FlammenwerferX

That is why many games use DLCs or in BF-speak, modules, to add additional content to existing games.  

Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.

You mean mix-and-match, like in forming kampfgruppe or task forces?  Forces were "mixed-and-matched" all the time, so I have hard time understanding what is ahistorical about that?   But if you'd prefer to "break" yourselves by fixating on the formal TO&E of units which have never, and probably will never, feature in a CM scenario, don't let me stop you, although to compare another approach to the inclusion of lightsabers is a bit rich.
Sorry, but in a game featuring up to battalions of digital soldiers in a digital environment built upon many thousands of assumptions and estimates of various degrees of accuracy, to suggest that the range and accuracy of officer sidearms can "make all the difference" is completely ludicrous.  For example, in a "historical tactical sim" I would expect that the TacAI would be vastly more important than minutia such as this, and yet it remains (and given the nature of the beast, will always remain) work in progress.

While I can imagine that determining the various precise TO&E for a wide variety of units over a lengthy period would be a daunting task, I wonder how it will affect BF's decision-making?  Personally I don't understand why BF does not limit their TO&E efforts to smaller units (platoons and companies) and let scenario designers pull together the various components necessary for their scenario (based on their own research).  Just looking at the CMRT units in the editor, how many CMRT scenarios feature entire anti-tank battalions, regimental infantry gun batteries, or mortar battalions (as just three examples)--why even bother to include them?  For that matter, how many scenarios feature entire infantry battalions?  Further, how often did actual TO&E comply with these official guidelines?  Why not just provide the relevant building blocks to allow scenario designers to build the force necessary for their scenario in the editor?
If the alternative is to slice the game to cover shorter and shorter time periods and fewer and fewer units, I'll continue to lose interest in these products.  I would not care as much if the units/maps from the various games could be used in common under a  unified game engine, but having each game both narrow and stand-alone is a huge turn-off for me, especially when the relevant expansion modules turn out to be several years apart.
With all due respect to BF, I consider this kind of thing to be historically irrelevant minutia.  Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have a module in 6 months with a standard "sidearm" rather than wait six years to equip my digital officers with the appropriate specific sidearm.

No, but they could be accused of biting off more than they could chew.  The long wait for the infantry patch is one example, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, a gap of six years between the release of a base game and the first module for it is...well...very lame.

I made no such assumption, have never claimed or conjectured that BF is in danger of going out of business, and never "weighed BF's business" on the modules that I'm interested in.  BF can do what they want, and long as they continue to do so, I don't see them going out of business.  
What I have said, and I'll repeat for good measure, is that as an East Front aficionado, I've lost interest in this franchise because BF doesn't provide me with what I want.  I don't know how I can be any more clear?

Of course that was a transition to a whole new engine (which by the way, was supposed to allow vastly accelerated release of modules and games with the new engine). 
In any event, for me personally six years between the release of a base game and the first module for it is simply not enough to maintain my interest, especially when most of that module's content will consist of re-hashed material from other games.  Disappointing.
YMMV.

Think about this statement and then apply the knowledge of how long its taking to get a single module out.  We are back to a pace of a module every couple years.  I have a hard time believing we will be getting even half of what is listed here in three to four years.  Frankly, I would love for BFC to switch emphasis to Vehicle Packs and Battle Packs.  And to put them out more frequently.  But alas, it'll be years of visiting the forum once every couple weeks to see if anything has moved.  The forlorn hope.

CMx3 will allow you to upload your virtual self into the game before you die. 

CMx3 will allow you to upload your virtual self into the game before you die. 

