c3k

Noooooooooo!!!!!!!!!   
A cease-fire??? Your men's honor demands they be given at least a chance to prove their devotion! Allow them to attack. No more "probing" or "watching" or "peeking": unleash them on a direct line upon the enemy! Even if they do not achieve victory, their blood will fertilize the fields upon which the hopes of future patriots will blossom. THAT will be sufficient victory for them. Trust me, I know what is important in their little lives.
Sigh.

Noooooooooo!!!!!!!!!   
A cease-fire??? Your men's honor demands they be given at least a chance to prove their devotion! Allow them to attack. No more "probing" or "watching" or "peeking": unleash them on a direct line upon the enemy! Even if they do not achieve victory, their blood will fertilize the fields upon which the hopes of future patriots will blossom. THAT will be sufficient victory for them. Trust me, I know what is important in their little lives.
Sigh.

Noooooooooo!!!!!!!!!   
A cease-fire??? Your men's honor demands they be given at least a chance to prove their devotion! Allow them to attack. No more "probing" or "watching" or "peeking": unleash them on a direct line upon the enemy! Even if they do not achieve victory, their blood will fertilize the fields upon which the hopes of future patriots will blossom. THAT will be sufficient victory for them. Trust me, I know what is important in their little lives.
Sigh.

But they allow so many to gloriously die for their causes!

I've been quietly hoping for MORE UNCONS GODDAMMIT for some time now. 
A full price module that covered all the games would be a pack full of awesomeness in my opinion.....
FFI and various resistance organisations etc. for CM:BN & CM:FB
Assorted Partisans for CM:FI & CM:RT
Militants & Militias for CB:BS & CM:SF 2
The unique capabilities of these units would vastly expand the scope of the game. 
You could always do this.....In the editor go into preview mode and CTRL+Click on the face of the building you want to modify, with cunning use of ALT+CTRL+Click you can make some pretty cool looking modular buildings, even in the older games (& even if I do say it myself): 



PS - These pictures don't have any 'Flavour Objects' yet.....These can add a lot of, well, flavour to a map, and they offer the scenario designer the chance to script his scenarios in a slightly more involved fashion.
See @MOS:96B2P's epic CM:BS Tactical Operations Centre for a fine example of this technique:
Make sure you read the briefing very, very carefully. 
Please god.....No! 
The Uncons in CM:SF don't have a unit structure beyond the 'Group' (Platoon) and we've learnt in the intervening years that these groups are a lot better organised than that.....The CM:A 'Islamic Battalion' or 'Tribal Militia Command' would make an infinitely better starting point.
There is actually a valid reason for my still liking CM:A you know.....Barring a few odd quirks it's massively better than CM:SF, especially if you like Uncons.
I just hope that BF have given the Uncons a better command structure in CM:SF 2, otherwise CM:A will still be the best game in the series for Uncon warfare (especially HTH).

Minute 1:54-1:53:
Over at Rutsey tanks are driving through the field.

 
Our tank over on KT3 takes the shot...

 
... and makes the kill.

 
The the other tank in the section spots that fast moving BMP and tries to get it on the move, hitting a tree instead.

 
Then the action switches back and more infantry appear at the edge of the hill and the turn ends with bullets flying for one tank and the main gun being reloaded for the other.

 
The BMP in the scrub.

 

Minute 153: Orders
Based on the relative activity I changed my mind again about the FO. They cannot use TRPs to call fire on Rutsey so they need eyes on. Also in this shot is the call time for a non TRPs call to the 105s for the FO.

 
For reference the call time for the Mortar platoon HQ is just as bad as the section leader on KT3.

 
And same for the CO.

 
No orders for the tanks on KT3 – the know what to do.

 
The sniper team is facing a mechanized assault – so time to really go. Pull back and ford the river, rest and head for the trees.

Checking this thread at 3:30 in the morning. Maybe you've got a point.

Minute 155: Orders
No new orders are being given. I thought that it would be interesting to see the information flow so the following are some screen shots to show that.
Starting with the scouts of 15 Platoon. They can see enemy vehicles in their assembly area and they have contacts just outside the ambush zone.

