Combatintman

@Sgt.Squarehead - as I've said before I think, stop noodling around with your stuff.  There comes a point where chasing the 1% is counter-productive.  Tidy them all up, write the briefings and square the maps away and kick them out of the door.  One released and 'good enough for release' product is better than 200 sat on your hard drive.
Taking Ap Bac or more correctly, 'A Miserable Damn Performance' as an example - it's done ... is it absolutely perfect - probably not, I don't know yet because it will bundle with the next H&E build so people haven't had a chance to play it and give their feedback.  However, despite the fact I felt that it needed a couple more play throughs and there were a couple of things that I felt could be changed, those changes and tests would only be marginal improvements.
The important thing is that the scenario fits the vision (which is why I banged on about vision in my Neptune Spear scenario tutorial) that I had in terms of its look, feel and outcomes.  Whether AI Group 1 plan could be tinkered with so that it moves between order 3 and 4 at 4:30 instead of 4:15 because it would be slightly more realistic or not is something I'm over.  The player generally won't notice the nuance if the overall experience is good.
It was gruelling getting to that point - as I recall, you said something like - 'flip - how did you knock the map out so quickly?'  The answer was simple - real world map, focus on getting it done and again I wasn't going to worry too much about whether a bump in the ground here or a tree there looked better or would create some sort of challenge or not.  The joy of real maps is that you don't need to think about the ground - you just trace the map.  
The graft was testing the thing because each test was about a week's worth of effort.  I reached out to our mutual friend @MOS:96B2P only when I had a pretty good idea that the thing worked and had a checklist of things that I wanted an opinion on.  He graciously spent about a week going through it and gave me some helpful suggestions.  From there, I incorporated most of those suggestions and tested again.  Then I had to deal with a couple of changes in the mod build and tested again.  By then, although not totally happy, I figured that it was good enough and I am confident that it is. 
I say the above, which is why I reached out to MOS, was because my vision was to replicate the frustrations and frictions of that day and I wanted to confirm that I'd got that right.  I'm pretty sure that some people will hate the scenario for this reason but I know that I've delivered the vision and I explain this in the designer notes.  I am happy enough that, despite some imperfections, I can explain to anyone who plays it - that:
I put a bit of thought and effort into it I know how the thing works I know how it is meant to work I know why it is meant to work that way. I think you just need the same confidence to accept that 'good enough is good enough'.
 

Bang on -  usually lose the will to live within five minutes of watching a CM video with the narrator spending ages going through the briefing and then watching them plot all the flipping moves and lots of 'didn't mean to do that'.  This guy nailed it, enough of the briefing to read you in - good initial overview and then a nice mix of beautifully shot vignettes interspersed with overheads to help you track it.  All backed up with a narrative that explained what was going on ... left, center, right.
Although everyone has their personal tastes - if I made a CM video, I would want it to be this one, or one in this style.

Bang on -  usually lose the will to live within five minutes of watching a CM video with the narrator spending ages going through the briefing and then watching them plot all the flipping moves and lots of 'didn't mean to do that'.  This guy nailed it, enough of the briefing to read you in - good initial overview and then a nice mix of beautifully shot vignettes interspersed with overheads to help you track it.  All backed up with a narrative that explained what was going on ... left, center, right.
Although everyone has their personal tastes - if I made a CM video, I would want it to be this one, or one in this style.

Exactly mate - start with a clear idea of what you want to do and stick to it - mission creep always ends in tears.

Bit like this chap then ...
https://www.paradata.org.uk/article/major-chris-keebles-account-goose-green
Great idea btw