Lots of ideas and I understand everyone has their favorites, or the course they'd like to see Combat Mission take and that's understandable and quite useful even. So I'd like to throw mine in as well.
I'm concerned about the future of this fantastic tactical simulator. In my opinion, while new units, theaters and modules are all welcomed, the thing that the series is in most need of is a way for the player to more easily generate his own content. I've been playing since the CMBO demo so I've been along for the whole ride, as many here have. I'm not a continuous player, I take breaks and then come back to it from time to time. I really do love the gameplay, to me Combat Mission is the best game of it's kind, and I want to see it succeed and evolve.
In my view the biggest problem is the lack of good content. Part of this is the fact that single scenarios leave me cold, so unfortunately this brushes aside much of the quality content that actually does exist. My preference is campaign play. And here the series falls woefully short in my opinion. I'll give you a little insight from my experience as a part-time player, if you'll indulge me.
Around 2015 I got back in to Combat Mission and bought both the CMBN big bundle and Red Thunder. I played (or at least started) every campaign I could find for both titles. It wasn't very many, maybe a dozen or a few more. Some of them I found excellent (Devils Descent, Outlaws, Kampfgruppe Engel and more). Some I found of poor quality (no need to mention which), and some I found far too large for my taste.
I played for about a year and then shelved Combat Mission as I moved on to other stuff. Recently I had the itch to play once more. Excited to see what new content there was for me to play, I forked over the $10 for the engine 4 upgrade for CMBN and went in search of new campaigns to play. What a disappointment. What I found is there are very few new campaigns since two years ago. The Repository doesn't exist anymore correct? So I found what was available on the Scenario Depot and on IanL's site, which are mostly the same ones anyway.
On the Scenario Depot here's what I found for WW2 titles
Battle for Normandy -- 11 campaigns
Fortress Italy -- 2 campaigns
Red Thunder -- 4 campaigns
Final Blitzkreig -- 1 campaign
All of those CMBN and CMRT campaigns I played two years ago. Combing through forum threads reveals a few more, and more recent. But in the end that's a very small number of campaigns, with little new coming out. The nature of Combat Mission's current campaign system leaves me with little motivation to replay campaigns I already have. AI plans only go so far. Essentially you already know what you're up against,  and the best AoAs, even if the AT gun is in a different place. So I'm left with a choice of campaigns to replay with little desire to do so.
And while I am willing to try anything,  I really enjoy campaigns that feature a core force of about reinforced company strength. I really don't enjoy scenarios that are about a battalion or stronger. These aren't necessarily harder or easier, but much more involved. It's personal preference, and I'm glad they exist for the folks who enjoy them Lions of Carpiquet comes to mind. It seems a quality piece of work from a knowledgeable and skilled author, but it's just not my cuppa.
So back to my main point. As a campaign player I am at the mercy of the scenario designers. One might say well then make your own and stop bitchin'. But what fun is it playing a campaign I designed myself? The scripted nature of Combat Mission means I will know every unit, where they are, what time they are reinforced and so you lose the very things that make playing new campaigns so interesting, like uncertainty. If I know the enemy has four AT guns, and I've already taken out four I know there are no AT guns left. That's no good. I have to proceed as if there might be another four still waiting for me.
At the heart of the matter is there is no way to generate my own content. And little new stuff comes out I presume because making campaigns is so difficult. Didn't I once read that Paper Tiger spent 800 hours making Road to Montebourg? 800? If that's true it's no wonder that so little comes out. What I think the series desperately needs is a way for the player to generate his own campaigns. This idea isn't new around here, and clearly isn't on the roadmap (right?) But until something like this exists, folks like me who want to play campaigns of a certain scope will be left out in the cold, reading AARs instead of actually playing the game. I have very specific ideas of the sort of system I'd like to see, but I doubt my ideas haven't already been offered here at one point or another so I won't make a long post way longer by detailing them.
At the time CMBB came out I was happy with the Operations feature. Sure it had it's wrinkles and there were things I wished worked differently or that were changed. But that system was removed and while the episodic system we have now can be fun, and a good story can be told, it's not the answer in the long run. Not only does it appear prohibitively difficult to use, it leaves little replay value in my view. Combat Mission Campaigns was the light at the end of the tunnel, but it failed and nothing has filled the void.
This post is way longer than intended so I'll wrap it up. I fully support new theaters and modules. I am as eager as anyone to see a new engine. But unless there is also a new way for me to enjoy the game then in essence nothing's really changed. I don't need better uniform textures or additional armored cars and trench types. I need a new campaign system that offers flexibility and a way for me to generate endless content that appeals to me. I hope one day this comes to be.

Really..Ha, along comes one of the self appointed forum commissars..so predictable. Oh and the only Jerk on here is the sound of your Little fanboy chain being jerked. 

Never mind speculating about a new engine, been waiting what is it five years now? and we don't even have snow in CMRT....Offt seriously getting hacked off. And what will the CMRT module give us...ss, Luftwaffe, just a different uniform. Some obscure late war German vehicles, (lot's of scope there} and a couple of tanks for the Soviets . Also considering that urban combat is the weakest part of the engine, and that's being generous. I think a massive map of Berlin falls into the "why" box . Oh and at last but not least...snow on the eastern front, yup great idea but in the words of Neil Young's Ohio  "should have been done long ago" .  Sorry but if that's what is offered after what a 5/6 year wait, then the timeframe needs to be redrawn. Now over to the fanboys...you know who you are.. well we do.
Cheers.

I felt like the tanks were ashamed to be in "White Tiger". They cried tears of lubricant.

I would like to see realistic modeling of the sponson gun and turret on the Char B.
I would also like to see a Char B.
And it should be included in a '39-41 early war module.

Doesn't make sense that someone can be here one day and gone the next. All that experience, knowledge, wisdom, potential...lost. Of course, Stuka, didn't have most of those, but still..Sucks. 
F•ck it dude, let's go bowling. 

Doesn't make sense that someone can be here one day and gone the next. All that experience, knowledge, wisdom, potential...lost. Of course, Stuka, didn't have most of those, but still..Sucks. 
F•ck it dude, let's go bowling.