully. 
Next post will be soon, either tomorrow or the day after.

This battle already took place and I got to see @Sulomon play it 'live and in real time' - the purchase of Tunguska's is the least of Olek's questionable ADA choices, I'll say that much.

Ok, if you're going to post stuff, you should probably have a slight idea as to what it is you are posting. 
The United States has over 4,000 Abrams in its active inventory. The Russians have less than 1,000 operational T-90s. 
The meme of red hordes died a long time ago. Continuing to base all future conflicts on this assumption is both ignorant and embarrassingly wrong. 
The West, specifically the United States, has both a quantitative and qualitative advantage over the Russian military. This has been the case for decades now. 
Please, please let this terrible meme end. 

More armor. LAV-III ain't swimmable either, and never has been. No idea about MOWAGs. The ability to ford rivers is secondary to the US, who's bridging abilities embarrass most other countries. 
In the same time it takes to prepare a BMP for a river crossing operation, we're as likely to just try and slap a few ribbons across. River crossings are deemed routine for both sides, but for different reasons.

@Oleksandr
Hey Olek I've been browsing this thread for a while now and was just wondering if you used an already made map for your tutorial. If you used a default map if you could tell me it's name it'd be quite helpful. Thanks.
 

@Oleksandr
Hey Olek I've been browsing this thread for a while now and was just wondering if you used an already made map for your tutorial. If you used a default map if you could tell me it's name it'd be quite helpful. Thanks.