@Sgt.Squarehead - as I've said before I think, stop noodling around with your stuff.  There comes a point where chasing the 1% is counter-productive.  Tidy them all up, write the briefings and square the maps away and kick them out of the door.  One released and 'good enough for release' product is better than 200 sat on your hard drive.
Taking Ap Bac or more correctly, 'A Miserable Damn Performance' as an example - it's done ... is it absolutely perfect - probably not, I don't know yet because it will bundle with the next H&E build so people haven't had a chance to play it and give their feedback.  However, despite the fact I felt that it needed a couple more play throughs and there were a couple of things that I felt could be changed, those changes and tests would only be marginal improvements.
The important thing is that the scenario fits the vision (which is why I banged on about vision in my Neptune Spear scenario tutorial) that I had in terms of its look, feel and outcomes.  Whether AI Group 1 plan could be tinkered with so that it moves between order 3 and 4 at 4:30 instead of 4:15 because it would be slightly more realistic or not is something I'm over.  The player generally won't notice the nuance if the overall experience is good.
It was gruelling getting to that point - as I recall, you said something like - 'flip - how did you knock the map out so quickly?'  The answer was simple - real world map, focus on getting it done and again I wasn't going to worry too much about whether a bump in the ground here or a tree there looked better or would create some sort of challenge or not.  The joy of real maps is that you don't need to think about the ground - you just trace the map.  
The graft was testing the thing because each test was about a week's worth of effort.  I reached out to our mutual friend @MOS:96B2P only when I had a pretty good idea that the thing worked and had a checklist of things that I wanted an opinion on.  He graciously spent about a week going through it and gave me some helpful suggestions.  From there, I incorporated most of those suggestions and tested again.  Then I had to deal with a couple of changes in the mod build and tested again.  By then, although not totally happy, I figured that it was good enough and I am confident that it is. 
I say the above, which is why I reached out to MOS, was because my vision was to replicate the frustrations and frictions of that day and I wanted to confirm that I'd got that right.  I'm pretty sure that some people will hate the scenario for this reason but I know that I've delivered the vision and I explain this in the designer notes.  I am happy enough that, despite some imperfections, I can explain to anyone who plays it - that:
I put a bit of thought and effort into it I know how the thing works I know how it is meant to work I know why it is meant to work that way. I think you just need the same confidence to accept that 'good enough is good enough'.
 

Bit like this chap then ...
https://www.paradata.org.uk/article/major-chris-keebles-account-goose-green
Great idea btw

@Sgt.Squarehead - as I've said before I think, stop noodling around with your stuff.  There comes a point where chasing the 1% is counter-productive.  Tidy them all up, write the briefings and square the maps away and kick them out of the door.  One released and 'good enough for release' product is better than 200 sat on your hard drive.
Taking Ap Bac or more correctly, 'A Miserable Damn Performance' as an example - it's done ... is it absolutely perfect - probably not, I don't know yet because it will bundle with the next H&E build so people haven't had a chance to play it and give their feedback.  However, despite the fact I felt that it needed a couple more play throughs and there were a couple of things that I felt could be changed, those changes and tests would only be marginal improvements.
The important thing is that the scenario fits the vision (which is why I banged on about vision in my Neptune Spear scenario tutorial) that I had in terms of its look, feel and outcomes.  Whether AI Group 1 plan could be tinkered with so that it moves between order 3 and 4 at 4:30 instead of 4:15 because it would be slightly more realistic or not is something I'm over.  The player generally won't notice the nuance if the overall experience is good.
It was gruelling getting to that point - as I recall, you said something like - 'flip - how did you knock the map out so quickly?'  The answer was simple - real world map, focus on getting it done and again I wasn't going to worry too much about whether a bump in the ground here or a tree there looked better or would create some sort of challenge or not.  The joy of real maps is that you don't need to think about the ground - you just trace the map.  
The graft was testing the thing because each test was about a week's worth of effort.  I reached out to our mutual friend @MOS:96B2P only when I had a pretty good idea that the thing worked and had a checklist of things that I wanted an opinion on.  He graciously spent about a week going through it and gave me some helpful suggestions.  From there, I incorporated most of those suggestions and tested again.  Then I had to deal with a couple of changes in the mod build and tested again.  By then, although not totally happy, I figured that it was good enough and I am confident that it is. 
I say the above, which is why I reached out to MOS, was because my vision was to replicate the frustrations and frictions of that day and I wanted to confirm that I'd got that right.  I'm pretty sure that some people will hate the scenario for this reason but I know that I've delivered the vision and I explain this in the designer notes.  I am happy enough that, despite some imperfections, I can explain to anyone who plays it - that:
I put a bit of thought and effort into it I know how the thing works I know how it is meant to work I know why it is meant to work that way. I think you just need the same confidence to accept that 'good enough is good enough'.
 

