Holdit

There are so many things it could be it would almost be easier if I could look at it in the editor.  First I'm assuming you are using Terrain Objective Triggers and not Orders Triggers.  Also I'm guessing your problem is where you can't see the "wait for" and time limits.  In the below steps you can see the "wait for" and time limits can effect the trigger.   The below must be done with every AI group [A2] [A3] etc. that you want to respond to the trigger.  They can all use the same trigger, no problem.  The way you have the time, up above, they should move when the trigger is touched or 40 minutes into the scenario.  Really need more detail to give a more detailed answer, my friend.  I hope the below helps.   
Edit to add: Just noticed something, the wait for time would be 00:40:00 to make the unit wait until 40 minutes into the scenario if not triggered earlier.    
1) In Units assign the AI units to groups. (CTRL and F key)
2) In Missions – Terrain Objectives: paint a terrain objective trigger.
    Select type of trigger.
    Name the terrain objective trigger.     
3) In AI select the plan and the Group you want to be triggered.
    Paint a setup zone unless you want the unit to deploy in the exact same location every game.
    Click Add to add orders. (A unit can be triggered from its setup location however setup is not the
    trigger. In this case order #2 would be the trigger (setup is not an order but does take the place of
    order #1)).
    Click Can Trigger to the destination order (units can be triggered to move here)
    Paint the area on the map you want the unit to move to or shoot at when triggered.  
    Make selections in the four categories of orders.
    Go back to the previous order/setup and click Wait For.
    A window with a dropdown will appear. 
    Click on desired trigger and click OK.
    Check the times on the Wait For order. The exit time should be set to zero (00:00:00).
    If you only want the unit to be triggered and never use the timer set the “….and” to a time past the   
    end of the mission.
4) Click Save.
Example: Exit between 00:00:00 Wait For (name of assigned trigger)
                …and            xx:xx:xx  If not triggered first this is the time the unit will move.

Timed movement orders don't apply to the *last orders* in the chain because there's nothing to be done after. That means in order to get the 'Wait for' movement times selections there has to be another order after the one you're working on. You'll get your 'Wait for' options on all the movement orders except the last.

Sounds interesting.
It is possible. When you are in the units screen and you select deploy red or deploy blue that positioning is used if the chosen AI plan has no setup areas defined. As @Sgt.Squarehead suggested the AI plan way of defining the setup offers less control on the exact positioning so I would recommend that the default deployment be used by one of your AI plans. For the other AI plans paint an area on the map for the setup order for each AI group. Once the game starts the units from that group will setup in the area you defined facing the enemy map direction subject to terrain. You can control how that happens by controlling the size of the setup area you create and the number of troops in the AI group.
Note: the AI group's setup deployment will only be evident after the player's setup is done. So, if you start the game in scenario author test mode when you are deploying the player controlled side the positions of the AI units will start off in their manually deployed default positions until you press the BRB. Then the AI controlled units will jump to their setup positions.
 
I think what you want - triggered withdrawal of the Germans to also exit the map should be possible. I don't see anything from your post that is obviously wrong. Hopefully some of @MOS:96B2P's advice will help you get it working.

As for orders maps, in the editor if you go to Mission (Axis) for example you will see four tabs marked 'Strategic' 'Operational' 'Tactical' and 'Text'. The map tabs give you the preferred art size in pixels: 224 x 224, 702 x 224, and 952 x 350. The preferred art format is .bmp.
This is your own scenario so you can put anything you want into those orders map locations. Screenshots of the 2-D map, hand-scribbled art, art from ASL, Calvin and Hobbes cartoon panels. Put as much or as little work into it as you want.
Since you're not selling your scenario for profit I think you're probably safe from ASL's wrath

Good afternoon all,
For those of you that are not aware of the Wargame Vault, it is a great place to get good research material for designing scenarios. Their Micro-Mark TO&Es are very handy. I have several that I was using when I was on the development team for another computer wargaming company. Here is the web address: https://www.wargamevault.com/index.php
I hope all of you have a great weekend.
Chris.

You can never have too many terrain types! 

That'd be fine with me as long as I didn't have to wait another 12 years to see everything we have now in CM3. That's one of the only things that makes me fear a new engine.
 
Mord.

Unfortunatelly simply developing the unit rosters ( OOBs, TOEs, artwork etc.) for the various formations and eqiupments is a pretty lenthy process in it self if i understand previous comments by BFC correctly. 
If that was not the case i would suggest that BFC would seriously considder releasing a sort of CMBB 2 'light'...or CMBB 2 'editor pack' or whatever one should call it.
A simular version to CMBB as far as timeframe and avaliable units are conserned (41 - 45 including minor allies)...BUT WITH NO SCENARIOS AND NO CAMPAIGNS included.
Designing the playable content would be up to the community. After the release of the 'editor base-game' BFC could assist in the development of playable content if they are still working on CM 2 at that time...
Even without the help of BFC i'm pretty sure we would se a steady stream of eastern front scenarios being made avaliable by the community for many years to come...
Releasing a product with no playable content might not be a perfect solution but considdering the alternativ i think it is something that varants some serious considderation...
As many have mentioned...given the current releaserate of new products...We ever seeing early eastern front games in CM2 seems very unlikely unfortunatelly...
 
