sttp

Don't worry boys. The November window is about to open, and it should be open for 30ish days or so.

Making a movie is not built in to Combat Mission. 
You need some third party video capture software. You turn off all the stuff you don't want to see, such as unit icons. You replay each turn several times as you capture the pieces of video you want. You save those small video snippets in files organized so that you can easily find them again. Then you need more third party software to assemble the clips into a movie, add text or voice, special effects, title, credits, etc. Playing Combat Mission is a hobby.  Making Combat Mission videos is a whole separate hobby.

In my impatience (in waiting for the CMFI module), a few weeks ago I finally went ahead and bought GTMF. And wow, I'm really glad I did. It's a much different game, with its operational layer and all, but the experience is just as rewarding and entertaining, IMO.
The one thing that had kept me from buying GTMF is that with CM I'm primarily a turn-based/WEGO player -- I spend as much time watching the action as I do planning it -- so GTMF, having no replay capabilities, just didn't seem all that attractive to me. What I did not realize, though, is that GTMF has what might be called a pretty robust StratAI, so once you get proficient with the (very different) orders and control system, you can pretty much just position your forces, give a few basic commands, and then just watch the action unfold. It's a real hoot. There is much, much less micro-managing than is needed in CM, and you can usually trust your forces to do the smart thing, so as it turns out there's still plenty of time to play Combat Cameraman.
Any CM players who like Red Thunder the most, or really anyone who leans more towards armor vs armor battles... you, especially, are really missing out here. Don't let the lack of WEGO be what stops you from trying out GTMF -- that's what held me back for so long, yet I now realize I could've been having fun with TWO great games for the past few years. CMx2 is still my overall preference (for a dozen reasons I won't get into right now), but there's really quite a bit to like about this Graviteam game.

Best Way has sort of left everyone in the same boat with Men of War. I want to learn all the finer points of the game's GEM editor but it's tough because few written references (especially in English) exist and YouTube tutorials require you to parse through commentary and replays to find what you need. 
GTOS and GTMF are the true "operational" level games in the Russian sense existing between the tactical and strategic layers most games inhabit. 
https://youtu.be/wwwacMv-IjQ?t=599
About a minute or two into the linked timestamp he starts going over the command system's mechanic for limiting order spam and micro management. 

Yep, I have been working through that vague confusing stuff all day.
I have been depending on YouTube videos to teach me, but despite all the work put into their production, there are errors ... or GT modified things.  Examples:
YouTube:  Observed on map arty does not need a link; only AI auto fire.  Not true.
YouTube:  A mortar platoon with 6 tubes; 1 officer/2 tube; and a battery commander.  It is the firing officers who spot, and the battery commander who supervises the mortar crews.  It is actually the other way around.
I spent a great deal of time on the mission editor as it is only slightly documented.  Button says "trigger" ... rollover says "trigger".  1.5 hours of digging produces another player who knows the answer.
Things that only make sense to Russian programmers:  The Master Volume does not control SFX or Voice volumes???
Choosing a name for your mission save filename causes it not to be saved. 
Eventually, I will understand well enough to play, but be missing quite a bit of nuance.
But I want to say this not to just GraviTeam but much larger companies like Paradox ... it is a lack of engineering professionalism to produce complex software with woefully inadequate documentation.  In this regards, BTS/BFC has always done very well.  The manuals are comprehensive.  A player with some combat and game concepts could learn to play just from the manual alone.  The tutorials rather than frustrating the player really does help one get up to speed.
When evaluating a game ... just like support ... professionally produced manuals/tutorials are very much part of the value proposition.  It easier to excuse a small indie company that charges a fair price for their product than Paradox which can run you upto $500 USD for a complete game without a manual.
With all that said GTMF/GTOS are truly one of the kind gems.

