76mm

Sisters!!! I too would love that. I personally prefer the east front more. I kinda disagree with the first east front title being RT’s time frame. I believe a Stalingrad time frame (late 42-early 43) would be really cool but I think the most popular would be summer 43 (Kursk timeframe). I just don’t get why so many gamers like the west front with all its hedgerows yuck!!!!!! 

First of all, all that I have specifically asked them to do (actually I only seconded Aragorn's request) is to provide a revised release estimate for the CMRT module.  And yes, I expect them to be able to do that at this point.
More broadly, Freyberg is correct that there have been a fair number of releases since SF was released...unfortunately I have zero interest in modern warfare so have not bought CMBS or SF2.  I have bought most of the WWII content to support Battlefront, but don't actually play anything other than CMRT.  
Although by now I don't really play CMRT either...the fact is that in my view, there just isn't five year's worth of play in CMRT.  With a limited number of formations/vehicles, no snow, etc., it has gone a bit stale.  I'm not really complaining about value-for-money--I would have happily bought all the East Front content that Battlefront brought out--but there has simply been nothing to buy.  And as stated previously, I am a bit disappointed that when the CMRT module does finally come out, it seems that it will mainly consist of late-war content recycled from other games/modules.  I'll certainly buy it, but won't be as excited as I would have liked.
So that's it.  I understand that Battlefront has a business to run, so I'm not angry, I'm not bitter, but admit to being disappointed, and wish that Battlefront could figure out a way to outsource more (Models?  Art?  Maps?) to allow them to create more content, more quickly.  At this point, however, for whatever reason this does not appear likely, so I guess I'll have to find another way to get my East Front fix.
Maybe I'm alone in these opinions, but the fact that this subforum is so dead suggests that I am not, and that many players have moved on by now.  

Well, technically in that post they were talking about the end of 2018 AFAIK ("...however we're very sure it will be before the end of the year."), but whatever...
Indeed.  But given that we've been waiting for this module for more than five years, the last status update was almost fifteen months ago, and the main milestones noted in that post (release of SF2 & R2V) have now been achieved, I don't think that it is unreasonable to request a revised estimate.  And maybe it is just me, but frankly I find the "make up  your own, it doesn't matter" response a little disrespectful to long-time Battlefront supporters and fans.
The CMRT subforum has been dead as a doornail for years now (yesterday I noted that long time forum denizen JasonC hasn't even visited the site in three years...), and if nothing else  some news might spark a little activity here.

In the article was rude enough statement: that "victory monument" (chapel is a "victory monument") has no foundations. Some Russian journalist translated that monument should be destroyed, for hype, I think. Everyone reposted... And that revisionists attempts to find a victory in any defeat are amazing. 
It's fun that Germans so much like to talk about shooting dozens of T-34 year after year. It is anniversary of "Bagration" offensive, when thousands German soldiers died because of militaristic madness of their country. But who cares? Victims are boring, stories about crushing 50 T-34s are fun.

Agreed,  What annoys and worries me even more is the lack of information, bones and ETA for the CMRT module. Steve told us that the module is more or less 'outsourced', so hey, we also don't have any idea when it will be finished. Totally unacceptable of course, small company or not. It's all a bit of a mess, but that's water under the bridge. To make a fresh start and restore faith we need reliable and clear information and the modules must be released asap. Yes, restore faith, because my trust in BF is not what it used to be, i'm sorry to say. And before the usual suspects will attack me on that one, I'll say that I'm far from alone in that opinion. A large part of the community feels that way. Five bloody years waiting for a module. It's ludicrous.
The Rome module doesn't make me extremely happy, personally i think it's milking the cow to death, but i'll buy it anyway. The patches and upgrades are of course necessary, but I refuse to see them as progress. Just a necessary 'evil', which has taken a lot of time and energy, on both sides. But happy to see bugs are fixed of course. I must say I like the new PR, but a new haircut doesn't mean all is forgotten and  forgiven. 🙂
The CMRT module, that's what it's all about for me. And then, another fresh start hopefully. Never mind modules and packs, just move on to CM3 and get a grip again on your own activities. Stop taking too much hay on your fork.

Yeah, but this module was billed as not only covering 1945, but rounding out the forces from 1944, when partisans were very relevant.
Regarding force packs, as I've said I'd be happy to buy one with partisans, but honestly if I have to wait another 5 years for it, I don't think I'll care any more.  And again, the fact that the vast majority of content for this one seems like it is being recycled from other games/ modules is rather disappointing.
I remember when the CMx2 engine came out, when Battlefront said that they'd be able to put out several modules a year, etc.  Haha.  Five plus years for this one is seriously bonkers and honestly, a huge turn off for me.

An update about partisans would also be nice!  Given that it seems like most of the other content (late war German vehicles, lend-lease, etc.) has already been created for other games/modules, it would sure be nice to get some unique East Front units such as partisans... 
I'd also be happy to buy partisans in a separate battlepack or whatever, as long as we don't have to wait another five years for it.