 
 

https://wartimecanada.ca/sites/default/files/documents/Infantry Training- part VIII_0.pdf
Been trying to take the things in Chapter 4 and see whether can use them within CM.

@Holditwell done for hanging in there after losing the original. Sounds like a labour of love, which generally results in better scenarios.

In this thread please share your map converting (from title to title) experiences.
To start, I will show how to convert Stumont from CMFB to CMBS.
For this map, open in Hexed.it (A website). Change this value to 0A for CMBS. (There are specific values for each game).

When you open this map in CMBS, it will crash when loading. This is due to a certain few buildings. Swap these buildings for modular buildings in CMBS.

Congrats now you have Stumont in CMBS!

For a (short) while I was attempting to play by strict 'reality' rules. No moving your camera beyond your own forward line, no raising the camera above level one (except to facilitate placing movement orders). No rewinding to double-check where an attack came from. No flying about the battlefield like a bird, just naviagating by '+' jumps from unit to unit. The game suddenly became VERY challenging, even frightening. Being ground level with your troops in a patch of woods during an artillery stonking is unnerving. We don't realize how much we rely on the 'eye of God' view of the battlefield while playing.

QB maps are my own pet peeve. I think many of the CMBS ones are frikkin awful. It's not just the issues posters have identified above, but the fact that most of the QB maps I have played so far
a) bear no resemblance to any town or village landscape I have ever seen
b) lack tactical benefits of terrain so games become grinding matches
To give an example: the CMBS QB I am playing at the moment -  destroyed factory stronghold - is far from the worst, but is virtually completely flat, has only pitched roof buildings and only 1,2,3 storey buildings, so you cannot seek an elevation for snipers and arty observers.  It also has four arrow-straight main roads (eh?!). There are no ways to sneak infantry up advantageously, and as Kaunitz says just becomes a short range bloodbath.
This is unlike any terrain I have seen, and quite frankly, most factories/warehouses/industrial complexes have many different buildings, from very large flat-roofed ones, to office towers, to small sheds and utility buildings.  Where are the shops, filling stations,  car parks, workers' cafes, and the odd playing field or billiard hall where the workers take breaks?  I've seen more realistic alien planets in games.
I was actually today going to propose that some of us here modify the QB maps and make them better, call them Mk2 versions, that would be quicker than starting from scratch and if a few of us did one each it would not become too  tiresome. I am grateful to @Kaunitz for raising this topic because it was on my mind too.
(note - I like QBs because you can pick your forces, and experiment with different force mixes, vehicles and troops)

For what it's worth I'd rather they decided to stick with the CM2 engine if it meant they can focus on content that pushes the games back into mid and early war. Every few months I read something and go "ooh that would be fun in Combat Mission" and then realise it's from 1941. Early and mid war is far more appealing than 'starting again' especially if it means we're heading back to Normandy.
If the shift to CM3 was designed around porting over existing games' content from already released titles that would probably be a big help but it's probably a pipe dream. Especially considering what's been going on with CMSF2 and that's the same engine.

I for one would rather stick to the current engine. It is very solid! Why change a winning horse? Why throw so much that has been achieved over board (even if some aspects can be carried over, it would definitively mean a big cut?). And there are still patches coming out. Sure aesthetics could be nicer measured by today's standards, but they're okay for me.  What matters more is gameplay. With a few tweaks here and there (fortifications?  ), I think I will stay a happy subscriber of the current engine for a long time to come.  

This is clearly the definitive one...
 
 

For nigh on ten years now my biggest projects have always been my portrait mods. I have invested weeks and months on end, that have added up to hundreds and hundreds of hours of time and frustration creating them. I have made easily over ten thousand portraits, through trial and error, redesign, and updates. It's been a true struggle at times, and I am never happy with the outcome, though I'll say I am, once a project is complete. But I am always fighting the design decisions I started with way back in SF1 and it's hamstrung me artistically. After the FB portraits I decided I wanted to redo all the portraits for all the titles (the BN mod is long over do for an update) . So, after a long hiatus, I set about trying to get to someplace that would finally make me happy. I decided to start with RT to get ahead of the module release, and after a week or so of fiddling, resizing, making test bmps, and checking in game, this is what I came up with.

For about two seconds I thought they looked good. But once again I was confronted by the poor design decisions I adopted all those years ago. You see, I have been in a constant fight with what I term the "bobble head effect", which causes the portrait heads to appear bulbous and fat-headed. It occurs because I opted to show each portrait with a split face on the bmp. It has been my bane since my BN mod and it frustrates me to no end. And considering how I built each face from screenshots, pieces of faces from all sorts of pictures, and the fact I only worked on the left side of the face, well it doesn't leave me room for presenting them in any other way. And On top of all that, I have always felt there was inconsistency in the quality of the faces, and that they appeared too cartoony.  So with that said, I am putting these portrait mods to rest. I have taken them as far as they will go and they have reached a dead end. They had a good run but there really isn't anything more I can do to improve them.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Now, check out what I have been doing for the last two weeks and tell me I didn't make the right decision...