It is important to keep in mind that Harry is really reviewing GTOS.  Most of the community is not playing that, but GTMF (aka Mius).  GTMF was released in 2016.  Originally, the two were quite a bit closer than today.  I am no expert, but some obvious differences are:
* A better UI
* Improved mechanics
* Improved performance (see below)
* Improved orders simulation
* WEGO for the campaign map or the older TBS (but still less gamey).
* More statistics
* Battle groups (although in most cases; most content has a BG version and a platoon version).  BGs reduce micro-management.
* Improved mission builder (no map editor; no campaign editor)
Harry does mention this above, but it important to note that most of the community has moved on to GTMF and if you were buying, you would buy GTMF and not GTOS.  What are SABOW and TUNISIA?  They are 1st/3rd person tank simulations using the GTOS and GTMF engines respectively.
* So, buying GTOS is like buying CMBO/CMBB/CMAK ... for sure great games.
* Most would buy CMBN/CNFI/CMRT/CMFB these days ... or correspondingly GTMF.
Finally, if you would buy/play CM than you would buy/play GTOS or GTMF.  If you would buy play Steel Beasts, then you would buy/play SABOW/TUNISIA.
NOTE:  I am very impressed by the programming (as a software engineer) of these games.  They do a lot work and display beautiful graphics - VERY SMOOTHLY.  Over the last 40 years, the art of performance programming has been lost.  Why?  Hardware became cheap and people expensive.  But clearly whoever does the coding is "old school".  So, how can the newer program run better?  GTOS is 32 bit, and GTMF is 64 bit.  For a game, this means much more of the textures and models can be loaded and decompressed before launch.  I believe the program uses multiple cores, but nothing like a chess engine which scales linearly based on cores.
The games are not CM competitors and the style and feature sets are not subset/superset and only minimally overlap.  It is mainly about you personally and how you like to game.  Although I will say that the CM UI is more intuitive, much better documented, and there is a larger community of English speakers to help.  However, given the current size of the English speaking GTMF community and some excellent YouTube materials, both games are NOW much more approachable than say in 2014 (GTOS).

The engine is technically and visually really impressive in a lot of ways too. Wrecks, destruction, defensive positions, etc are persistent and remembered by the game from battle to battle. More detail is rendered in a space that is bigger than most CM scenarios, though larger scenarios with lots of battling units and smoke can get tough on a mid-range computer. 
The most interesting mechanic to me, implemented in recent years, is the command "bandwidth" mechanism which actually makes how you play the sides different. The Russians use more pre-battle planning and timing cues and the lack of radios and field telephones means changing a plan is not something you can do much of since you can run out of command influence. The Germans can cope with this better, and play a bit more like units in a conventional strategy game but trying to micro them excessively can still "overload" the command network and cause them to just ignore your orders. It really feels more like you're back at an HQ barking orders through a field telephone. It's not a squad or company level game ya know? It's more at the regimental or division level and its a fascinating middle ground that is not often covered. 
Now if only the user interface didn't contain tons of vague and confusing detail of various (unexplained) importance lol. 

I force them to run back and forth under fire, reciting health statistics about the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle. If there are any survivors, I take away their cigarettes.

actually THE COPY MOVE COMMAND is a pretty good suggestion. Since they have never been able to program a smart follow command.
I could see the use of a copy command, then one would only have to adjust the command for the unit once it has the same move point locations shown.
 
 
 
 

Instead of a 'follow' command, why not just have a 'drive on road' command...?

Why is this astonishing to you? 

Basic operating procedure commands exist in a variety of games and they are great for turning a relatively static command into a dynamic one that can work in many situations. If you are confused by the usefulness of SOPs well....

- Hunt (triggers on spotting an enemy)
- SOP upon trigger *Fallback*
- Movement type *slow*

And suddenly a movement type that will see men lay in an open field for ~45 seconds waiting to be killed turns into a command that sees them returning to cover. All without cluttering up the action selection menu. I'm actually flabbergasted that you can't see the benefits of SOPs in a 1:1 tactical game.
 
Yea for sure. I think the best solution is to just buy a second weaker gun that has an extended firing arc to nail trash vehicles and then a real AT gun with a closer in arc for armor. But that can be expensive and difficult in many situations. Part of the overall issue is that we have a set group of commands and then rely on the tacai throughout the action minute to handle things. Yet the tacai is completely incapable of understanding context and acts passively.

