HerrTom

It hits the tree and the T-64 fires back accurately destroying the launcher? 😎

Excellent. It is by far the most serious bug I've encountered in CMx2 for the last couple years. While you are running this up the flagpole, I figure I will mention a few other multiplayer bugs I've encountered in Cold War, but they are not limited to Cold War.
1) Sometimes weapons get duplicated for the Client player. I used to think this was a result of reloading, but I have noticed it happen without reloading the game. I'm not sure what gameplay effect this has, but it producing some interesting visuals. Heavy weapons teams are most common, like double Dragon men, but I've seen men with extra LMGs or rifles. It seems pretty random.

https://i.imgur.com/TSPnXGg.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nwhTjwP.jpg
 
In the first 2 images, you can see Double Dragon men. At no point did either man have an opportunity to pick up the extra dragon, nor should they even if the opportunity presents itself. The last one is from Italy, which is a little off topic, but it's the same deal. Men with extra weapons for no reason. In the Dragon examples above, they lose their small arms.
2) If the Client player is defending and places mines, the mines will sometimes not have a game effect or be present for the Host player unless the game is reloaded. This one seems random and related to map size, with larger maps being more likely to have this happen. Other fortifications don't seem to have this problem. Save/Reload fixes this. I've reloaded the game to find large chunks of my force inside a minefield, which is painful. We now have a policy to save/reload after the first turn is played if a defending player has brought any mines.
3) If the Host player is the defender and places any fortifications, like mines, trenches, barbed wire, or anything of the sort, the Client player cannot see them but they do have a game effect (units struggle to pass trenches and drive around obstacles.) Mines however do not have an effect until the game is reloaded. The video below shows this. Saving and reloading seems to correct this.
4) You can also see in the video above that during turn playback a player (Host or Client) is able to cheat by grabbing and moving waypoints, when players are not supposed to be able to issue orders. This can be solved with a gentleman's agreement, but it should not be possible.
5) Bunkers placed by the Client player seem to have random elevation issues when the game is started. The Client player places a bunker, and it looks normal, but when the game starts after deployment phase suddenly the bunker has sunk into the earth.

https://i.imgur.com/3UQJEmv.jpg
Not as bad as when Trenches would fly or sink to hell but it can be frustrating after spending 45 minutes in a deployment to hit the start button and see your bunker sink to the point that it no longer has line of sight to the ground just in front.
6) Hills-Rough (1200 x 1424) 101 Attack.btt suffers from the same texture bug it had when Black Sea first launched. Many buildings are missing sides. Not only are textures missing, but you can see right through them.

7) Bridges with central supports seem to be impassible by vehicles in multiplayer turn based mode. An example of these bridges from Town-Water (1504 x 1008) 152 Attack.btt can illustrate.
 
 
In singleplayer, this bridge is not a problem. No obstacles were placed on the bridge.
8 This one is not multiplayer specific, but if you play singleplayer realtime or multiplayer turnbased you'll notice that possible contacts bouncing and blinking, an effect that does not seem to happen during a WEGO singleplayer game.
 
It's not game breaking, but it can be distracting.
 
9) During Map Preview, in turn-based multiplayer, the Client player is bombarded with the game Pause sound from realtime mode if he and the Host player are both using Map Preview. Not a game buster, but it is loud and annoying and forces the player to turn off sound until game start. The sounds then play aggressively for several seconds as if they've been queued up, but then they go away. 
 
10) This one is more of an AI issue, but I have noticed repeatedly that when the Dragon AT guy is tasked as part of an assault team entering a building, he will enter the building with the Dragon in hand. I admire his willingness to try and use the Dragon for room to room fighting, but I think he'd be better off with his M16.
11) Despite being unsupported, you can set reinforce groups for Quickbattle units in the quickbattle setup screen using the 1-5 keys. They all appear at the 5 minute mark but are not bound by quickbattle setup zones, so they can appear in some pretty exciting places.
Again, the simple solution to this would be to just not do it, but it shouldn't be doable.
12) This one I can't replicate and only happened once, but we had a Client player with a Strela team spawn without ammunition. Not sure why that would be. Other teams on the map had their ammo.
13) If a Dragon attempts to fire at a tank while it is charging the Dragon's position, the team will fire the missile even if the tank is only a few meters away, and the missile will wrap around the turret of the tank and fly off into the ground somewhere. I don't think this one is multiplayer specific, but I have only really played multiplayer. I would expect that if a tank enters minimum range the team would not fire at the tank. Maybe this is expected behaviour and the way it is shown is just funky? I didn't get a video of this one unfortunately.
I've been meaning to write this up for a while, myself and several of my friends have played an absurd amount of CMx2 multiplayer through the pandemic, and Cold War is the best yet, so it has finally convinced me to get off my ass and do it. The save/load crash bug is by far the most important, as most of these other ones can be worked around or laughed off, but it would be nice for some of these bugs to see some care and attention.
If you need any elaboration or save games I can probably provide.
Despite these issues, CMCW kicks a lot of ass.

It hits the tree and the T-64 fires back accurately destroying the launcher? 😎

It hits the tree and the T-64 fires back accurately destroying the launcher? 😎

Remember your training, Corporal!

