76mm

👍 
Now get to work on those scenarios! 
😎

Actually most of us Bolshie lovers won't get too upset, because those red bastards got the last laugh, so to speak, and we are too-well-used-to wargame developers pandering to players that glorify the German military.
That said, I have no idea why you'd consider that "honoring the last stand of the Wehrmacht" would be more "fair" than honoring those that defeated Nazism after it had treacherously invaded their country?  Weird...

Actually most of us Bolshie lovers won't get too upset, because those red bastards got the last laugh, so to speak, and we are too-well-used-to wargame developers pandering to players that glorify the German military.
That said, I have no idea why you'd consider that "honoring the last stand of the Wehrmacht" would be more "fair" than honoring those that defeated Nazism after it had treacherously invaded their country?  Weird...

Actually most of us Bolshie lovers won't get too upset, because those red bastards got the last laugh, so to speak, and we are too-well-used-to wargame developers pandering to players that glorify the German military.
That said, I have no idea why you'd consider that "honoring the last stand of the Wehrmacht" would be more "fair" than honoring those that defeated Nazism after it had treacherously invaded their country?  Weird...

Sorry, I lied, one more! One of my favorite things about my program was that it allowed me to track/manage individual commanders--who had the most wins, losses?  Who was currently unassigned? Who was wounded?   When was he commissioned, and how long had he been with this particular unit?  I could transfer, promote, or demote with the click of a button.  Gave a great role-playing feel to the campaign!

To be clear, I doubt that many players would be interested in my particular campaign software, because it was built for my preferences.  But that's OK, because if they have access to the data, they (or somebody) can create whatever it is that they are looking for.  Without the data, none of this is really feasible, because detailed manual data entry before/after every game is just not interesting to 99.9% of players.

To be clear, I doubt that many players would be interested in my particular campaign software, because it was built for my preferences.  But that's OK, because if they have access to the data, they (or somebody) can create whatever it is that they are looking for.  Without the data, none of this is really feasible, because detailed manual data entry before/after every game is just not interesting to 99.9% of players.

A few more, showing parameters that could be set:
 

I found the program, but couldn't open it...(created with VBA and Access about 15 years ago, oh well).  But I was able to find some screenshots that I took back in the day:

OK, just to be clear, I thought he was referring to the data manipulation part, which is what I responded about.  😁
I was involved in that project many moons ago (Hunting Tank Software, was it?); that kind of thing is certainly very ambitious and difficult, and encounters the same problem that you've already pointed out--everyone wants a different campaign system.  But that's not what we're talking about at all...
The thing is, you don't need to create a whole op layer like that to be able to make use of CM game data for campaigns.  As long as players can have persistent units and terrain, they can use them to create any number of rudimentary campaign systems that suit their preferences.  I think it would have huge value for players--rudimentary campaign systems are far better than no campaign systems... 
For instance, what I was talking about was not an op layer, but rather a program that could help players manage campaign units in various ways without tweaking them one by one in the editor.  As I've been saying (oh uh, not again!), this kind of thing is not difficult to create (once it has exported data to work with).  Or as someone else has suggested, even just a button that would allow saving unit states at the end of the game and then using them to create new scenarios (same with maps).
[EDIT]  I'm going to try to post some screenshots of the program I created for CMBB to give you a better idea what I'm talking about...  But have to find it first!

Given CM's niche nature I'm always a bit surprised that development of some features needs to be a closed loop. Sure an import/export feature isn't going to get you super far, but it gives people access to the information. From that they can develop their own methods of interacting with it.

Much like the PBEM Helper programs that made playing MP much more pleasant. Users can do a lot when a hook is available. With the added advantage that what the user comes up with doesn't need to be commercial quality but can still give significant value-add. 

Indeed.  But being able to export the OOB to something like XML and then re-import would be even better, because it would allow you to manipulate the OOB outside of the editor...say you want to automatically provide X% reinforcements, or reduce fatigue, or resupply ammo between battles--this could all be done programatically without having to make the tweaks manually in the editor. 
For CMBB I created a tool that would track units and leaders, tracking casualties inflicted and suffered per battle and over time, allowing leaders to be transferred, etc.  But ultimately to get these details into CMBB, I had to enter them manually in the editor for each battle, which was a hassle.

I totally agree with you here, and understand why you've not spent time/resources building a campaign system.
BUT!  I think there is one (I think) relatively simple thing to do which would help players create whatever campaign systems they prefer:  allow end-game forces and maps to be exported and imported into another scenario, to allow for persistent forces and persistent map damage, etc.  If the export format were in readable format (XML, etc), the forces could also be managed by home-grown campaign editing tools (that would allow for replacements, or whatever).
If these files are in some easily readable format, this kind of editing tool is not especially difficult to create--even I have done if for a different game--and I have little doubt that some talented folks here would take the ball and run with it.  Worst case, it would allow people to create their own manual campaigns.
This is one feature which has been consistently requested for many years, and I really hope that it can be implemented some day.