 
15 Platoon HQ has a pretty good representation of the scouts information.

 
The company CO has a bit less but still the basic picture.

 
The tanks in 18 troop have nothing yet. I see, however that there is a break in the comms because they have no contact with E squadron (not on the map). I did not check the HQ tank when I took these screen shots.

 

MINUTE 6 & 7
AT13 PLATOON
On Star Hill, the artillery stopped toward the end of the 6th minute... but not before losing one complete AT13 Team, and one member of the second.

 
2nd PLATOON
Apologies, I keep calling this 2nd Platoon overwatching squad 3rd Squad, when in actuality it is 2nd Squad.. anyway, obviously they have been spotted by Ian as a spotting round hit nearby in the 7th Minute... they took one casualty from this. So next turn will be running for the BMP to remount and get under cover.

 
A COMPANY
In the A Company zone, the advance continues.  The enemy contact is very old now, and no other contacts have been identified.  My armor, behind their smoke screen have now advanced very close.  Now the infantry will advance past them and assault the objective.

 
BMP3 PLATOON (3rd PLATOON)
With all the eyes I have over in the 2nd Platoon Sector I am spotting nothing.  I do have the BMP-3 Platoon trying to get around the flank of the enemy vehicle contacts, but am rethinking that strategy as obviously they have been spotted... the tree deflected round in the following image proves that.   By the way, I have no idea where that round came from, the BMP-3 should be masked from Ian's positions at this point.

 
FRUSTRATION
I am rethinking this entire game now.. he can spot me obviously, I cannot spot him.  I have eyes in pretty good positions that should be able to see "something" but all I am getting are sound contacts and very few of those.  This map is very open, and if I can't start to identify Ian's strength and weaknesses then I can't attack him, I am not the type who identifies an approach and simply rushes down it without some reconnaissance.  The trouble is I don't think I have the combat power to be effective on this terrain or to force my way through anywhere... I should probably have purchased a company of tanks with a platoon of infantry support (that was an early option I checked out).. but I wanted to come with something a little more balanced.
So I am going to take a day or so and give this one a good rethink...  I may need to throw my T-72s in a lot sooner than I had hoped.  I do hate that I seem to be getting sucked into a meat grinder on my left too.. I may need to cancel that and go defensive there and find another way.

I don't play in anything except Iron Mode. It does a better job of letting the player know what's going on.

I don't play in anything except Iron Mode. It does a better job of letting the player know what's going on.

I don't play in anything except Iron Mode. It does a better job of letting the player know what's going on.

LOL. 
FWIW, I'm looking at some of the behaviors listed in the OP a bit more closely. And, yes, I'm doing copious savegaming.

I did a test today to explore the effects of fatigue on spotting and shooting in CMBN.
TLDR:  there is no apparent negative effect on spotting or shooting for German LMG or sniper teams (comparing "rested" to "tired").
Details:
I set up a 10-lane shooting range, with the shooters looking downrange through a tall hedgerow. All units regular, rested, temp hot, no wind. I then placed some driver volunteers (ahem) from the American motor pool 80m downrange from the hedgerow and let the German LMG teams move to their hedgerow, spot downrange, and engage their targets.  I ran all 10 lanes concurrently, and then reran the whole thing 3 times.  I measured two things: time to spot after reaching the hedgerow, and time to kill the target after spotting it.
Here you can see the snipers at work:

I then redid the whole thing with units made tired by running back and forth.  All 10 units ran the same distance as each other, so should have been equally tired.
Then I redid all of THAT with German sniper teams, the only difference being moving the targ... um, volunteers to 200m downrange.
I was a bit surprised by the number of outliers - where the spotting or firing unit took a VERY long time to spot or hit.  Occasionally longer than two minutes.
Bizarrely, considering all of the data, the LMG teams did a much better job of shooting while tired, and the snipers did a somewhat better job spotting when tired. Stripping out all data points 60 seconds long or longer (an arbitrary value that favors the rested troops) resulted in the rested and tired troops performing about the same. Maybe you can make an argument that spotting is slightly worse when tired.
===  Raw data  ===

===  Removing all data points 60 seconds or longer  ===

For completeness the tests should also be done with fatigued and exhausted units, and I guess also veteran and a broader range of unit types.  But I hardly ever push my troops to that point.
 