@Sgt.Squarehead - as I've said before I think, stop noodling around with your stuff.  There comes a point where chasing the 1% is counter-productive.  Tidy them all up, write the briefings and square the maps away and kick them out of the door.  One released and 'good enough for release' product is better than 200 sat on your hard drive.
Taking Ap Bac or more correctly, 'A Miserable Damn Performance' as an example - it's done ... is it absolutely perfect - probably not, I don't know yet because it will bundle with the next H&E build so people haven't had a chance to play it and give their feedback.  However, despite the fact I felt that it needed a couple more play throughs and there were a couple of things that I felt could be changed, those changes and tests would only be marginal improvements.
The important thing is that the scenario fits the vision (which is why I banged on about vision in my Neptune Spear scenario tutorial) that I had in terms of its look, feel and outcomes.  Whether AI Group 1 plan could be tinkered with so that it moves between order 3 and 4 at 4:30 instead of 4:15 because it would be slightly more realistic or not is something I'm over.  The player generally won't notice the nuance if the overall experience is good.
It was gruelling getting to that point - as I recall, you said something like - 'flip - how did you knock the map out so quickly?'  The answer was simple - real world map, focus on getting it done and again I wasn't going to worry too much about whether a bump in the ground here or a tree there looked better or would create some sort of challenge or not.  The joy of real maps is that you don't need to think about the ground - you just trace the map.  
The graft was testing the thing because each test was about a week's worth of effort.  I reached out to our mutual friend @MOS:96B2P only when I had a pretty good idea that the thing worked and had a checklist of things that I wanted an opinion on.  He graciously spent about a week going through it and gave me some helpful suggestions.  From there, I incorporated most of those suggestions and tested again.  Then I had to deal with a couple of changes in the mod build and tested again.  By then, although not totally happy, I figured that it was good enough and I am confident that it is. 
I say the above, which is why I reached out to MOS, was because my vision was to replicate the frustrations and frictions of that day and I wanted to confirm that I'd got that right.  I'm pretty sure that some people will hate the scenario for this reason but I know that I've delivered the vision and I explain this in the designer notes.  I am happy enough that, despite some imperfections, I can explain to anyone who plays it - that:
I put a bit of thought and effort into it I know how the thing works I know how it is meant to work I know why it is meant to work that way. I think you just need the same confidence to accept that 'good enough is good enough'.
 

It would also be interesting to play any game saves from others- something like a saved scenario, 25% of the way in (or around when everything gears up), for instance. Like the player is 2nd in command, suddenly thrown into the action (and in charge of adapting someone else's plan).

My scenario depicting the Battle of Ap Bac on 02 January 1963, entitled 'A miserable damn performance' after the comments made by the senior U.S. Army advisor to the ARVN 7th Infantry Division, Lieutenant-Colonel John Paul Vann following the battle is now finished.  It is with @37mm who I'm sure will make it available in the next release of this excellent mod.

I can answer this one - QB maps are essentially just like normal scenarios only without all of the briefings, graphics and of course pre-set forces.  The mechanics of creating the AI plans in the editor for QBs is the same as those for normal scenarios.  So your QBs have plans made by humans - getting them right is an art I haven't mastered yet because you have to understand a lot more variables than those in scenario design.

I absolutely do this in bigger scenarios - after all, you are one person doing the job of the CO, 2IC, Intelligence Officer, Ops Officer, Logistics Officer etc.  It is a visual record of what would have been written in the HQ log sheet from a message sent over the radio net '0, this 10, contact 0800hrs, three enemy dismounts engaged my position before going to ground at grid 123456, am observing over.'

I absolutely do this in bigger scenarios - after all, you are one person doing the job of the CO, 2IC, Intelligence Officer, Ops Officer, Logistics Officer etc.  It is a visual record of what would have been written in the HQ log sheet from a message sent over the radio net '0, this 10, contact 0800hrs, three enemy dismounts engaged my position before going to ground at grid 123456, am observing over.'

I absolutely do this in bigger scenarios - after all, you are one person doing the job of the CO, 2IC, Intelligence Officer, Ops Officer, Logistics Officer etc.  It is a visual record of what would have been written in the HQ log sheet from a message sent over the radio net '0, this 10, contact 0800hrs, three enemy dismounts engaged my position before going to ground at grid 123456, am observing over.'

I absolutely do this in bigger scenarios - after all, you are one person doing the job of the CO, 2IC, Intelligence Officer, Ops Officer, Logistics Officer etc.  It is a visual record of what would have been written in the HQ log sheet from a message sent over the radio net '0, this 10, contact 0800hrs, three enemy dismounts engaged my position before going to ground at grid 123456, am observing over.'

Fine - sit there and imagine Steve rubbing his hands thinking 'let's bid for a military contract just so we can delay the module for a couple more months.'
I agree that a comment was made that said that COVID had allowed BFC greater focus on development but those of us that create content and kick the tyres around things have had other concerns as outlined.
Stuff happens and RL is complex - this has been a difficult year for most if not all of us.  My wider perspective is that I'm lucky to be alive and therefore banging on about whether a game module is going to release in the next few weeks or not is very much lacking in perspective.  So yes it is about perspective and as I've explained I've got a lot more skin in the CMRT module game than you will ever have.  Mine is a sh1t tin of work, yours is, when you're going to spend 50 bucks or whatever it is going to cost.
So - you're looking forward to the module ... trust me, we get it but please let's have less of the conspiracy theories about why it hasn't been released.

