Howler

I would appreciate a simple one-liner stating Product X revised to [DATE X]. Don't need to know why. Would prefer to be notified as early as possible of variances. Again, don't need details.
I'm accustomed to the P500 monthly updates from GMT so, often see 3-6 month swings in schedules. I find it adequately serves to manage one's expectations.
A simple CMSF2 Canadian Campaign revised to June 2019. What I have instead is February 2019 posted January 2019. What am I supposed to do with that?

Either point him to a post describing board etiquette, or assume he's still relatively new, at 12 posts, and let it pass.
Or, you can do what you did which is  less welcoming, helpful, or instructive.

Either point him to a post describing board etiquette, or assume he's still relatively new, at 12 posts, and let it pass.
Or, you can do what you did which is  less welcoming, helpful, or instructive.

Either point him to a post describing board etiquette, or assume he's still relatively new, at 12 posts, and let it pass.
Or, you can do what you did which is  less welcoming, helpful, or instructive.

Either point him to a post describing board etiquette, or assume he's still relatively new, at 12 posts, and let it pass.
Or, you can do what you did which is  less welcoming, helpful, or instructive.

Here's a lucky shot. I was just playing the U.S. Army, trying to be extra careful, advancing very slowly and cautiously, using dead ground to move troops forward and hull down positions for every vehicle and then everything went horribly wrong.
I parked an M1 tank in a hull down position along the side of a road when a Kornet opened fire on it. Here's the view from the ATGM position at maximum zoom:

 
The missile missed the tank, flying right over the top of it. It continued to fly for another 40 meters through the woods behind it until it just so happened to slam into a tree RIGHT in the middle of an infantry squad moving through the woods.


 
The infantry were in dead ground behind that road embankment and were not even visible from the ATGM position, and I thought they would be safe moving through the woods. The missile miraculously flew past several other trees just so it could hit the one right in the center of the squad. One man was killed, another incapacitated, and every other member of the squad was wounded except for two.

The next turn I tried to pull the tank back and hide it behind some trees, but part of its turret was still visible and it was knocked out from the front by a second missile. I guess you really don't wanna mess around with those Kornets. 

Thanks Ithikial.
Your mod sounds understandable & reasonable enough... although there are practical concerns with how many "optional sets" are going to be part of the final mod (it's already pretty ugly with z's & double z's everywhere).
I'm starting to think the finalized version should come with a mod enabler... perhaps OvGME (I probably should be using one anyway as I'm always switching between my various mod compilations & sub-mods).
Why don't you put the dropbox link here in the mean-time, that way other players can try it out?
 

I understand why it was in RT. I also understand why it might be safer to keep the TOE/engine feature in the subsequent FB release rather than try to remove it from vehicles that are common to both RT and FB. Less disruptive resulting in fewer faults being raised...
What I fail to see is why some players regard it as important as it wasn't doctrine in either BN or FI to ride into battle on a tank. Would you, by any chance, remember why it was important to some players?
It certainly isn't considered an exception in BS, SF, or SF2. It's not doctrine. Ergo...

Stop.  Being.  Rational.
Apologies to George Conway...

Javelin ATGM Launcher == launcher (CLU) + missile
Javelin ATGM == missile
Total
Launcher (CLU) + 2 missiles
Hopefully this has clarified my post. I was little concerned for little girl @Vergeltungswaffe... 😀

Another view is to flip this around and ask why wouldn't they have been working on the patch this whole time?
It's been 2 years and 3 months now since they broke some pretty fundamental parts of their own game -- broken to the point that many people can barely enjoy the typical stock scenario. And not just one title broken, but all of them.
When the issues with v4 were first brought to light, I would have never believed that it'd still be almost literally years before we saw them fixed.
Perhaps Battlefront needs to start actually paying more testers and content creators, in order to get things moving along, instead of relying on the generosity of so many volunteers?
I've defended Battlefront and heaped praise on the game many times over the past 4 to 5 years, but at some point a customer's patience and good will just gets used up.
"Niche market" is no excuse for a fix to the underlying game engine to have taken this long.