LOL. 
FWIW, I'm looking at some of the behaviors listed in the OP a bit more closely. And, yes, I'm doing copious savegaming.

CM3 CONFIRMED WOO !

@sburke,
Hey, I'm PM'ing this to you to clarify the part I bolded, above. You must've missed the blanket email Steve sent out to us back in January. (And, there's a thread in the Beta Forum about this, too.) Anyway, you can submit expenses, including an hourly rate. There's an exe in the sharefile which monitors your game time. A bit of an honor system that you don't just go for a 4 hour realtime QB and claim it. Plus, any bugs are with a bonus. The bonus rate depends on the severity of the bug. It's not much, but I'm up about $2k since they started doing this for us.
Thought you'd want to know.
Ken

I'm going to cut and paste your comments a bit.
 
 
^^^
This and the below seem to related.
 
 
Honestly, I've never noticed either of these behaviors. I'd have to set up a test and see what's up. It may be a simple user error of not unbuttoning, or not being stopped long enough, for the weapon to fire. Or it may be a bug. Or it may be something else. More information (not that you should feel responsible for providing it) would help.
 
M1 behavior comments: I've bolded part of what you wrote. Yeah, pretty cool that the game shows how much the men want to survive, yes? IRL, tankers will not sit there thinking they're invulnerable. If they get a laser warning, they'll pull back. If something is hitting the tank, and it's hard, they'll pull back. If men are swarming about, they'll pull back. Just the way it is...and that's fine. To me. If you think the uber-M1 is nerfed in the game, please give a SPECIFIC savegame. That'd do wonders for finding/fixing or explaining the behavior.
As to the "spending whole game panicked", well, savegame or it didn't happen. Seriously. I've never seen any behavior like this...unless the GLOBAL morale has these guys shaken to the core. Meaning, that particular unit has not been engaged or attacked, but they've heard/seen everyone else in their battalion get slaughtered. In that case, the game models the fragility of their morale. So, the particulars DO matter.
 
 
 
 
This is a pretty straightforward TOE question. Proof that the equipment was issued (in some verifiable quantity), fielded, and used, would be beneficial to getting new gear in the game. It is not simple to change the game TOE, but Steve/BFC/et alia take great pride in how accurately this game portrays TOE. (Heck, it's the linchpin for how units behave at the tactical level.)
 
 
Modern vehicles do have jammers. Obscurants, inability to acquire and then guide missiles does happen, sometimes a random lemon, but, overall, if your AT missiles are flying off as if they are spoofed, maybe they're being spoofed? Again, a savegame would be worth it's weight in gold.
 
Hmm. I know the Russian AGL has, in-game, caused many a casualty, so I know they can move, deploy, and fire. A single man? Maybe he has no ammo, just the AGL? Or vice versa? I hate to get repetitive, but savegame would be awesome. Or else, if I can find a few hours to set this up by randomly whittling down the AGL teams to one man, I may never see the behavior you say you've seen.
 
Sometimes the in-game spotting seems oddly poor...and other times very good. Overall, with a few exceptions about men who cannot see a tank 10m away, it works very well. I'd like to see the savegame. I know. I'm not disbelieving, I just have to point out that the incredible complexity of this game means that outliers (like you've described) are hard to replicate unless you can see the screenshot (and that's not a very good substitute), or a get the actual save.
Back to the M Shmel and RPO-A. The flames in-game are small, because most fires are not such big conflagrations that you'd be forced to flee. A bit of boot-stomping, blanket smothering, or pushing the flammables aside, and you're probably okay. For the most part. Would I like to see expanding and spreading fire? Oh yes. I think that'd be a bit nice. Heck, I'd make a 4km x 4km very dry pine forest and set it alight and use it as a screensaver in winter.
Overpressure/blast effects were nerfed to make up for the infantry bunching. These both are gradually getting adjusted. Yeah, I'd boost up the in-game effect due to blast for these two weapons. However, a counter-argument is that the smallest obstacle makes a huge difference in the amount of blast an individual feels. The building interiors are modeled to be quite complex (hence the spotting behavior when a unit enters a room). Visually, the game does not show any interior; it is abstracted. Imagine dividing walls, furniture, etc., are present to mitigate some of the blast. That, at least, is one explanation. Another would be that it is not modelling the blast well enough. I lean on the "give it more blast" side.
Recognize that any desire to CHANGE the game (you say "fix"), puts the burden of proof on the petitioner. The game is created in the state it is because that's what BFC thinks is how it should be (blatant bugs excepted). If you/we want a change, you/we have to show what is, what should be, and why or where the evidence it. Once that's done, BFC is pretty open to adjusting the code if it is possible and after it's been thoroughly tested.
As you can see from my long-winded answer a savegame is critically important. I know...that's not your job. For a beta-tester to try to replicate something based on a few words of description is a pretty hard thing to do, unless it's a blatant problem. In that case, it's more than likely already been noted. (But not all the time...so don't be shy about posting.)
 