Now for some comparisons of the old style and the new.


 
Now the portraits in the context of their own mod. It'll give you an idea of the overall design.


 
And within the context of the game UI.


 
Some of the portraits are tentative/place holders until I find something that really blows me away. Or will be replaced later. The Heer Armor and Armor Infantry come to mind as far as that goes. Luckily I haven't made anything yet with them, just tests.
Now, unfortunately I will probably have to share a lot of the portraits (mostly Germans) across games, however backgrounds and the like will be changed for each setting.  And I will of course do all the battalions and regiments etc. Whether or not I will be able to keep the quality across titles remains to be seen but I will do my best. It is going to be a colossal amount of work, already has been. For the Germans alone I have created and discarded over a thousand portraits. LOL. Every time I think I have one down and start producing keepers, I stumble across a better pic, or I adjust some color to better fit the portrait into the overall look and I have to redo a ton of work. I just replaced the Heer Infantry yesterday, now I have to redo 374 that I had already made, as well as the SS Arm Infantry. I have done this a couple times already. But getting it right is what's most important. Perfection is what I am aiming for.
I don't know how long it will take. Getting the right pics is painstaking and laborious as hell. For every good one I make I throw out five. But this style will be the definitive version of my portrait mods from here on out. As I complete them I will remove the old versions from the planet. I'll start threads in the corresponding game forums as I progress.
Welp, that's about it. I was gonna keep all this to myself and wait to surprise everyone, but I have been working in a vacuum for a month and it feels good to talk a little bit about it. Especially as I have been going full bore, night and day for two weeks straight. I Hope you guys like what you see. I think it's the best work I have ever done.

Mord.
 

If it's any help...
The briefing templates from some of the BF games were released on the repository years ago. These were transferred over to CMMODS. If you have some basic skills with photoshop or other programs that open .psd files it will save you some work in prepping breifing graphics.
http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?page_id=5#search/text=Briefing
Trying to find the balance for victory points can also be a bit of a challenge. I created a simply excel file that lets you test different combinations of victory point assignments, and potential points gained by players on both sides so you can 'game out' your scenarios.
http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=4236
Hope that helps. :)

@Holditgood luck with your plans. Don't sweat the briefing graphics thing - it is easy peasy. I do mine in Powerpoint and most are generally a Google Earth image of the map or an overhead CM screenshot of the map in preview mode. All I do then is draw a few arrows, add some military symbols and write in some text or other annotations. Once I've done that, I just 'select all' on the slide and copy into Paint where I resize them to the correct dimensions and save them as 24 bit Bitmaps.
I think that many people have this perception that you have to use some Gucci graphics program like Paintshop Pro, be a ninja at using it and spend hours at it. Utterly not true - most of my Mission graphics I can knock up in under an hour using Powerpoint and Paint.
All explained here in my CMSF mission design tutorial.
If you look at the eighth post down on this thread, you will see two examples of briefing graphics that I put together using the method above:
 

IP issues come more into play when someone is making money off the IP.   I would say that so long as you claim it's for non-profit/educational use, it's not a problem.
Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder for purposes such as criticism, parody, news reporting, research and scholarship, and teaching. There are four factors to consider when determining whether your use is a fair one.
Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law provides four factors to consider when considering whether the use of copyrighted works is a fair one:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work (e.g., whether it is factual or creative in nature) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

That would be a great help, thanks.
Hmmmm...I don't think the expense of consulting a lawyer is worth it for a hobby. The differences between the two systems preclude a straight copy, although I do use the maps as a template, but I use some artistic license to make them more suitable for the CMx2 engine. For example, I've attached a screenshot of a section of the board I'm working off, 

and also the corresponding section of the CMBN map:
 

On balance, I think it would probably be best to fictionalise/genericise it and say it's "inspired by...".
This one, by the way is...(ahem)...inspired by the ASL Starter Kit Scenario "Ad Hoc at Chef-du-Pont", which can be downloaded for free from the MMP web site.
 
Excellent idea. That's what I'll do.
 
Thanks.

I'm not certain of the particulars of copyright laws other than the USA, but 70 years is the general copyright expiration for photographic images. Much of what you will find will be under "fair use", as the images were made by combat camera men and women working for their various national agencies- the US images will be fair use in that case.
As far as US law is concerned-
Copyright in photography lies with the creator of the image, not a secondary owner. Ownership of a print or negative without having created a work does not constitute any sort of exclusive rights. Copyright transfer/extension is rare, and Disney or Warhol estate level of insane.
Since the people that made the images in question are now most certainly dead, you are generally going to be in the clear (though due diligence as to credit is encouraged). 

I am actually in the process of creating a step by step tutorial. But I am not done and it is on the back burner but I'll share a draft with you via PM. It will get you started.
Wow good question. It has been done before but that doesn't mean they were OK. Copyright does allow for derivative works, so as long as some things are different I think you can say based on ASL scenario X but I would make sure that there are differences and that you write your own briefing etc. And consult a lawyer.
Actually I would use an image from game. During play testing take some screen shots and is those.