ALBY

Your content is always appreciated!!  Great video @M.Herm

You ‘target’ surrendered units a lot ?  I like your style Probus!  Death to your enemizzies!!!

Advertising possible. I have not monetized anything here. click at your own risk.
I'm evolving into a spammer here.

The Ukrainian Corsar ATGM is an interesting weapon in-game because it can only be fired from the shoulder unlike the AT-7/AT-13 which have a deployed and semi-deployed state. 
After doing a bit of research on the Corsar platform (mostly searching for pictures and videos of it) I found most images have it mounted on a tripod. I did find a test firing demonstration where the user did not have the tripod attached but he was firmly resting the ATGM on a sturdy sandbag wall when shooting.
The overall weight of the Corsar missile/tube, launcher and guidance device (source is from a Kyiv State Design Bureau Corsar video linked below) is 24.5 kg or about 54lbs. This weight is a bit heavier than the 18kg written in the CMBS manual.
Considering that the Corsar is a SACLOS system that requires the user to hold the launcher crosshairs steady on target I’m wondering how feasible it would be to first, absorb the shock of the missile being fired and secondly, hold a 54lbs weapon steady enough to make a hit on a target at 2500 yards with any kind of accuracy.
My point is that the Corsar should be treated the same as the AT-7/AT-13. Have a tripod for it but also give it the option to be semi-deployed like the AT-7/AT-13. However, there should be a significant accuracy reduction for using it semi-deployed.
I hope this isn’t too knit picky but I believe it makes the in-game Corsar far more powerful than what it can really do. 
cheers

Link to Corsar test firing and component weight from Kyiv State Design Bureau: 
 

Be warned about possible advertising from the platform owner. Watch at your own risk.

Is there a ‘correct’ way?
Like as long as players enjoy the game does it matter how they play it?
Anyway given a hyper dynamic environment like a digital battlefield the process of fighting a battle it’s less about a correct way based on a set of rules, more principles and imagination and creativity surely?

I’m suprised nobody has mentioned re-shade yet.  @jheinrichk has some fantastic pics and vids that highlight his re-shade settings and I think it improves the game play quite a bit. 

howdy friends
Lately, I have been experimenting with 2 things in the editor to help balance forces and address these issues.  Totally obvious things that I have recently reminded myself of.   
 
1.  Curating weapons, loadouts and upgrading or downgrading vehicles or infantry.  Scarce ammo and green gunners can detune vehicles and create difficult command choices.  
 
2.  Using weather to limit visibility and  drone/thermal sights.  
 
@Artkin has a point imo. Although I did not get it when he offered me a match as a rank noob. I understand the game dynamics a little better and I get ‘it’ a little more now.
However, I think you have to have design your games so that they require as few ‘non-enforceable’ game rules as possible. If it can built into the game within the constraints we have, then it should be. There are many iterations of force and weather combinations that can even up forces and provide good gameplay. 
where I am at now is that I do prefer CMBS and experimenting with ‘modern problems’.  I also value the creativity and ingenuity of my PBEM oppo and my attitude is that I can fight  or recover from any challenge, if it’s interesting, so I tend go with few rules other than to not bomb setup zones in ME.   I have been prejudiced lately against super strong or upgraded vehicles.  auto-cannons are vexing me lately. We all have our favorites. lol.   I think we all need to be as flexible as possible, especially in CMBS as we will be making our own fun until they revamp another modern title for us.   PS, I appreciate my PBEM oppo and playing the AI is not satisfying imo. 

I definitely prefer playing against a human regardless of whether I win or lose. Part of the difference for me is the dialog that may accompany a battle.

Ehhh, area fire at obvious superb places to put infantry is ok in my book. 
If you put an FO in that church tower that provides great observation to the entire match, don't get upset when I blast the snot out of it as soon as I have a LOS. 
H

Prior communication is definitely key.

Except for the attacker in attack/defend-type battles. Some people also allow it in meeting engagements but I prefer not to. As always, prior communication is the key.

For 90 degree bends agreed. For curving corners makes no odds - the TacAI adjusts speed accordingly. If moving a lot of units in a convoy doing this will take forever. My approach enables the player to moves lots of stuff with min. effort. Its also simple (like me!) so IMO works well for thsoe new to CM.
There are LOTS of ways to achieve the desired endstate of a traffic jam free convoy. Usually for a convoy I'm less concerned re speed and more the unit makes it to where I want em to be without creating a clusterfcuk down the road... At heart I'm a lazy bugger
As I tend to play larger actions I tend to less micromanaging and tend to go with stuff that reduces the overall work load and achieves the desired effect.
The great thing is the game accommodates lots of different styles and every player evolves their own style to managing the admin associated with making stuff move and fight from point A to point B.
 

How To Enjoy Hassle Free Convoying in CM. 
https://youtu.be/3Lz97ZDXSWs
The video uses Red Thunder but techniques shown apply equally to all the CM games. 

There is no evidence that plotted speeds influences bogging. My default setting is fast or hunt if it has riders. In a muddy affair FB, I immobilize one Sherman on average. Your case seem to point towards the map design. 

Combat Mission does a really bad job of telling you anything about the terrain, so often you don't know what you are driving on, but I've definitely seen things like Churchills and T-90s get bogged and immobilized in places they shouldn't. Try light snow for the Churchill and watch them all get stuck.