I'm going to cut and paste your comments a bit.
 
 
^^^
This and the below seem to related.
 
 
Honestly, I've never noticed either of these behaviors. I'd have to set up a test and see what's up. It may be a simple user error of not unbuttoning, or not being stopped long enough, for the weapon to fire. Or it may be a bug. Or it may be something else. More information (not that you should feel responsible for providing it) would help.
 
M1 behavior comments: I've bolded part of what you wrote. Yeah, pretty cool that the game shows how much the men want to survive, yes? IRL, tankers will not sit there thinking they're invulnerable. If they get a laser warning, they'll pull back. If something is hitting the tank, and it's hard, they'll pull back. If men are swarming about, they'll pull back. Just the way it is...and that's fine. To me. If you think the uber-M1 is nerfed in the game, please give a SPECIFIC savegame. That'd do wonders for finding/fixing or explaining the behavior.
As to the "spending whole game panicked", well, savegame or it didn't happen. Seriously. I've never seen any behavior like this...unless the GLOBAL morale has these guys shaken to the core. Meaning, that particular unit has not been engaged or attacked, but they've heard/seen everyone else in their battalion get slaughtered. In that case, the game models the fragility of their morale. So, the particulars DO matter.
 
 
 
 
This is a pretty straightforward TOE question. Proof that the equipment was issued (in some verifiable quantity), fielded, and used, would be beneficial to getting new gear in the game. It is not simple to change the game TOE, but Steve/BFC/et alia take great pride in how accurately this game portrays TOE. (Heck, it's the linchpin for how units behave at the tactical level.)
 
 
Modern vehicles do have jammers. Obscurants, inability to acquire and then guide missiles does happen, sometimes a random lemon, but, overall, if your AT missiles are flying off as if they are spoofed, maybe they're being spoofed? Again, a savegame would be worth it's weight in gold.
 
Hmm. I know the Russian AGL has, in-game, caused many a casualty, so I know they can move, deploy, and fire. A single man? Maybe he has no ammo, just the AGL? Or vice versa? I hate to get repetitive, but savegame would be awesome. Or else, if I can find a few hours to set this up by randomly whittling down the AGL teams to one man, I may never see the behavior you say you've seen.
 