Corporal did not in fact remember his training. The Dragon ploughed into the street and they received a kindly worded reply delivered by 125mm express mail.
Meanwhile, the rest of the company deploys on a hillside, searching for signs of Ivan.

Good scouting gave us some good warning, allowing us to catch a forward security element by surprise.

Trying to replicate that old Kodachrome look. Not quite there yet.  Props to @Pete Wenman for honestly the best maps I've seen in CM to-date!  It's a lot of fun to play missions that aren't always knife fights in a phone booth.

Wow, looks like I lost the internal betting pool.  We are 13 days released and first time someone asks this question.
Answer.  We spent days of work on this one, round and round.  So basically US mech infantry platoon still brigaded the M60s and (technically) the Dragons at the PL HQ level where they would be dolled out as the situation dictated.  This is impossible with CM so we created variation to reflect that decision and give the player flexibility in their use. 
So: 
Heavy = a bulked up squad, obviously expecting trouble.  2xM60s and the Dragon
Medium = originally we were going to only have the medium version but it was too restrictive. 
Light = 1 xM60 and no Dragon.  There were enough Dragons in the platoons and coys for one per squad but they could taken away and sent out to tank hunting teams and some squads might wind up light.  Light also does not get the extra M60.
In any standard mech infantry platoon the mix would normally be:
2 x Heavy and 1 x Med squads.  But now scenario designers can have flex in different scenarios. 

Yep, so the extra LAW in the Light squad is for the AT Specialist who is short the Dragon....how is that for detail?

The Training missions do illustrate this well, if you follow their instructions correctly.

The fundamental principle is one of combined arms, and layers. The emphasis is on speed, aggression and overwhelming firepower.

The Soviet army was an artillery army - the artillery mission is extensive and sophisticated, and does the main job of suppressing or destroying enemy AT assets, most of which are soft-skinned or man-portable. This would be supplemented with the supporting weapons, like the ATGM platoon.

Whilst that artillery is still falling, the tanks advance in line. The advantage of being in line is that you can make up for your relatively poor spotting with numbers - you don't need all of the tanks to see the enemy, just one or two of them is enough to give you a considerable advantage.

Then finally the infantry come, the emphasis at every stage is on overwhelming force, and gaining safety through excessive firepower. 

Each stage needs to work in concert to be effective, but there's really not much you can do to stop it when everything is working correctly. 

H&E2 Early Alpha...

So this brings up another point...style.  These are clear choices by the designer, which you may not agree with but are not errors.  In the US Campaign for example, a choice was made to do it in first-person narrative style with deliberate lack of clarity on the tactical situation.  The reason for this was 1) to create a distinct feel of a story being told and 2) in service of the large demand by players for realism in gameplay. 
Some may wonder about the "realism" point and be frustrated by the vagueness of these briefings, well then it is working as intended.  No real fight plays out like it does in most CM scenarios.  The leaders on the ground do not get nice neat briefing graphics or a clear write up of the problem.  What you really get is usually nothing more than "Head down that road and keep your eyes open cause some guys got killed there last Tuesday.  If you see something try and kill it.  If you can't, shout for help...orders end."
Now you may very well totally disagree with this design decision and that is totally fine and to be expected.  But just because you do not like something does not make it an error (seriously, we have entire generations who could make life a lot better for everyone if they just took that one nugget in).
 

I was hoping for this one myself ...

Some might say it is appropriately metaphorical for this thread ... 😉

If you mean this
That was just me being too clever by half. When I was in the British Army it was (and likely still is ) convention when giving orders that the mission paragraph was always repeated for emphasis. Apologies it caused confusion
P

This thread should be renamed to "Grammar nazis: A Case Study"

While you're at it @The_Capt there is one error that is so incredibly egregious that I in fact lose sleep over it at night, tossing and turning in the throes of mild annoyance:
The scenario Killing Time at Kirtof in fact depicts a killing time at Kirtorf 👻 Anyway, you should see how bad real engineers (outside of education) are at spelling. I've seen some pretty obvious mistakes in several MS and NAS specs I've read over the years!

Oh yes that is true.  Word does not pick up proper name misspelling (and German towns were murder for this) so that may add to our total somewhat.  But if one is not familiar with the locale I would hope that they would not lose sleep or in-game enjoyment...except in this case obviously.  

So, because this was becoming a rather vocal issue, and I began to doubt us for a second, I exported 19 of the standalone scenario briefings (both Blue and Red) out of the commercial scenarios and cut and pasted them into Word.  That came to 20727 words in total.  Scrubbing through them all and using the Word spelling checker, we come to a grand total of 15 real spelling mistakes (not military slang or funny abbreviations) out of the sample.  This yields an error rate of about .07%, which in just about any industry standard is well below the accepted manufacturing rate errors (outside of the nuclear and space industry).  It is even lower than accepted experimental error in engineering. (https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/virtual_lab/LabZero/Experimental_Error.shtml#:~:text=Engineers also need to be,analysis techniques to get any). 
The worst offending scenario had 5 spelling errors and the writer is not a native English speaker, but we can make sure we get help with that.  So now I am going to do a grammar and punctuation check but from that I can see so far (again thank you MS Word) we are doing better than a lot of adult students I know. 
Now we will continue to try and get better in all things in order to continue a solid wargame to you all...thank you for your patience. [Note, I am sorry but I cannot share the Word Doc here as it is company IP etc.]  Oh and as an aside, I hold a Master's degree and still managed to spell "Frankfurt" wrong in Valley of Ashes, so human error happens.