I got a telling off for posting images from Belsen, a mess that my family were directly involved in clearing up.....So I don't take too kindly at all to seeing videos of fascist f**ks pontificating about what a jolly rotten time they had on the eastern front, getting a free pass. 

It is not that people don't care, but at this point in the life of the game it is doubtful that anything will be done about it. Either because Battlefront doesn't think there is a problem or simply because it is a game engine limitation (trenches not sunk into the mesh of the map which results in soldiers being too exposed) and finding a workaround is too much work or not a priority. It could also be that if they somehow fixed this, it would mess too much with the balance of existing scenarios but then again that hasn't stopped Battlefront from beefing up mgs so probably not the main reason.
I wonder if you have played CM1. Because the offence/defence paradigm was completely different.  A lot of people either didn't play CM1 or have forgotten how it was like. Some will say it is the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia but it wasn't that long ago that I stopped playing CM1, 4 or 5 years tops. I didn't bother to reinstall it when I got this PC. But I distinctly remember the defence being A LOT tougher and resilient. A combination of leaders with morale bonus, stealthier shooters (you had to get much closer to get IDs on enemies and the position of the contact markers was a lot less accurate) and much stronger trenches and foxholes made it so you couldn't just have the defenders melt away under fire once you reach fire superiority. They would stop returning fire almost completely when suppressed enough and only sporadically shoot at the attacker but they would often stay put and you had to flank the trench line or assault it with grenades if you didn't have tanks or HE available.
I know that's not what fans of the game want to hear because they'd like to think that since CM2 is newer it is automatically better in every aspect. But it isn't so as far as I am concerned. The defence has become a lot weaker and there is less need for maneuvering when attacking entrenched enemies. It is still the best tactical squad level game on the market mind you and CM2 has tons of improvements, not least in the eye candy department but fortifications are definitely a weak point.
And yes part of the problem is the full soldiers representation and ballistic model that replaced abstract squads with not all soldiers displayed. It opened a huge can of worms and gives less room for fudging probably. Now of course most of the kinks have been ironed out and the game is really solid. Of course it would be hard to get back to the crude graphics of CM1 but nevertheless it had a couple of things it did better than the current game in my opinion.
But it feels like I have typed almost the same rant half a year ago so at the end of the day you have to accept the few flaws of the game. It is still enjoyable. Anyway you're not the only one who has a gripe with fortifications.
 

Yeah, I guess, although we wouldn't need animations of frantic paddling, I'd be happy if they sat placidly in the boats during the crossing.
As to too few use cases--not sure about that...  There were lots of cross-river attacks, including on the eastern front, although the Russians were as likely to use crude rafts or even logs as assault boats.  But some way of crossing rivers other than on bridges would open up lots of new scenarios.
Personally I would much rather have features which allow different types of scenarios (partisans, assault boats) rather umpteen variations of the Pzkw IV or a bunch of oddball vehicles, for instance.

Yeah, I guess, although we wouldn't need animations of frantic paddling, I'd be happy if they sat placidly in the boats during the crossing.
As to too few use cases--not sure about that...  There were lots of cross-river attacks, including on the eastern front, although the Russians were as likely to use crude rafts or even logs as assault boats.  But some way of crossing rivers other than on bridges would open up lots of new scenarios.
Personally I would much rather have features which allow different types of scenarios (partisans, assault boats) rather umpteen variations of the Pzkw IV or a bunch of oddball vehicles, for instance.

Yeah, I guess, although we wouldn't need animations of frantic paddling, I'd be happy if they sat placidly in the boats during the crossing.
As to too few use cases--not sure about that...  There were lots of cross-river attacks, including on the eastern front, although the Russians were as likely to use crude rafts or even logs as assault boats.  But some way of crossing rivers other than on bridges would open up lots of new scenarios.
Personally I would much rather have features which allow different types of scenarios (partisans, assault boats) rather umpteen variations of the Pzkw IV or a bunch of oddball vehicles, for instance.

Cool.  One word:  Partisans!
Ideally in the CMRT module but I'll also take them in a pack of some sort!

After a long delay, I've updated the CMRT Map DB to include recent maps as well as campaign maps--almost 90 more maps in all.  I've also replaced some of the dark, night scenario 3D images with daytime images.  Here is the new DB:
CMRT DB v2.3
(note that because of file size, to download you might need to right-click and select "Save link as...")
Here is the changelog with a list of new maps:
CMRT Map DB Changelog
This will probably be the last update for the DB in this format--the file is getting too big to work with easily (about 800 MB), so adding very many more maps might not be feasible. 
For more maps, in addition to the upcoming CMRT module (whenever that might be), I've converted many of the maps from CMFI and CMFB into CMRT maps (about 300 maps in all), and at some point I'd like to add all of them to the DB.  To do so, however, I think I might need to link to the image files in a directory rather than embed them in the DB file, which would take a lot of time...
Let me if you have comments or requests, or if I have not attributed authorship for any of the maps correctly.