Sometimes the in-game spotting seems oddly poor...and other times very good. Overall, with a few exceptions about men who cannot see a tank 10m away, it works very well. I'd like to see the savegame. I know. I'm not disbelieving, I just have to point out that the incredible complexity of this game means that outliers (like you've described) are hard to replicate unless you can see the screenshot (and that's not a very good substitute), or a get the actual save.
Back to the M Shmel and RPO-A. The flames in-game are small, because most fires are not such big conflagrations that you'd be forced to flee. A bit of boot-stomping, blanket smothering, or pushing the flammables aside, and you're probably okay. For the most part. Would I like to see expanding and spreading fire? Oh yes. I think that'd be a bit nice. Heck, I'd make a 4km x 4km very dry pine forest and set it alight and use it as a screensaver in winter.
Overpressure/blast effects were nerfed to make up for the infantry bunching. These both are gradually getting adjusted. Yeah, I'd boost up the in-game effect due to blast for these two weapons. However, a counter-argument is that the smallest obstacle makes a huge difference in the amount of blast an individual feels. The building interiors are modeled to be quite complex (hence the spotting behavior when a unit enters a room). Visually, the game does not show any interior; it is abstracted. Imagine dividing walls, furniture, etc., are present to mitigate some of the blast. That, at least, is one explanation. Another would be that it is not modelling the blast well enough. I lean on the "give it more blast" side.
Recognize that any desire to CHANGE the game (you say "fix"), puts the burden of proof on the petitioner. The game is created in the state it is because that's what BFC thinks is how it should be (blatant bugs excepted). If you/we want a change, you/we have to show what is, what should be, and why or where the evidence it. Once that's done, BFC is pretty open to adjusting the code if it is possible and after it's been thoroughly tested.
As you can see from my long-winded answer a savegame is critically important. I know...that's not your job. For a beta-tester to try to replicate something based on a few words of description is a pretty hard thing to do, unless it's a blatant problem. In that case, it's more than likely already been noted. (But not all the time...so don't be shy about posting.)
 

I'm going to cut and paste your comments a bit.
 
 
^^^
This and the below seem to related.
 
 
Honestly, I've never noticed either of these behaviors. I'd have to set up a test and see what's up. It may be a simple user error of not unbuttoning, or not being stopped long enough, for the weapon to fire. Or it may be a bug. Or it may be something else. More information (not that you should feel responsible for providing it) would help.
 
M1 behavior comments: I've bolded part of what you wrote. Yeah, pretty cool that the game shows how much the men want to survive, yes? IRL, tankers will not sit there thinking they're invulnerable. If they get a laser warning, they'll pull back. If something is hitting the tank, and it's hard, they'll pull back. If men are swarming about, they'll pull back. Just the way it is...and that's fine. To me. If you think the uber-M1 is nerfed in the game, please give a SPECIFIC savegame. That'd do wonders for finding/fixing or explaining the behavior.
As to the "spending whole game panicked", well, savegame or it didn't happen. Seriously. I've never seen any behavior like this...unless the GLOBAL morale has these guys shaken to the core. Meaning, that particular unit has not been engaged or attacked, but they've heard/seen everyone else in their battalion get slaughtered. In that case, the game models the fragility of their morale. So, the particulars DO matter.
 
 
 
 
This is a pretty straightforward TOE question. Proof that the equipment was issued (in some verifiable quantity), fielded, and used, would be beneficial to getting new gear in the game. It is not simple to change the game TOE, but Steve/BFC/et alia take great pride in how accurately this game portrays TOE. (Heck, it's the linchpin for how units behave at the tactical level.)
 
 
Modern vehicles do have jammers. Obscurants, inability to acquire and then guide missiles does happen, sometimes a random lemon, but, overall, if your AT missiles are flying off as if they are spoofed, maybe they're being spoofed? Again, a savegame would be worth it's weight in gold.
 
Hmm. I know the Russian AGL has, in-game, caused many a casualty, so I know they can move, deploy, and fire. A single man? Maybe he has no ammo, just the AGL? Or vice versa? I hate to get repetitive, but savegame would be awesome. Or else, if I can find a few hours to set this up by randomly whittling down the AGL teams to one man, I may never see the behavior you say you've seen.
 
