General Liederkranz

I don't really understand how a standardized WW2 TO&E got intertwined with a fix for this bug when it's been known about for over 2 years and Engine 4 users have already had to endure the wait for CMSF2 before the fix was supposedly "just on the heels of its release".
I'm assuming this is for a future module or modules, but what about the people who already paid for Engine 4 (or SF without updated campaigns)?  Couldn't this have waited a little while?

That's what I do, at least with CMBN and CMFI. But it only works if you already owned the games before the 4.0 upgrade, which was 2 years and 4 months ago. If you're a new player since then, your only choice is 4.0 and the attendant bugs.

Your argument is less convincing when you subvert it in the sentence that follows immediately after. Artillery and somewhat realistic reactions to its fire have to be considered pretty core components of a game centered around military tactics. So there are in fact bugs that, more or less, break the game for those who are inclined towards playing it in a certain way intended by the developer. 
But as said, I don't particularly care about the bugs themselves. In part because I don't even own the games that are affected by them*. Hell, if they'd been clearly labeled on the tin, I might've bought the CMFI bundle already. Sadly they aren't and my only saving grace from unexpected frustration was stumbling into this thread and asking what ailed the game. The general lack of transparency is, simply put, very offputting to me as a prospective customer. It seems to me like the kind of aloof attitude that not even AAA developers can very well afford these days.
I eagerly await the patches and for a few months to pass after their arrival. With this thread as a reference, it seems unwise to be sinking my claw-like toenails deeper into the product catalog much sooner than that. 
 
(*Though I guess I've noticed some fairly minor wriggles in AI response to fire in CMSF:2. Like Canadians running away from the impact of their own LAW:s)

One of the things that have been grating me is the fact that there's no indication on the website of these, more or less game breaking, bugs being present. By trying the demo of CMFI for instance I could easily be led to believe that things are functioning as they ought to be in the current version. When in reality, I could be waiting for a few months to have the game I paid $80 for to take the shape of what was advertised. That's the real kicker here, lack of information, not the very long delay to see the issues addressed. I wonder what happened to the notion expressed in the sales policy that an informed customer is a happy customer. 

This thread is 19 pages long when it could've been simply a series a monthly posts from Steve outlining a road map with a simple date associated to each entry. The closer releases could even narrow it down to a day with the farthest ones to a simple year.  Like...
CMSF2 Canadian Campaign --- May 15, 2019
CMSF2 UK Campaign --- July 1, 2019
Patch CMBN   --- July 15, 2019
CMFI  Module - Rome to Victory --- Spring 2020
CMRT Module --- 2021
Lock the thread so we don't need to parse 19+ pages of off-topic posts. Do the introduction/PR work describing products in other thread elsewhere.
As someone said to me recently - it ain't rocket science and this isn't the 90's where customers are unaccustomed to the ways of computers. People nowadays appreciate a little transparency.
Personally, I don't want constant monthly patches. I prefer releases that are thoroughly vetted and ready when BFC says it's ready. I just don't understand how hard it is to simply assign (a made up)  date estimate to each entry in your already published product roadmap and auto-post the first of every month.
Anyhow, let's get back to this constructive thread where we eat our young...
 
 

Also Brens/BARs/Bredas firing single shots instead of bursts at ranges over 150m or so.

Also Brens/BARs/Bredas firing single shots instead of bursts at ranges over 150m or so.

Also Brens/BARs/Bredas firing single shots instead of bursts at ranges over 150m or so.

The main one, for me, is perfectly fine troops leaving cover to stand in the open an action spot or two away when fired upon by Arty (and in my case a machine gun).  This was a result of tweaking some other code in the unit AI to handle some other item that I don't remember.
 

here´s a sample of various period books dealing with german tactical methods in WW2, limited to just infantry, but also bits of tank warfare added. I´ve quite a lot more, incl. official field manuals/regulations, other branches, but the shown sample was privately published by military people for german market in the 1930/40ies. Took me 15 years to scrape together from various sources like ebay, local markets, other collectors and such. Prices were almost all far from hurting fortunately. The books shown are the most useful to me when it comes to low scale WW2 german tactics (regimental and below) and contain tons of graphical examples as well. Some of these are also registered as prime sources in contemporary military books.
Beside german stuff I also gathered similar US, UK and even few russian ones, though they´re all electronic format.