Trying to replicate that old Kodachrome look. Not quite there yet.  Props to @Pete Wenman for honestly the best maps I've seen in CM to-date!  It's a lot of fun to play missions that aren't always knife fights in a phone booth.

Soviet forces cross the Czech border into Bavaria.

Weighing in here a bit, first off criticism accepted and we can always do better (our unofficial motto).  Anytime one does something creative and then puts it out there with a price tag, one has to be ready to accept criticisms by paying customers.  Some is useful, some less so but one does have to take it into account moving forward.  In this case, I do find it both odd and ironic that the original poster's main complaint seems to be poor briefings which impact in-game experience through lack of clarity, while at the same time the criticism itself is also lacking in clarity but let the healing begin.
So first questions - how did the briefings impact your game experience?  Were they distracting or did the issue mislead or create for poorer in-gameplay, if so how?  If you could pick three scenarios to fix, which one would they be?  Some scenarios/campaigns are written from a stylistic point of view.  The US Campaign, for example, is written from a personal in-the-field journal style, so a lot of writing conventions are going to be removed to emulate the style of a scared, tired leader in-combat.  Some briefings are written from a Soviet point of view, which is stark and minimalistic.  Further many others are written in what I would call a deep-military writing style, this could very well explain the "incomplete sentences", which emulates Frag Os and the type of written orders veterans recognize from the field.  So if we could separate style-decisions from honest errors, that would be a first good step.
As to the typos etc, well we can go back and correct the most egregious, particularly if they mislead the player.  Moving forward, I am thinking we will move to 1) putting all briefings in Word docs first, before moving them to the in-game text docs and 2) hiring an editor to review all briefings before release (I have the hook and very good one) because right now the content team of contributors (nice alliteration Capt!) is basically totally unsupported, so that is on us.
And finally, as always you are free to exercise the BFC return policy if you are unhappy with the product and same will apply with Steam etc.   

Feel free to make a detailed list of them and post. Really. I'm not being sarcastic. There are quite a few people on the beta team, however the deadline was short, not everyone tested or even opened every scenario (I haven't even opened the NTC campaign, for example because I was busy on other things). As was said, not everyone is a native English speaker or even if they are not a US English speaker so some military terms and organizations names were constantly being corrected. Most of us were on the beta team for a short time, compared to  "normal" (like FR for instance). So sure, typos are there.
And while everything IS read over, and corrections made, sometimes new errors can creep in when a correction is made and it doesn't get caught. BF always looks for quality, so if you posted a list of errata rather than insulting everyone involved in the entire process, it will definitely go into a list of things to be fixed.
My constructive criticism of your criticism. Take it or leave it 🙂
Dave

I had two more scenarios to make in my head but the demands to finish the artwork by the deadline took precedence. That's the opposite of Fire and Rubble where the repeatedly-interrupted schedule allowed me to finish my work and also contribute four scenarios to the effort. Ah, if only they had released CMCW in July instead of April! 

Muphry’s Law right there.

CMCW.

Between Two Fahrbahns March 1979 Brauersdorf July 1981 Czechmate June 1982 Direction Found July 1981 Everyone - Get Out of Dodge August 1980 Fleeing Altdorf May 1982 The Grieshof Meet and Greet August 1979 Hunter or Prey October 1982 Killing Time at Kirtof August 1982 Kriegsburg 1979 July 1979 Kriegsburg 1980 May 1980 Kriegsburg 1981 July 1981 Kriegsburg 1982 July 1982 Mittelaschenbach sudden awakening - 1979 March 1979 NTC If it aint cav… October 1982 NTC Tank Training 1979 May 1979 NTC Tank Training 1980 May 1980 NTC Tank Training 1981 May 1981 NTC Tank Training 1982 May 1982 Rumpenheim Rumpus Sept 1982 Scouts Out October 1979 Skirmish at Sichenhausen May 1981 Stem the Tide March 1982 The Last Starship Sept 1981 TRAINING Soviet Tactical Doctrine 1 (MRB) June 1982 TRAINING Soviet Tactical Doctrine 1 (TB) June 1982 TRAINING Soviet Tactical Doctrine 2 (MRB) June 1982 TRAINING Soviet Tactical Doctrine 2 (TB) June 1982 A Hille to Die On July 1982 Bad and Worse July 1982 Bear in the Sun July 1982 Bumps in the Dark '82 July 1982 Dollbach Heights July 1982 Racing the Moon '82 July 1982 Route 66 July 1982 The Citadel July 1982 They Own the Night '82 July 1982 Unhook the Leesh July 1982 Valley of Ashes July 1981