Sometimes the in-game spotting seems oddly poor...and other times very good. Overall, with a few exceptions about men who cannot see a tank 10m away, it works very well. I'd like to see the savegame. I know. I'm not disbelieving, I just have to point out that the incredible complexity of this game means that outliers (like you've described) are hard to replicate unless you can see the screenshot (and that's not a very good substitute), or a get the actual save.
Back to the M Shmel and RPO-A. The flames in-game are small, because most fires are not such big conflagrations that you'd be forced to flee. A bit of boot-stomping, blanket smothering, or pushing the flammables aside, and you're probably okay. For the most part. Would I like to see expanding and spreading fire? Oh yes. I think that'd be a bit nice. Heck, I'd make a 4km x 4km very dry pine forest and set it alight and use it as a screensaver in winter.
Overpressure/blast effects were nerfed to make up for the infantry bunching. These both are gradually getting adjusted. Yeah, I'd boost up the in-game effect due to blast for these two weapons. However, a counter-argument is that the smallest obstacle makes a huge difference in the amount of blast an individual feels. The building interiors are modeled to be quite complex (hence the spotting behavior when a unit enters a room). Visually, the game does not show any interior; it is abstracted. Imagine dividing walls, furniture, etc., are present to mitigate some of the blast. That, at least, is one explanation. Another would be that it is not modelling the blast well enough. I lean on the "give it more blast" side.
Recognize that any desire to CHANGE the game (you say "fix"), puts the burden of proof on the petitioner. The game is created in the state it is because that's what BFC thinks is how it should be (blatant bugs excepted). If you/we want a change, you/we have to show what is, what should be, and why or where the evidence it. Once that's done, BFC is pretty open to adjusting the code if it is possible and after it's been thoroughly tested.
As you can see from my long-winded answer a savegame is critically important. I know...that's not your job. For a beta-tester to try to replicate something based on a few words of description is a pretty hard thing to do, unless it's a blatant problem. In that case, it's more than likely already been noted. (But not all the time...so don't be shy about posting.)
 

I'm going to cut and paste your comments a bit.
 
 
^^^
This and the below seem to related.
 
 
Honestly, I've never noticed either of these behaviors. I'd have to set up a test and see what's up. It may be a simple user error of not unbuttoning, or not being stopped long enough, for the weapon to fire. Or it may be a bug. Or it may be something else. More information (not that you should feel responsible for providing it) would help.
 
M1 behavior comments: I've bolded part of what you wrote. Yeah, pretty cool that the game shows how much the men want to survive, yes? IRL, tankers will not sit there thinking they're invulnerable. If they get a laser warning, they'll pull back. If something is hitting the tank, and it's hard, they'll pull back. If men are swarming about, they'll pull back. Just the way it is...and that's fine. To me. If you think the uber-M1 is nerfed in the game, please give a SPECIFIC savegame. That'd do wonders for finding/fixing or explaining the behavior.
As to the "spending whole game panicked", well, savegame or it didn't happen. Seriously. I've never seen any behavior like this...unless the GLOBAL morale has these guys shaken to the core. Meaning, that particular unit has not been engaged or attacked, but they've heard/seen everyone else in their battalion get slaughtered. In that case, the game models the fragility of their morale. So, the particulars DO matter.
 
 
 
 
This is a pretty straightforward TOE question. Proof that the equipment was issued (in some verifiable quantity), fielded, and used, would be beneficial to getting new gear in the game. It is not simple to change the game TOE, but Steve/BFC/et alia take great pride in how accurately this game portrays TOE. (Heck, it's the linchpin for how units behave at the tactical level.)
 
 
Modern vehicles do have jammers. Obscurants, inability to acquire and then guide missiles does happen, sometimes a random lemon, but, overall, if your AT missiles are flying off as if they are spoofed, maybe they're being spoofed? Again, a savegame would be worth it's weight in gold.
 
Hmm. I know the Russian AGL has, in-game, caused many a casualty, so I know they can move, deploy, and fire. A single man? Maybe he has no ammo, just the AGL? Or vice versa? I hate to get repetitive, but savegame would be awesome. Or else, if I can find a few hours to set this up by randomly whittling down the AGL teams to one man, I may never see the behavior you say you've seen.
 