Which given the dynamic nature of the battlefield isn't great.

I´d just started with my little comparison project and usually prefer having more control when creating some missions too (map making, scope, force selections etc). Point for BFC/CMX2 in any case. My little QB´s (up to Coy size)  play out fairly realistic actually. The AI does flanking (or tries to unless bumping into my flank security), but too much depends on what forces you give both sides. Same for the (few) maps. Got to try more combined arms and tank heavy battles to make a better judgement. Also different weather, time of day and finally adding bits of air support. Think the real challenge comes in campaign games, when one got to deal with depleted, tired and not optimally supplied  troops. One also does not know the exact composition of the enemy unlike in QB. As said I´m toying around with the old APOS/GTOS and base any my judgements on this, not more recent Mius Front or Tunisia.
My main problem was preserving enough of my patience to learn the interface and various move and combat modes properly. Now with most of it under control I can plan and pull off battle plans fairly realistically. There´s also configurable action reports and feedback (pause or compress time on event x or y). Once can by left or right mouse clicking certain UI elements jump to units reporting. Things like enemy spotted, leader killed, command link lost etc. One sees what´s reported, where and who sends report. While I prefer WEGO in any case, this RT system turned out quite managable and one can keep track of things if one knows what to look for (blinking icons, special symbols and text reports). The game manual just gives some basic explanation on all that, but with required patience one figures out the details sooner or later.

Back in 2017 when I tested this, I found that it's the magical bulletproof windshield that protects the passengers.
Jeeps with the windshield down were killed extremely fast by MG fire, but when the windshield was up, they survived a very long time unless they backed off and turned their side to the firer.
There's of course also the question of how many MG bullets it would take to knock out the engine from the front.

Maybe the layer of abstraction is a bit too thick in this case? He survives several magazines worth of MG ammo at 20 m range.

Echoing Howler's post above, is there information I can be pointed toward that mentions when BFC will re-direct their attention to correcting the lingering triggers of the "hedgerow gap charge?"  Following the responsive, June release of 4.02, I haven't discovered much about any planned follow up.  After the CMFI Rome module perhaps?
If I have my facts straight, 4.02 reduced the incidents of infantry unduly breaking cover, but did not eliminate the issue as it relates to hedgerow features.  I seem to have experienced it a handful of times in 4.02 while playing CMBN when infantry takes small arms fire.  Given that hedgerow fighting characterized much of the action in this theater, this nagging issue personally strikes me as something of a "big, little thing."
Thanks for getting me up to speed.

Well, I'm not really threatening...for it to constitute a threat, I would have to have some expectation that the recipient (BF) would change its behavior based on my statements.  But I have no such expectations, I've been around long enough to know that BF is gonna do what it's gonna do...  But honestly, I would think that they would at least be curious why a long time hard-care tactical wargamer and customer is losing interest in their products.  Given that many people don't seem to understand the points I'm trying to make, I've had to repeat them several times, although I'll try to stop soon!
Well, yes...
Not sure about that any more.  While I only look at the CMRT and general forums, both of those are quite dead.  While I'm sure there will be a spurt of activity after R2V comes out, not sure how long it will last.  And frankly, a lot of what I would consider to be interesting conversations get shut down very quickly because people who raise any concerns are immediately branded as whiners, haters, etc. and disappear...