Happy to talk about that if you want ...
I haven't seen my mother for over a year now because of the pandemic and probably won't see her until next year because of it - in fact I fear that I may never see her before she passes away.  I got stuck for three and a half months in Afghanistan because of the pandemic,  I got quarantined for two weeks when I finally got home because of the pandemic.  Three of my colleagues have died because of the pandemic and eleven have caught COVID-19.  Obviously as you should know quite well from your wife - the whole time I was in Afghanistan I was wondering whether I was going to wake up at zero late thirty with broken glass all over my bed, ringing ears and have to go out and shoot some bearded zealot carting an AK and a suicide vest.
Then of course I have to worry that my wife's work dropped off the side of the cliff for a couple of months and thinking about how we were going to cope and when I got home having to focus on family life which is always a balance of doing good stuff and the inevitable jobs that need doing.
Despite that, when I got home, I cranked out a ton of work on my scenario in order to support the earliest possible release of this module.
Now that is not a developer's point of view, it is a testers point of view and I'm sure other testers have faced similar challenges.  I contend that:
It is facile to assert that COVID-19 has somehow given space for more rapid development. A sense of perspective is required.

Sure - but we could all take our tinfoil hats off about Steam, military contracts et al.  The latter reminds me of those discussions when Shock Force came out ... remember those ... "It is a click fest", "Battlefront is chasing military contracts"  Then remember that they all ended up in the Gamesquad Forum talking to each other and see how that went.  Remember that the introduction of real time play was described as all sorts of doom and gloom while conveniently forgetting that WEGO was still an option and still is ...
The brown smelly stuff bust bottom line is that this module is being worked on, it will be next out of the door and as the saying will probably go ... it will be ready when it is ready.
To give you some context - I have a scenario which I hope will release with the title - I started it in 2018, it is still not ready for release because of various issues.  This year alone, I have spent the equivalent of working every day, 24 hours a day for a month and a half and probably longer testing it, tweaking it, retesting it and stripping out every single unit in the scenario and replacing them again and then testing and tweaking again ... no fun when you have a regiment-minus of Germans and about the same on the Soviet side on a map that is roughly 3.5km x 3km - and that is smaller than it was originally made because of various issues identified in testing.  Then of course there is the time spent researching the scenario (it is historical) and making the map and then the time spent by the testers opening up the scenario, trying to play it and hitting the various issues.
I won't even go into the work that other contributors have put into the module which make my effort above seem a small drop in the ocean.
To conclude - the thing is being worked on and there is no "good reason for delay if you want to find it."

Fine - sit there and imagine Steve rubbing his hands thinking 'let's bid for a military contract just so we can delay the module for a couple more months.'
I agree that a comment was made that said that COVID had allowed BFC greater focus on development but those of us that create content and kick the tyres around things have had other concerns as outlined.
Stuff happens and RL is complex - this has been a difficult year for most if not all of us.  My wider perspective is that I'm lucky to be alive and therefore banging on about whether a game module is going to release in the next few weeks or not is very much lacking in perspective.  So yes it is about perspective and as I've explained I've got a lot more skin in the CMRT module game than you will ever have.  Mine is a sh1t tin of work, yours is, when you're going to spend 50 bucks or whatever it is going to cost.
So - you're looking forward to the module ... trust me, we get it but please let's have less of the conspiracy theories about why it hasn't been released.

Happy to talk about that if you want ...
I haven't seen my mother for over a year now because of the pandemic and probably won't see her until next year because of it - in fact I fear that I may never see her before she passes away.  I got stuck for three and a half months in Afghanistan because of the pandemic,  I got quarantined for two weeks when I finally got home because of the pandemic.  Three of my colleagues have died because of the pandemic and eleven have caught COVID-19.  Obviously as you should know quite well from your wife - the whole time I was in Afghanistan I was wondering whether I was going to wake up at zero late thirty with broken glass all over my bed, ringing ears and have to go out and shoot some bearded zealot carting an AK and a suicide vest.
Then of course I have to worry that my wife's work dropped off the side of the cliff for a couple of months and thinking about how we were going to cope and when I got home having to focus on family life which is always a balance of doing good stuff and the inevitable jobs that need doing.
Despite that, when I got home, I cranked out a ton of work on my scenario in order to support the earliest possible release of this module.
Now that is not a developer's point of view, it is a testers point of view and I'm sure other testers have faced similar challenges.  I contend that:
It is facile to assert that COVID-19 has somehow given space for more rapid development. A sense of perspective is required.