Sometimes the in-game spotting seems oddly poor...and other times very good. Overall, with a few exceptions about men who cannot see a tank 10m away, it works very well. I'd like to see the savegame. I know. I'm not disbelieving, I just have to point out that the incredible complexity of this game means that outliers (like you've described) are hard to replicate unless you can see the screenshot (and that's not a very good substitute), or a get the actual save.
Back to the M Shmel and RPO-A. The flames in-game are small, because most fires are not such big conflagrations that you'd be forced to flee. A bit of boot-stomping, blanket smothering, or pushing the flammables aside, and you're probably okay. For the most part. Would I like to see expanding and spreading fire? Oh yes. I think that'd be a bit nice. Heck, I'd make a 4km x 4km very dry pine forest and set it alight and use it as a screensaver in winter.
Overpressure/blast effects were nerfed to make up for the infantry bunching. These both are gradually getting adjusted. Yeah, I'd boost up the in-game effect due to blast for these two weapons. However, a counter-argument is that the smallest obstacle makes a huge difference in the amount of blast an individual feels. The building interiors are modeled to be quite complex (hence the spotting behavior when a unit enters a room). Visually, the game does not show any interior; it is abstracted. Imagine dividing walls, furniture, etc., are present to mitigate some of the blast. That, at least, is one explanation. Another would be that it is not modelling the blast well enough. I lean on the "give it more blast" side.
Recognize that any desire to CHANGE the game (you say "fix"), puts the burden of proof on the petitioner. The game is created in the state it is because that's what BFC thinks is how it should be (blatant bugs excepted). If you/we want a change, you/we have to show what is, what should be, and why or where the evidence it. Once that's done, BFC is pretty open to adjusting the code if it is possible and after it's been thoroughly tested.
As you can see from my long-winded answer a savegame is critically important. I know...that's not your job. For a beta-tester to try to replicate something based on a few words of description is a pretty hard thing to do, unless it's a blatant problem. In that case, it's more than likely already been noted. (But not all the time...so don't be shy about posting.)
 

I'm going to cut and paste your comments a bit.
 
 
^^^
This and the below seem to related.
 
 
Honestly, I've never noticed either of these behaviors. I'd have to set up a test and see what's up. It may be a simple user error of not unbuttoning, or not being stopped long enough, for the weapon to fire. Or it may be a bug. Or it may be something else. More information (not that you should feel responsible for providing it) would help.
 
M1 behavior comments: I've bolded part of what you wrote. Yeah, pretty cool that the game shows how much the men want to survive, yes? IRL, tankers will not sit there thinking they're invulnerable. If they get a laser warning, they'll pull back. If something is hitting the tank, and it's hard, they'll pull back. If men are swarming about, they'll pull back. Just the way it is...and that's fine. To me. If you think the uber-M1 is nerfed in the game, please give a SPECIFIC savegame. That'd do wonders for finding/fixing or explaining the behavior.
As to the "spending whole game panicked", well, savegame or it didn't happen. Seriously. I've never seen any behavior like this...unless the GLOBAL morale has these guys shaken to the core. Meaning, that particular unit has not been engaged or attacked, but they've heard/seen everyone else in their battalion get slaughtered. In that case, the game models the fragility of their morale. So, the particulars DO matter.
 
 
 
 
This is a pretty straightforward TOE question. Proof that the equipment was issued (in some verifiable quantity), fielded, and used, would be beneficial to getting new gear in the game. It is not simple to change the game TOE, but Steve/BFC/et alia take great pride in how accurately this game portrays TOE. (Heck, it's the linchpin for how units behave at the tactical level.)
 
 
Modern vehicles do have jammers. Obscurants, inability to acquire and then guide missiles does happen, sometimes a random lemon, but, overall, if your AT missiles are flying off as if they are spoofed, maybe they're being spoofed? Again, a savegame would be worth it's weight in gold.
 
Hmm. I know the Russian AGL has, in-game, caused many a casualty, so I know they can move, deploy, and fire. A single man? Maybe he has no ammo, just the AGL? Or vice versa? I hate to get repetitive, but savegame would be awesome. Or else, if I can find a few hours to set this up by randomly whittling down the AGL teams to one man, I may never see the behavior you say you've seen.
 