This is a bit ironic since we're waiting for a patch to fix problems introduced in a patch...
There's a middle ground between not testing things at all and then on the other hand testing things for more than two years.
Also, nobody is demanding they release a flawed patch.  But maybe releasing the patch that's has been done for a while and already is in CMSF2 would be nice.

Tunguskas are very deadly for Raven and Shadow UAVs.  The only UAV that is safe is the Gray Eagle.  The Gray Eagle is only safe if it does not use its Hellfire missiles.  If I think the OpFor has a Tunguska, I make the Tunguska a priority target and try not to use air support.  No UAVs (except Gray Eagle), no fixed wing & no choppers.  In an ideal situation if I had a Gray Eagle I would attempt to locate the Tunguska with the Gray Eagle and destroy it with precision rounds.  Then I would bring in my remaining air support.  But dealing with a Tunguska (or two or three) can be a real PITA. 
Below is some general information on UAVs that might give you some ideas.  Good luck.           
US UAVs:   Raven shot down by AAA, Shadow shot down by AAA & SAMs, Gray Eagle only shot down by AAA & SAMs during attack.  
General UAV Information:   
UAVs are equipped with high resolution cameras and thermal imagers, allowing them to be used night or day.
Experience of a UAV determines how long it takes to get on station (If UAV is deployed in setup it arrives on station 1st turn).
Experience affects the observation/detection ability of the UAV and for the US Gray Eagle the time to fire a Hellfire. 
If a spotter has a satellite link, via PDA or vehicle, the spotter can call for artillery fire on any area observed by any friendly UAV. 
UAVs have three types of targets: Point, Area & Linear. UAV missions don’t need LOS & can be placed anywhere on the map anytime.
Small UAVs (US Raven & Russian ZALA) have up to 400m area & linear observation.
All other UAVs have up to 700m area & linear observation.
UAV status: Receiving, Preparing, Observing.  UAVs can be adjusted but the status will read preparing not adjusting.
If the controller for a Raven or Zala UAV is KIA or incapacitated while the UAV is in the air, the UAV will crash. Larger UAVs auto cancel.
Units that are spot objectives can be spotted by UAVs.  

For IanL...

Different angle.

All hurting.

 
Walk in the park now...

Explosions provided by @37mm... and Abrams on overwatch.

Search tip: use Google. If you preface your Google search words with site: community.battlefront.com you can get better searches of the forum.

2nd and last....

While there are discrepancies in a few standalone scenarios, you guys (designers) did a great job handling the update overall. I treat such inaccuracies as either bad intel or to reinforcements being delayed in some unexpected manner. As a veteran of CMSF,  I appreciate the improvement of the AI play over the original and don't get too worked up over the odd SNAFU.
I haven't encountered any game breakers yet. Not having played Semper Fi, as I'm still nine engagements (completing) into Task Force Thunder, I do understand the concern the OP may have especially if he's never experienced CMSF (to serve as a sanity check).
 

While there are discrepancies in a few standalone scenarios, you guys (designers) did a great job handling the update overall. I treat such inaccuracies as either bad intel or to reinforcements being delayed in some unexpected manner. As a veteran of CMSF,  I appreciate the improvement of the AI play over the original and don't get too worked up over the odd SNAFU.
I haven't encountered any game breakers yet. Not having played Semper Fi, as I'm still nine engagements (completing) into Task Force Thunder, I do understand the concern the OP may have especially if he's never experienced CMSF (to serve as a sanity check).
 

Mods being used: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=8143
 
 

For urban/MOUT situations I find this use of the face tool quite beneficial. CA similarly applied (180° CA and 90° away from the intended target/LOF action spot area). This also gets all the guys at the windows early, so in case a target appears they can all blast away without loss of time, which IMO can be quite critical in close range environments.
The example shows a 5 men split team in upper story of a large city building and 5 (edit) 4 windows at the front.