Honestly, I find it hard to understand how anyone as involved in this game as you are to say that a historical sim cannot be "too historical"?  Every game developer, especially those as small as BF, has very limited resources and must strike a constant balance between what is actually historically relevant for their games and what is not.   
For instance, has BF done thorough research about the boots of all of the combatant nations during World War II?  Is sole wear being modeled properly, and are bootlaces the right color, and fraying to the correct degree based on manufacturing procedures and raw materials?  Is boot design factored into how quickly soldiers of various nations can double-time?  Are German soldiers wearing Russian felt boots in winter, as was very common? 
And while we're at it, we should probably have historical vehicle serial numbers accurately reflected in the game, because you know, it would be historical...right?
I hope you would agree (although maybe not, based on your statement above) that these features would be instances of a historical sim being "too historical"?
As you say, historical tactical sims are BF's passion, but that does not mean that precious game development resources should wasted on irrelevant stuff.
You keep bringing up this $700 title for some reason?  Has anyone actually suggested that?  You realize that it's possible to add content to existing games, right?  And I have no problem with complex TO&E as long as it they are not the reason for holding up the release of modules for years on end.  
Command Ops has an interesting system IMO.  They have a single game engine (which they actually give away for free), and then they charge for content to run on that engine.  Obviously you'd have to get the pricing right (and I don't really see the need to give the engine away for free), but imagine the amount of time BF could save by not having to patch/update/upgrade, what, seven separate game families now?  Obviously too late for CMx2, but I hope that BF looks at alternate models for future game engines, if any.

I don't mind having them, but I don't think that getting the TO&E right for different types of units is as easy as you suggest; just on the German side, you have Wehrmacht, SS, Fallschirmjager, Mountain troops, Luftwaffe, Panzergrenadier, Fusilier, etc. etc. all of them changing over time, both in terms of OOBs and TO&Es), then add in the umpteen Allied armies in Italy (or wherever).  MikeyD implies that it was very difficult indeed for R2V, and I have no reason to doubt him.  Based on WWII research that I've done, one of the issues is that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, and sifting out the correct (or least wrong) version can take time.  Another issue is that while it can be easy to find about 80% of the information you need, finding the remaining 20% can demand lots and lots of time...
And I'm not saying to delete formations altogether, just delete little-used things like anti-tank battalions in favor of anti-tank companies (which would be used more often), so you could still select their components. Anyway, it was just a suggestion which I seriously doubt will be adopted so I would not lose much sleep over it...

Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.

If you went this far already, all you need to do is count the number of AI groups for a particular map, then purchase some units for each side and then add them to the groups. Bang! Done! Simple, basic scenario. Save it to your scenario folder with a cool name like markshot scenario 001 and the go make another, and another and another. Do like @MikeyD does, change the time, date, weather, ground conitions and see how much of a difference it really makes. By the time you have made 15 or so quick ones, they will start to blend together and playing them will be a treat. For another option, select only equipment you haven't used yet, it changes the game completely when you take armored cars instead of tanks, light mortars instead of 155mm howitzers. 

Sorry things have been quiet. We hit a snag. The build that was supposed to fix the Sikh models and textures didn't quite get things sorted and left Bud dead in the water. Such is how software development goes sometimes. Both problems are being worked. In the mean time enjoy some of these cool shots I took of the Sikh soldier's that were fixed in the latest build.
These were taken on a hazy overcast day in July.

Christ guys - if you don;t like his videos then don't watch the damn things. So far it looks like TS4EVER is the only one posting anything of interest here. If you are just going to be ****ty about it don't post.

I'm currently working with the Shock Force guys to see if I can import flavor models into CM, as I am interested in the next release of Fortress Italy.  Some Samples.  Will keep you posted with progress reports.

If it's an interactive war movie you're looking for, then playing WEGO with the ability to really get up close and personal with the camera, and also watch cool action on instant replay should be the motivating factor. Your statement here doesn't make sense.
Be honest. Playing in realtime mode requires you to separate yourself from the minute detail to maintain overall situational awareness.
Unless you prefer playing with little more than a platoon at a time.
Everyone I see who records gameplay in real time is forced to remain in a birds-eye view, with maybe a brief zoom into a key piece of action before being forced to zoom back out to maintain awareness. If your idea of an interactive war movie is to watch unit icons march across a field, maybe you are the one looking for an animated 3d board game.

I made no such assumption, have never claimed or conjectured that BF is in danger of going out of business, and never "weighed BF's business" on the modules that I'm interested in.  BF can do what they want, and long as they continue to do so, I don't see them going out of business.  
What I have said, and I'll repeat for good measure, is that as an East Front aficionado, I've lost interest in this franchise because BF doesn't provide me with what I want.  I don't know how I can be any more clear?