Sometimes the in-game spotting seems oddly poor...and other times very good. Overall, with a few exceptions about men who cannot see a tank 10m away, it works very well. I'd like to see the savegame. I know. I'm not disbelieving, I just have to point out that the incredible complexity of this game means that outliers (like you've described) are hard to replicate unless you can see the screenshot (and that's not a very good substitute), or a get the actual save.
Back to the M Shmel and RPO-A. The flames in-game are small, because most fires are not such big conflagrations that you'd be forced to flee. A bit of boot-stomping, blanket smothering, or pushing the flammables aside, and you're probably okay. For the most part. Would I like to see expanding and spreading fire? Oh yes. I think that'd be a bit nice. Heck, I'd make a 4km x 4km very dry pine forest and set it alight and use it as a screensaver in winter.
Overpressure/blast effects were nerfed to make up for the infantry bunching. These both are gradually getting adjusted. Yeah, I'd boost up the in-game effect due to blast for these two weapons. However, a counter-argument is that the smallest obstacle makes a huge difference in the amount of blast an individual feels. The building interiors are modeled to be quite complex (hence the spotting behavior when a unit enters a room). Visually, the game does not show any interior; it is abstracted. Imagine dividing walls, furniture, etc., are present to mitigate some of the blast. That, at least, is one explanation. Another would be that it is not modelling the blast well enough. I lean on the "give it more blast" side.
Recognize that any desire to CHANGE the game (you say "fix"), puts the burden of proof on the petitioner. The game is created in the state it is because that's what BFC thinks is how it should be (blatant bugs excepted). If you/we want a change, you/we have to show what is, what should be, and why or where the evidence it. Once that's done, BFC is pretty open to adjusting the code if it is possible and after it's been thoroughly tested.
As you can see from my long-winded answer a savegame is critically important. I know...that's not your job. For a beta-tester to try to replicate something based on a few words of description is a pretty hard thing to do, unless it's a blatant problem. In that case, it's more than likely already been noted. (But not all the time...so don't be shy about posting.)
 

That's a pretty comprehensive list. 
My role (as I see it) is not to try to defend buggy behavior, but I will defend behavior which you -think- is a bug, but is not. (Or, may not be a bug.)
If something is wrong, bring it up (as you have here). Now, since time is limited, there is no way I'd be able to create tests for the general behaviorisms you see as problematic. That does not mean I'm not interested in chasing down bugs, but this list is too long and too generic. But, hey, that's fine: you're a customer, and in no way are you obligated to provide specifics. I'm fine with that.
Having said that, a few savegames, or even a screenshot, would go a long way towards helping. A very long way.
Browsing your list, the only thing I can outright think I agree with you on is the lack of overpressure modeling for the Shmel and other thermobaric weapons, ESPECIALLY when the explosion is confined.
More, later.

MINUTE 4
As 2nd Squad moved a little closer to the enemy contact, one individual stayed upright just a few seconds too long and fell to what looked like dismounted infantry fire.   What I'm going to do in this sector, as I don't think these two squads and the BMPs can actually take on even a single enemy squad and light armored vehicle is pull 2nd squad back (after throwing smoke) so they are on a line with the 1st Squad (2nd Platoon HQ element).  The BMPs will both be pulling back into hull down positions.  I am also sending them some help.. but I want to keep that as a surprise for later.   

The AT-13 team on Star Hill did identify one enemy infantry contact on the Farm Objective.

Meanwhile 1st Platoon's infantry is moving carefully through the field next to the objective.

The following image shows their movement plan, with listening halts and staggered movement so all units are not moving at the same time.

My plan for this first objective is as follows (refer to the image below):
The T-62M and the marked BMP will both move forward and pop smoke... I will allow that to build for a bit.   The infantry platoon will continue to advance carefully toward the objective The T-62 (1975) and the other BMP will move to jump off positions and wait for the smoke to build.  Once it is sufficient both BMPs and both T-62s will move quickly toward the objective The AT-14 teams in the UAZ will move forward, my intent with them is to get them to dismount and take up overwatch positions where they can fire into the depth of the map I have plotted two mortar smoke missions at two of the probable HD positions (TRPs :HD3 and HD4) overwatching this objective.  These will arrive in three minutes and are intended to support follow-on movements after I capture this objective. The smoke is intended to (hopefully) blind any enemy units in Support By Fire (SBF) positions deployed in depth.  It will hopefully allow me to move my armor through the area exposed to these potential enemy SBF positions and into the objective safely.  The infantry is moving and should arrive ahead of the armor to provide AT suppression if required.
I know there is at least one enemy unit on this objective and suspect it is probably lightly held.. there could always be one or two more units, so I am not taking anything for granted.  
By the way, there is no wind in this scenario, so I am hoping the smoke will dissipate very slowly.