As is ever the case, the real-life utility of these is often because they are there.
To take the Soviets, and Soviet-derived forces (so, Syrians and Russians in CMSF and CMBS), the 120mm mortars are a battalion asset, so each battalion would have a battery of mortars embedded within them, and these will always be available to the paper structure of this formation.
122mm and 152mm artillery are brigade-level assets, so will be assigned to the main effort. That's often, but not always, what we're representing in CM scenarios. Call-in times will typically be longer, but not necessarily long enough to matter. 122mm and 152mm howitzers have a significantly longer range than mortars, so there will be tasks they will do which mortars are unsuitable for.
A CM battle is an extremely limited perspective on a wider task. In that specific case, the roles of 152mm howitzers and 120mm mortars are very similar. They are providing the same four basic tasks that artillery carries out, destruction, suppression, obscuration and denial. The HE in a 120mm shell tends to be larger than the 155mm/152mm artillery, so bigger boom for less accuracy. This means that laying smoke for obscuration is the task which mortars are generally strictly better at, but most tasks can be done more or less equally well with either system. There will be some differences in things like the angle of incoming fire. Whether that matters will be terrain dependent.
Accuracy is for the most part unimportant for suppression and denial, and only really matters when you're trying to actively destroy targets, which is a task that 152mm and 155mm artillery will be superior to 120mm mortars at... but still not ideal, since that's a task better suited for rocket artillery and more specialist munitions (sensor-fused munitions, for example), which are often not really a close support artillery role (and hence not necessarily something you'd see a lot of in CM terms).
So, sure, if you want to phrase the question as "Why should I pick this system in a Quick Battle?", the answer may come down to points values, rarity and available ammunition. Mortars tend to be a little cheaper, but that will vary.
If you want to phrase this question as "Why would you put this in a scenario?", the answer is (or should be) that this is something that is available to this unit, in this context.
If you want to phrase the question as "How do I best use this unit?", then there's very little difference in how these are employed, they both do similar tasks to approximately the same degree of effectiveness, with minor differences.
 

CM3 should start with Cold War! It's the best title to start with in my humble and very selfish opintion, lots of units, long distance engagement, huge maps and lots of fun stuff to play with!
 

I still play CMBS in PBEM and there are some cool aspects of modern warfare you can model in CMBS. 
 
but I agree with not updating right now. 
 
More to the point, CMBS should probably be replaced with a commercial version of CM pro with Petruvians and Denovians and with  n the weapons set spanning CMCW thru CMSF2 & CMBS.  

And call me old fashioned but 'talking' to opponents is part of the fun/enjoyment of it for me.

Hi Andrew,
I didn't pay attention, I was a bit in automatic mode when receiving and sending the turns. I don't read the emails from Matrix either, the title is enough for me to know that I have to play my turn. I didn't know that it was possible to send private messages displayed in the game. If I understood correctly: your message should be displayed in the turn window with the password left empty?
On this forum, I am notified by email as soon as I have a private message. From time to time I check my private messages on the Matrix forum, and my personal Matrix/Slitherine page. I also sent messages that remained unanswered to ghost players on these sites as well as to other players registered on the BF.c forum, where one of them replied to me, he didn't understand that it was necessary to send 2 turns/scenario (I post anything in the Matrix forums, BF.C, The few good men tournaments forum, and the old French forum Appui-Feu are enough for me).
It was indeed useful to be able to communicate in this kind of case. For the next tournaments I will authorize the display of my email address, so if necessary my opponent can contact me by email as a last resort. I believe your email was displayed in the game in the window turn passwords.
I usualy tell my opponents that they don't need to warn me in case of absence, only if they plan to give up or encounter a technical problem which will interrupt the game for an unknown period of time. I communicate by email regularly with my opponents to comment on the current game and make jokes.
I understand that it would be good to shake up the players who are a little slow, and the ghost players, without talking about sanctions. It was a good idea from Matrix to send an email shortly before the end to motivate the players. We don't know the reasons and constraints encountered by other players. I think that the majority of players are professionally active, on the move, have a family and the younger ones are busy with their studies. 
I wonder if most players are automatically entered into tournaments by Matrix ...
Some players are annoying by quitting the game midway because they're losing, but it's actually funny because it's regressive childish behavior. Seeing a serious, calm and responsible person in everyday life suddenly behave like a frustrated child is touching and funny. Sometimes I react like that, but i am not a serious person ...
Thanks for our pbem on CW. As I already said elsewhere, it was really a great game full of suspense, tension, heroic or disastrous attacks on both sides, under the care of the god of luck Fortuna who changed sides with the wind. Homer, if he had witnessed this battle, would have written a second volume of the Iliad.

I would just like to see an expanded ToE. A simple patch that adds modern weapons would be nice. Breathe life back into the game without the risk of being called out as profiteering from the war. Everyone gets to simulate (to an extent) what’s going on over there with little to no risk to BFC.
 
Players could create the maps and scenarios and upload them to FGM. A compromise that might just leave everyone happy and dying for this damn war to be over. Then BFC could release somefink with proper drone warfare and minefields and such. 

I had fun.  Let’s do another one.

+1 for that.
Also I wonder if anything can be done against people who surrender at the beginning and in turn give an insane amount of points to the other player without fighting at all. Kinda skews the leaderboard.

@ALBY and I just played a really fun scenario he came up with that hones your skills at indirect fire and the use of spotters and drones in CMBS.  We each had mechanized forces (which included only 1 tank) and 7 drones each.  Reinforcements came in at each 5 minute mark that gave you more and more capability.  It would really make a good training or tournament game.