Shown in the sample:
from left to right
Row 1: Greiner & Degeners Tactics Series (one book yet missing)
1. Taktik im Rahmen des verstärkten Infanterie Bataillons, 1941
   (Tactics within framework of reinforced infantry battalion)
2. Gefechte der besonderen Art, 1937
   (Battles of particular kind)
3. Krisen im Gefecht, 1936
   (Crises in battle)
4. Kampftechnik, 1941
   (Combat techniques)
5. Gefechtsführung und Kampftechnik, 1937
   (Combat conducting and techniques)
6. Taktische Aufgaben im Regimentsverband, 1938
   (tactical tasks within framework of a regiment)
7. Aufgabenstellung und Übungsleitung, 1938
   (statement of tasks and conducting exercises), sort of wargaming bible for map exercises, outdoor unit rehearsals and such.
Row 2: Fritz Kühlwein´s series of books
1. Felddienst ABC für den Schützen, 1935
   (field duty ABC for single infantryman)
2. Die Gruppe im Gefecht, 1940
   (german squad in combat)
3. Schützenzug und Kompanie im Gefecht, 1934
   (rifle platoon and company in combat)
4. Unterführer Merkbuch, 1939
   (NCO notebook)
5. Gefechtstaktik des verstärkten Bataillons, 1936
   (combat tactics of the reinforced battailon)
Row 3: Parts of the latest issues of "Fibel" (handbook) series written by Zimmermann, v. Cochenhausen and v. Witzleben
1. Infanteriedienst, 1940
   (infantryman´s service)
2. Die Gruppe der Schützenkompanie zu 12 Gruppen, 1941
   (the squad of the infantry company as of 12 squads)
3. Lehrbeispiele für das Gefecht, 1940
   (object lessons for the battle)
4. Kurzer Abriss der Taktik, 1941
   (short survey of tactics)
5. Kriegsspiel in kleinerem Rahmen, late 30ies
   (small scale wargaming)
Row 4: various authors
1. Das Nachtgefecht, Boltze, 1940
   (the night battle)
2. Das Bataillonsgefecht, Braun, 1934
   (the battalion´s battle)
3. Taktisches Handbuch für den Truppenführer und seine Gehilfen, v. Cochenhausen, 1936
   (tactical handbook for the troop leader and his assistants. Troop leader refers to higher level leaders of Bn and above)
4. kleine Lagen und ihre Durchführung, Bones, 1942
   (small situations and their conduction)
5. Das verstärkte Bataillon - Führungsgrundlagen und Befehlsbeispiele, Falley, 1942
   (the reinforced battailon - leading fundamentals and order examples)
6. Befehlstechnik, Volkmannn, 1936.
   (order/command technique)
7. Die Planübung, Mahlmann, 1942
   (the map and sandbox exercise)
Row 5: various.
1. Aufgaben für Zug und Kompanie, Rommel, 1944
   (tasks for platoon and company. Rehearsals with maps and written up situation examples)
2. Taktik im Russlandfeldzug, Middeldorf, 1957
   (tactics in the russian campaign)
3. Gefechtsausbildung der Panzergrenadiere, v. Wehren, 1944
   (combat training of the Panzergrenadiers)
4. Das Panzerjägerbuch, Edler von Peter, 1939
   (tank hunter handbook. Hints and combat training for AT gun units)
5. Panzerkampfwagenbuch, Kauffmann, 1941
   (combat training and conduction for AFV crews and units upto Plt level) 
6. Panzer-Marsch, Guderian/Munzel, 1957
Frame 6:
1. Der Feuerkampf der Schützenkompanie, ?, 1940
   (the firefight of the rifle infantry company)
2. H.Dv. 300/1 Truppenführung
   (unit command)
3. Taschenbuch für den Winterkrieg, ?, 1942
   (pocketbook for winter warfare)
4. Der Feuerkampf des s.M.G, Froböse, 1940
   (the firefight of the heavy machine gun)
 

that statement I made in 2016. Off course it works, though can´t remember if I hadn´t figured it out that time yet. See my latests post above and my reference is towards armored covered arc not working for units carrying 7.92mm AP. Only direct targeting (T key) works and killing/damaging lightly armored vehicles at close ranges  (upto maybe 300-500m) with lMG and HMG is possible for sure.

Twelve is correct in an Armored Panzergrenadier Battalion.
Remember, the other three Panzergrenadier Battalions in a Panzer Division are motorized, and they don't have Stummels.
I think the Armored Recon Battalion in a Panzer Division had thirteen Stummels, but CMRT gives them six. I don't have CMFB, so I can't comment on how the TOE  shows there. If you are seeing too many Stummels maybe play with the foot slogging PzGrenadiers more.

