Commanderski

I know. And yes, we are fortunate to have those guys.  I hope some of them will return after the CMRT module finally sees the light.

Back to the question of what makes this module worth buying...
I played a lot of Italy back when GL came out - so much that I gave up for quite a while. Now I've been playing Quick Battles with the new interesting forces available, because I like QBs and because I've been too busy at work to have a proper go at the scenarios, which are best played fresh, without mulligans, and carefully.
There are something like 500 QB maps with FI, GL and RV !!  I feel like the game is brand new. The new forces are really cool - not just the brand new ones; the 1945 British are quite different from the forces in CMBN-Commonwealth, as are the New Zealanders, and I haven't even looked at Canadians and Polish.
I'm still just toying around with QBs  - I haven't played a single scenario, let alone a campaign, but I'm having lots of fun. The map designers have got the AI to put up a pretty good fight. The one I'm playing at the moment has been a real buzz - a map I'd never got around to before, British against SS, very late '44, played in assault mode, at dawn, with some very intense and surprising little firefights.
There are things I'd like to see improve in CM, of course, but I get such great value for money from this crazy little game...

Oh, I almost forgot. I wanted to respond to the TV vs monitor thing. I have been using my OLED tv as my monitor for the last year and it has been just great. An investment for sure, but my very wise and frugal grandma used to tell me: "Even though you may not have much money it is a true-ism that in order to save money, you must spend money." Meaning that holding off until you have enough to buy quality things will ultimately save money in the long run. She knew of what she spoke.

Adding more stuff to FI and BN sure but there is a pretty big imbalance right now. You have three games with 2-3 modules each and RT, FB and BS have no extra content. It would be nice if battlefront focused on these a bit more instead in my opinion.

Or if you display too little concern...

In this holiday season, let us all remember that we are just grown men (mostly men?) playing w little army men and toy tanks.  No one is right or wrong in which army men they want.  

Oh my god I think I ran onto something ! ... Dear I am afraid we've found missing Sergent Larry ...
 

@Bulletpoint Yep, at the moment only one plan but USA reinforcements have variable arrival times which can help or hinder. V2 will include multiple plans, TRP placement already done, building improvements and once complete I'll post on the scenario depot website.Will think about weather/ground condition mix would like to do a snow variant. Was looking for feedback on this version, which you have helpfully provided. I could add more ambush points but I didn't want there to be a bazooka team on every corner. It can build more tension and lead the player into a false sense of security if they are deployed at varying intervals. The aim is to make the final engagements challenging without being impossible, its tough to get the balance right.

Don't worry, the offending officer has been demoted and now keeps watch over the Kampfgruppe's prisoners of war. He has been ordered to not let anyone escape. Surely he won't be able to screw up such a simple assignment.

Awesome screenshots, bringing the scenario to life, couldn't have asked for better.
On other comments, I will produce a Version 2 in the New Year and the TRP will be moved to avoid Peiper getting angry with some exhausted staff officer.
And add more interconnecting doors where appropriate. I have made some of the Chateau open plan inside but agree could be more. The reception area of the chateau is one of the buildings you cannot modify unfortunately. And one of the buildings represents a chapel, so I'm not sure there are interconnecting doors but take the point on board. It was quite  tricky getting an acceptable visual representation of the Chateau and Sanitorium.

Some scenarios may run the risk of becoming a battle of "waypoint" management.  I generally prefer no more than about a company of infantry supported by a few tank platoons (or something similar) that need to be maneuvered by the player.  There are some scenarios where you may have a battalion of infantry on the map with most of the troops on static defense and only about a company actually maneuvering each turn.  That's fine IMO.  I generally prefer to not have to plot waypoints for more than about one company worth of infantry. 
When I do play scenarios with multiple infantry companies I will sometimes alternate assigning waypoints.  On turn seven I assign waypoints to units moving on the left flank.  Turn eight the center.  Turn nine the right flank.  Turn 10 back to the left flank etc.  Of course any emergency moves must be immediately way-pointed.                  
I've read AARs where some players seem to enjoy plotting an infantry battalion worth of waypoints almost every turn.  One of the cool things about Combat Mission is the player is able to decide where his personal work/fun ratio is for game play.  

In the book Snow and Steel it says the majority of the troops were recent conscripts from the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe with most having only 3 - 6 weeks of training and no combat experience. The troops that had combat experience were intermixed with them and in most cases the leaders were of good quality. But as the battle wore on the leaders were killed off as they were always at the front so that left them basically leaderless as things started to bog down. I'm pretty sure that that most if not all the tank crews were pretty experienced.

In the book Snow and Steel it says the majority of the troops were recent conscripts from the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe with most having only 3 - 6 weeks of training and no combat experience. The troops that had combat experience were intermixed with them and in most cases the leaders were of good quality. But as the battle wore on the leaders were killed off as they were always at the front so that left them basically leaderless as things started to bog down. I'm pretty sure that that most if not all the tank crews were pretty experienced.

I just started reading this and other articles in the  Battle Drill blog and it's very helpful. Should be required reading for CM players.

Enemy FT man takes no chit, but does, thankfully, take prisoners.

the mod is now available there
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/combat-mission-fortress-italy/cmfi-infantry/cmfi-rome-to-victory-french-uniforms/

thanks to Bootie

small holes but great damage

Thanks! Here's one more:
The last man -  just before his last breath.

I find it far simpler just to use a sharpie on the monitor.
 
 

Here´s a little video illustrating what is the main problem with surrendering - in my opinion:
A german MG squad is surrendering in the first battle in the South African campaign in CMFI R2V. I then send a squad over "to accept their surrender" - when this happens.
Bloody treacherous krauts!!
Luckily this kind of thing happens very seldomly - so I am not very dissatisfied with surrendering in CM.
 
 

Kampfgruppe Engle series family photo (Crossing the Dive scenario). It is an old photo dating back to 1944 and only black & white then 😁

Trading fire at close quarters.

They thought it would be a short war...also the quality of the ones in '44 wasn't that great as they cut as many corners as possible and they had few experienced pilots left.

Agree Kampfgruppe Engel is a really enjoyable campaign. For years BF has been a kind of hit and miss for me. The learning curve is (very) steep even coming - decades ago - from the Squad Leader boardgame series ; which had been resurrected for a little while with the MS Close Combat titles ... I think now I am kind of addicted to the BF series once the effort of getting into it is digested.

I've always assumed the hand of God was involved somehow...