Sure - but we could all take our tinfoil hats off about Steam, military contracts et al.  The latter reminds me of those discussions when Shock Force came out ... remember those ... "It is a click fest", "Battlefront is chasing military contracts"  Then remember that they all ended up in the Gamesquad Forum talking to each other and see how that went.  Remember that the introduction of real time play was described as all sorts of doom and gloom while conveniently forgetting that WEGO was still an option and still is ...
The brown smelly stuff bust bottom line is that this module is being worked on, it will be next out of the door and as the saying will probably go ... it will be ready when it is ready.
To give you some context - I have a scenario which I hope will release with the title - I started it in 2018, it is still not ready for release because of various issues.  This year alone, I have spent the equivalent of working every day, 24 hours a day for a month and a half and probably longer testing it, tweaking it, retesting it and stripping out every single unit in the scenario and replacing them again and then testing and tweaking again ... no fun when you have a regiment-minus of Germans and about the same on the Soviet side on a map that is roughly 3.5km x 3km - and that is smaller than it was originally made because of various issues identified in testing.  Then of course there is the time spent researching the scenario (it is historical) and making the map and then the time spent by the testers opening up the scenario, trying to play it and hitting the various issues.
I won't even go into the work that other contributors have put into the module which make my effort above seem a small drop in the ocean.
To conclude - the thing is being worked on and there is no "good reason for delay if you want to find it."

Fine - sit there and imagine Steve rubbing his hands thinking 'let's bid for a military contract just so we can delay the module for a couple more months.'
I agree that a comment was made that said that COVID had allowed BFC greater focus on development but those of us that create content and kick the tyres around things have had other concerns as outlined.
Stuff happens and RL is complex - this has been a difficult year for most if not all of us.  My wider perspective is that I'm lucky to be alive and therefore banging on about whether a game module is going to release in the next few weeks or not is very much lacking in perspective.  So yes it is about perspective and as I've explained I've got a lot more skin in the CMRT module game than you will ever have.  Mine is a sh1t tin of work, yours is, when you're going to spend 50 bucks or whatever it is going to cost.
So - you're looking forward to the module ... trust me, we get it but please let's have less of the conspiracy theories about why it hasn't been released.

Happy to talk about that if you want ...
I haven't seen my mother for over a year now because of the pandemic and probably won't see her until next year because of it - in fact I fear that I may never see her before she passes away.  I got stuck for three and a half months in Afghanistan because of the pandemic,  I got quarantined for two weeks when I finally got home because of the pandemic.  Three of my colleagues have died because of the pandemic and eleven have caught COVID-19.  Obviously as you should know quite well from your wife - the whole time I was in Afghanistan I was wondering whether I was going to wake up at zero late thirty with broken glass all over my bed, ringing ears and have to go out and shoot some bearded zealot carting an AK and a suicide vest.
Then of course I have to worry that my wife's work dropped off the side of the cliff for a couple of months and thinking about how we were going to cope and when I got home having to focus on family life which is always a balance of doing good stuff and the inevitable jobs that need doing.
Despite that, when I got home, I cranked out a ton of work on my scenario in order to support the earliest possible release of this module.
Now that is not a developer's point of view, it is a testers point of view and I'm sure other testers have faced similar challenges.  I contend that:
It is facile to assert that COVID-19 has somehow given space for more rapid development. A sense of perspective is required.

Sure - but we could all take our tinfoil hats off about Steam, military contracts et al.  The latter reminds me of those discussions when Shock Force came out ... remember those ... "It is a click fest", "Battlefront is chasing military contracts"  Then remember that they all ended up in the Gamesquad Forum talking to each other and see how that went.  Remember that the introduction of real time play was described as all sorts of doom and gloom while conveniently forgetting that WEGO was still an option and still is ...
The brown smelly stuff bust bottom line is that this module is being worked on, it will be next out of the door and as the saying will probably go ... it will be ready when it is ready.
To give you some context - I have a scenario which I hope will release with the title - I started it in 2018, it is still not ready for release because of various issues.  This year alone, I have spent the equivalent of working every day, 24 hours a day for a month and a half and probably longer testing it, tweaking it, retesting it and stripping out every single unit in the scenario and replacing them again and then testing and tweaking again ... no fun when you have a regiment-minus of Germans and about the same on the Soviet side on a map that is roughly 3.5km x 3km - and that is smaller than it was originally made because of various issues identified in testing.  Then of course there is the time spent researching the scenario (it is historical) and making the map and then the time spent by the testers opening up the scenario, trying to play it and hitting the various issues.
I won't even go into the work that other contributors have put into the module which make my effort above seem a small drop in the ocean.
To conclude - the thing is being worked on and there is no "good reason for delay if you want to find it."