Resurrection time.
I´d just recently figured that 7.92mm AP carried by some german 251 can penetrate similarly armored vehicles, like M5 HT, CW carriers and the like frontally at ranges up to 300m or maybe somewhat more. But to achieve this one needs to directly target the enemy vehicles. An armored covered arc given to a 251 will be ignored, as would be any other unit distributed with the 7.92mm AP (through acquire). It´s a pity the TacAI routines do not consider this. Either the game considers mentioned lightly armored vehicles not armored enough, or the 7.92mm AP not beeing sufficiently effective.
( 7.92mm AP = 7.92mm SmK (pointed with hardened steel core), rated at penetrating 12mm steel armor at V0 785 m/s )

Back in 2016, sburke and I were using BCS Last Blitzkrieg to run a KG Peiper campaign with CM2 4.0. 
We’ve found the battles at 3:1 odds are not the ones you necessarily want to set up in CM. But we’ve often found that in the course of a campaign, lots of other, less-certain, oddball engagements happen that make thrilling CM setups. In the Bulge, a single US engineer company holding a bridge vs. A panzer battalion for longer than expected is a huge deal and can cause huge problems for the Germans. Often, we find engagements that look one-sided on paper turn out to be much more interesting and closely fought due to terrain factors, weather (reducing visibility, for example), and localised fog of war. In one battle, I had a US cavalry unit trying to fight a screening/delaying action against Peiper’s spearhead. My nimble little armored cars were able to perform surprisingly well as they shot and scooted from good cover in a village. So my advice is, play the board game and just watch for the interesting and unexpected things to happen. If it’s one of the better-designed games (BCS series certainly qualifies), the game will tell you when a CM-worthy situation appears.

While going about my mellow Saturday afternoon,  I had a thought on the number of paper-and-chipboard wargames I have in my closet:  How would I turn them into a Combat Mission scenario/campaign/game etc.?
Some of them are pretty ripe (I think) for interesting missions.  My personal favourite is actually the first wargame I ever played: Berlin '85 published by SPI.  It details a potential (and at the time, future) attack on West Berlin by Warsaw Pact forces in the 1980s.  It's been criticised as having a somewhat bloody CRT, though from playing CM it seems urban combat on the battalion level is a deadly affair!
I can imagine some interesting scenarios detailing the initial assault over Checkpoint Charlie or defence of the airport at Gatow or Tempelhof for some heavily mechanised urban warfare.  It might even be pretty doable using CM:SF2!
So, what would you do if you had the time/energy/inclination? 😎 

Source? I've never seen anyone complain about that, and I've been a regular here for years  I remember pretty much every thing players have been clamouring for - MGs to be more deadly - done. The Stug bug - fixed. Tank commanders to duck down faster - fixed. Troops running in long lines and sitting on top of each other - fixed. Etc. The game has improved. But I can't remember ever hearing anyone ask for troops to get up and run away when under a barrage. 
 
Programmers have a strict technical definition of what a bug is, but to most regular people, a bug is something that doesn't work as it should. 
Call it a bug or not, the running-away behaviour was erroneous, because it happened only with off-map artillery, always triggered immediate fleeing no matter the morale state and quality of the troops, and no matter the cover they were in. Usually, CM models these things quite nicely, but not in this case. "Some players" objected to it because they realised it was not working right.
The patch should be here any day now, and I'm looking very much forward to it. The issues haven't stopped me from playing, and they should not scare anyone away from buying the game either. But will be great to see the patch released.

This drives me crazy too, so I now only play the Commonwealth on v3.0. But then I miss the better infantry spacing and recombining squads and corner peeking from v4. So I also end up mostly playing CMRT. It helps too that attacking Russians tend not to have much off-map artillery.