I don't think I've seen a database of all of the CMRT maps out there--has anyone prepared one?

If not, I think it would be helpful for people thinking about creating scenarios to see if an existing map might suit their needs.

I've taken a stab at creating such a database, with columns describing map size, ground cover, relief, road networks, rivers, damage, etc. I've also included an image of the map so people can take a look for themselves. Here is the draft DB (Excel spreadsheet), which is work in progress:
http://www.vervecom.net/games/CMRT%20Map%20DB%20v0.xlsx

Before I got too far into this, I wanted to see if anyone had any suggestions about how to improve it, or whether this type of DB has any utility at all (or if one already exists, tell me to stop!)

Within CMBB there is no setting that could change this (scaling). Your monitor or videocard  MAY have settings to allow it to map the pixels one-to-one (so that a 1280 x 1024 sized image would be centered on the monitor and not stretched). I know in the past that the Nvidia control panel was capable of this (though it may have taken a lot of experimentation to get it to work). I'm not sure about the current Nvidia drivers (and specific OS versions) or if AMD Radeons have this functionality. The most convenient method would be for the monitor to have a setting that disables the scaling (mapping one-to-one on the pixels). Some monitors have such functionality, while many don't. The feature can go by a number of names/descriptions, so you may want to look through your monitor menus to see if there is anything that may support such a function.

The CM1 series does NOT support the mouse-wheel. Unless you map it to some sort of hotkey (outside of CM), which would simply be pressing it as if it was a third mouse button (not the actual wheel function).

I'll take it...

Urrraaaaaahh!

I was getting pretty excited about this game and then I watched the preview.
Click here, what's that? BOOM! BANG! Oh what happened over there? CLICK oh how'd that...BOOM! BOOM! CLICK here. CLICK there. CLICK there. BORING!
What's the point of having decent graphics when you can't afford to take the time to watch anything zoomed in? The second you stop to watch something play out, you miss five other things some where else. Think about it. How much time will you realistically be able to enjoy the graphics in this game without missing other things going on?
There's absolutely nothing fun about wargames where I miss 80% of the cool stuff. It's the #1 reason why I don't play CM in RT. I want to SEE all the cool moments! Armored Brigade looks like it could offer a lot of cool moments but so what? you can't watch them if you want to stay on top of what's happening. For me that's a complete and fundamental fail, and unfortunately it seems to be the rule in wargames (unless they are crappy IGOUGO) not the exception. It pisses me off that this is almost always over looked in games like this. As much as a click fest Total War is, they at least give you a battle save that you can rewatch to catch all the action at a later time (though it's not perfect without a rewind button).
Mord.

Here is the Amazon link:
https://www.amazon.com/Battery-Commander-His-Batman-Cook/dp/097493660X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1539252514&sr=1-1&keywords=the+cook+batman

Yeah, the book basically consists of a bunch of excerpts from other books, and I didn't get the digital rights for these excepts.  At that time, it wasn't especially relevant, since I don't think that Kindles existed yet!  But I have to say, there are some pretty good excerpts in there!

Mark's book "Island of Fire" provides a great level of detail on some of the Stalingrad battles, I expect that most if not all of his battles are like this.  His book "Objective Ponyri" is similar, although there is not as much content and more pictures (maps).  Glantz's books are also very detailed, although it sounds like at a higher level than you are interested in (ie, operational, divisional scale rather than tactical).  
Also, not to toot my own horn, but many years ago now I wrote a companion book for CMAK which included descriptions of many tactical level actions in the Med theater, including North Africa, Sicily, and Italy.  I think you'd find it interesting.  I don't see the book on Battlefront's website anymore, but I might have copy or two lying around, would have to check.  Also, from when I wrote that book, I seem to recall that some excellent New Zealand regimental histories were available for free online, but it has been many years, so you would have to look around.

Here is the Amazon link:
https://www.amazon.com/Battery-Commander-His-Batman-Cook/dp/097493660X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1539252514&sr=1-1&keywords=the+cook+batman

Mark's book "Island of Fire" provides a great level of detail on some of the Stalingrad battles, I expect that most if not all of his battles are like this.  His book "Objective Ponyri" is similar, although there is not as much content and more pictures (maps).  Glantz's books are also very detailed, although it sounds like at a higher level than you are interested in (ie, operational, divisional scale rather than tactical).  
Also, not to toot my own horn, but many years ago now I wrote a companion book for CMAK which included descriptions of many tactical level actions in the Med theater, including North Africa, Sicily, and Italy.  I think you'd find it interesting.  I don't see the book on Battlefront's website anymore, but I might have copy or two lying around, would have to check.  Also, from when I wrote that book, I seem to recall that some excellent New Zealand regimental histories were available for free online, but it has been many years, so you would have to look around.