Indeed.  But being able to export the OOB to something like XML and then re-import would be even better, because it would allow you to manipulate the OOB outside of the editor...say you want to automatically provide X% reinforcements, or reduce fatigue, or resupply ammo between battles--this could all be done programatically without having to make the tweaks manually in the editor. 
For CMBB I created a tool that would track units and leaders, tracking casualties inflicted and suffered per battle and over time, allowing leaders to be transferred, etc.  But ultimately to get these details into CMBB, I had to enter them manually in the editor for each battle, which was a hassle.

Frankly, it is not that hard...I'm a lawyer and taught myself how to do all of this from scratch using free tools (plus some books).  I think for an experienced programmer it would be a tiddle.  Anybody with an interest should start playing around with this stuff.
[EDIT]  And it depends on the format of the underlying data...XML is super-easy to work with because it is so structured.  I can't speak to data in other formats, could very well be harder to work with.

Frankly, it is not that hard...I'm a lawyer and taught myself how to do all of this from scratch using free tools (plus some books).  I think for an experienced programmer it would be a tiddle.  Anybody with an interest should start playing around with this stuff.
[EDIT]  And it depends on the format of the underlying data...XML is super-easy to work with because it is so structured.  I can't speak to data in other formats, could very well be harder to work with.

OK,  but I sure hope that CMx3 features "theater sandboxes" so that all of the East Front or West Front content, etc. can be played within a single East Front or West Front game, respectively.  I am not a fan of the current model, which would require four separate games for the the East Front, for example.  Why not provide front-specific content as DLCs?

What a strange question!  Maybe they'd like to you know, find out more about the game before buying it?  Sorry if that is not "serious enough" about the game for you.
But to your point, while it might make some of you feel good to try to convince some of us that it is perfectly normal to pay for an engine upgrade in addition to paying for a module, the fact is that a great many people--most of whom are not on this forum--don't think so--I've seen frequently on other forums.  While I guess that you might be happy that such non-serious players won't consider buying the game, it results in the loss of a $40 module because of a $5 upgrade (or whatever the exact prices are...), which some people apparently won't pay on principle.

Actually most of us Bolshie lovers won't get too upset, because those red bastards got the last laugh, so to speak, and we are too-well-used-to wargame developers pandering to players that glorify the German military.
That said, I have no idea why you'd consider that "honoring the last stand of the Wehrmacht" would be more "fair" than honoring those that defeated Nazism after it had treacherously invaded their country?  Weird...

To stay current I get. But, to use Red Thunder as an example, I've no need to stay current. I haven't played a PBEM in yonks and exhausted my interest in the scenario list quite some time ago. I'm essentially a lapsed customer - the last new purchase I made was in 2015. Lapsed customers seem like the people you would want to entice back. Yet lapsed customers would end up paying the most. Someone who purchased CM:FI over half a decade ago and just hears about Rome To Victory is going to get some sticker shock at the $50 price tag.

To organize my thoughts better the most active BF customers would seem likely to keep their games updated. They want to engage in MP and with newly created scenario content. While the least active (lapsed as it were) are less likely to do so. Requiring the least active (and by inference) the least committed to jump through additional hoops seems counter-intuitive. Since these folks are probably the most likely to walk away from the game.
 
You are certainly free to send them money in the mail.

Personally the engine upgrade requirements are not going to make/break my decision to make new purchases. Much like 76mm, I'm very much an Eastern Front player. But I can't shake the feeling that requiring them is a unusual move when your least committed customers are likely the ones without them.
 

I have to agree with this; it seems quite bizarre that any necessary engine upgrades are not included with the cost of the module, or that early buyers of a game have to pay for subsequent upgrades, not not later buyers.
Also, from my experience, I can't say that any of the other games I deal with have a similar policy.  In fact, just about all of the games I've bought in the last several years provide "engine upgrades" for free.  Examples include FoG2, CMANO, the Campaign series, the Panzer Campaigns series.  The Panzer Campaign games in particular stand out, since many of them were released almost twenty years ago.  
I haven't been particularly bothered since BF's cost for engine upgrades is not very high, and I only buy the ones for CMRT, but the fact remains that this policy has been unpopular with most gamers, and has served to fragment the players among people playing the various engine versions.  

I wonder if Honda would sell many cars if it ignored users comments about what they liked and disliked about its cars, or if only positive comments appeared on its website?

Yes, but the problem is that many newish posters on the forum were not been around as those issues that were hashed and rehashed many times (often many years ago); sometimes "supporters" respond respectfully but as often as not they respond with an unwarranted degree of exasperation and condescension for bringing such and such topic up again.  
I suspect that if you're seeing less back-and-forth than you expected, it is because people with critical questions or comments just don't post as often.  As you point out, on other forums this board's reputation is that it is not welcoming of critical comments, and I don't think that that reputation was is completely unearned.
While I agree that not very many juvenile morons post on this forum, that is mainly because the games do not appeal much to juvenile morons.

Please speak for yourself.  The fact is that there are plenty of fanbois on this forum, and they do not encourage candid discussion of the game.  If the fanbois don't like labels perhaps they should stop labeling everyone that voices the slightest criticism as a hater or troll.  I'm happy to hear a wide variety of opinions on this forum.

More like grandaddy.  My dear prodigal son is 50mm.