It's very evident in CMBN too.  The first scenario I played with the 4.0 engine was a CMBN one and that bug was noticeable almost immediately.  I ordered an harassment artillery barrage on a group of buildings which I suspected harbored hidden German forces.  As my forces neared those buildings, I came across German teams just sitting in the open.  (They had fled the buildings for the "safety" of open terrain.)  Needless to say, it made things easier for my attacking troops.  And I played that scenario in January 2017!
Almost as insidious is that the 4.0 engine caused the Bren/BAR (and I believe the Breda as well) to be reduced to single shot weapons when fired past a certain range.  This really limits their effectiveness as automatic weapons.  It especially hurts the already anemic firepower of the Commonwealth forces.
Some people claim the above make these games "unplayable."  I don't entirely agree.  While I have avoided playing Commonwealth scenarios/campaigns due to the issue with the Bren gun, I have continued to play CMx2 4.0.  It's still a great game, but I've played mostly CMRT because it doesn't have the Bren/BAR issue.  However, it has been REALLY disappointing that BF allowed these issues to exist as long as they have.  Two years!  Yes, they're not "game-killing" bugs like that saved-game crash that was introduced by a CMRT patch which BF quickly fixed within a week or two, but they do make the CMx2 gaming experience feel less than optimal. 
I keep checking these forums daily hoping to see the announcement of the patches' release.  Hopefully, it'll be soon.

I don't know exactly about CMBN campaigns, since I haven't played through them, but it depends on whether there's a combination of lots of fortifications on one side, and lots of off-map artillery on the other. Therefore, generally any campaign that involves you making lots of set-piece attacks will be much easier. The Troina Campaign in Fortress Italy, for example, is much easier with the bug because several of the battles are big US attacks. The Germans will get out of their trenches and run around when you shell them with your copious artillery. The first battle in the Soviet campaign of Red Thunder is similar. A human defender can mitigate the effect by using "Pause" commands, but the AI can't do that--and that's the only opponent you can have in campaigns. On the other hand, the effect is much less noticeable when there isn't much artillery, or there aren't many fortifications. There are plenty of scenarios like this, where the bug would have almost no effect.
 
 

I don't know exactly about CMBN campaigns, since I haven't played through them, but it depends on whether there's a combination of lots of fortifications on one side, and lots of off-map artillery on the other. Therefore, generally any campaign that involves you making lots of set-piece attacks will be much easier. The Troina Campaign in Fortress Italy, for example, is much easier with the bug because several of the battles are big US attacks. The Germans will get out of their trenches and run around when you shell them with your copious artillery. The first battle in the Soviet campaign of Red Thunder is similar. A human defender can mitigate the effect by using "Pause" commands, but the AI can't do that--and that's the only opponent you can have in campaigns. On the other hand, the effect is much less noticeable when there isn't much artillery, or there aren't many fortifications. There are plenty of scenarios like this, where the bug would have almost no effect.
 
 

This has come up before, even back in the old CMBO days when CM was closer to its hex wargame roots,  but in Elite and Iron modes it would be interesting to introduce a limit on the total number of units (% of total in play) the player could issue commands to each WeGo turn. Not sure of the RT equivalent, but it could mitigate the 'speed chess' clickfest issue that makes RT H2H a rarity for most of us.
1. The limit would be set based on: 
(a) formation quality (reflecting likelihood of units to take initiative);
(b) comms, using a 1-5 scale set by the designer to reflect radios/wire, visibility, terrain, atmospherics etc. (emplaced defenders would usually be a point higher?)
2. Units in command all the way up to the top HQ (the player) would be exempt from the limit. This could also tempt the top dog to go forward and get things moving.... at his own risk, which speaks to the thread topic.
3. Elite status units (exceptional self-reliance) and units not yet in contact (Rested, zero Alerted status) might also be exempt, so the entire formation can advance to contact before all hell breaks loose.
4. Emergency cancel/bugout commands, Hide/Unhide or Face would not count against the limit; units would always be allowed basic self preservation orders. Specialized orders like artillery direction could also be exempt.
5. Not everyone would dig these limits of course, as it would discourage excessive micro and squad splitting, and place greater reliance on the TacAI.
But it would arguably be more realistic, and the "in command" exemption would make CM much more of a Command game, as opposed to shoving orders at 300 'should be' Audie Murphies each turn. Men take fire, go to ground, defend themselves. They aren't necessarily keen to get up and going again all at once.
Thoughts?
EDIT: I have no expectation whatever of this being introduced, it's just for discussion.

Not if the bug in question suspends disbelief in the simulation.

Yep. It's now been two years since they broke their own game. Two years. You'd think fixing it would have been a bigger priority.

I like that idea for vehicles, but there would be problems when you're using "Hunt" to make infantry advance cautiously and take cover if they're shot at. In that case you probably don't want them to get back up and start walking again in 15 seconds or whatever, since most likely the same MG that stopped them will just open up again.

I guess there could be different actions if the "stop" was caused by enemy fire or spotting an enemy target. But that would get complicated to understand and predict.