ZackTactical34

I would love to pre-order CM:SF2, but my concern is whether the game is going to be delayed. We're already at Sept. 27 and no further info has been released, at least from my understanding. Don't get me wrong, I have full intention of purchasing CM (seems like a pretty incredible game), but the fact remains I could spend my money on something else for the time being (Steel Beasts, TrackIR, etc.).

It's actually classified as a Machine Gun, despite firing 40mm explosive rounds. It's still belt fed, and although it can fire indirectly onto targets, it's primary fire mode is direct fire.

As a ex-artillery officer, here are the principal differences between the types of platforms.
Mortars are high angle only and are incapable of direct fire.  Given an equal caliber, a mortar will have a higher rate of fire than a howitzer or a field gun.  Mortars (except for the very largest) can be broken down and man packed or carried by improvised transport (like the bed of a pickup truck).  For getting directly behind tall intervening terrain with fire, they are a preferred weapon.  Most effective against infantry, limited effectiveness against vehicles, emplacements and buildings.   Lethality inceases with caliber but portabillity/mobility decreases.
Howitzers are capable of direct fire, indirect fire and high angle fire.  They are either towed or self propelled.  Can get really big calibers.  Very effective against infantry, limited against vehicles and emplacements.  Preferred weapon of choice of you don't have airpower and want to level a position, a building or structure.  Biggest variety of ammuntion type - illumination, Smoke - Base Ejecting, Smoke - WP, Cannister (anti-infantry direct fire),HE, ICM, DPICM,  and smart munitions and variable time and time fused ammunition.
Field Guns are direct fire weapons and in a pinch, can do low angle indirect fire, limiting their range and usefulness.  A anti-tank gun is a example of a specialized field gun, for example.  Can get to big calibers like howitzers and are either towed or self propelled.  Not a lot of field guns are made anymore due to their limitations as tanks have largely taken over the roles the field guns used to provide.
In general, the larger the caliber, the bigger the lethal zone.  The larger the round, the smaller the CEP (Circular Error Probable) footprint - a fancy way of saying that if you want to hit a point target, you get the biggest caliber you can get as the round is more stable in the air and less affect by meterological and has a smaller CEP footprint.
The larger the caliber, the more destructive it is to vehicles and structures and emplacements.  Bigger is better.
Call or response times are not weapon dependent.  They are determined by the communications capability and doctrines of the C3 systems used by the army in question.  Lighter weapons like small mortars can be set up quickly and torn down quickly but once emplaced, once a call for fire goes out, it is the C3 systems, crew training and observer training that determine how fast you see a round on the ground.
Combat Mission games try to simulate artillery systems and capability.  Why does it take longer to get a 155mm round on the ground verses a 80mm mortar round base on what I stated above?   The delay is to simulate the fact that mortars are closer to the enemy than howitzer systems and to reflect time of flight realities.  For example,  most of the time, a mortar 1 km from the enemy will tend to have a round on the ground sooner than a 155mm howtizer shooting from 7 km away. And the chain of command / communication issues are simulated as well.  A US 155mm is not inherently faster than a Soviet built 152mm yet in game, the US player will get fire for effect well before the Syrian player will.  This is doctrine and C3I being simulated in game.  So the bigger delay in response time is coded into the game to 'simulate' that.
Hope that answers your questions.

I'm just gonna put this out there: https://days.to/1-october/2018

Demo is out?  I'm not seeing it.

I'm still kind of hoping that the demo comes out at exactly 11:59 PM on September 30th.🤣 

I'm not so interested in screenshots (already think SF1 looks amazing). I just hope they can keep us updated with regards to the official release. Is everything on track, any setbacks, etc.? 

There has always been a crowd that complains about games being too difficult, hence why arcade games like Call of Duty are so popular. Realism and simulation are very appealing until the complexity of them becomes apparent. In case you haven't seen it, someone made a funny musical animation about this very concept:
 

Oh you poor soul. You’ll be writing virtual letters for your pixeltruppen. 

As others have pointed out the game itself is pretty simple... its UI is FAR more simple to understand than some Paradox monster for instance.
Even the tactics are fairly simple really... find the enemy, fix the enemy, flank the enemy & finish the enemy... the four f's.
The biggest issue is not game related, it is psychology related.
Most people play games which have been designed to be fun & enjoyable... in CM you will be playing scenarios designed to be annoying.
You don't have as much artillery as you like? It was designed that way. You rushed that platoon in the machine gun filled village because you thought it'd be safe... designed that way.
If you think about a CM scenario maker as an evil, twisted creature determined to humiliate you & laugh at your dead pixeltruppen then you probably won't go too far wrong.
DON'T cross the street... just don't. Find another way... do you have demo charges? Smoke? A way to bust through walls? A long-winded outflanking move you hadn't previously considered? Can you at least suppress suspicious buildings before you cross?
Do that instead.
NEVER cross the street.

This game has a steep learning curve compared to arcade games. However, compared other complex games it isn't too bad. Knowledge of tactics and weapon system capabilities sure does help.

After about 3 hours of gameplay, you'll have a very good skill set for using the UI. It is different than other games and you'll have a choice of HOW to play: wego or realtime are the biggest choices. 
Look around at some of the tutorials. A lot of good info is out there...

I would say that for me the thing that made the game hard to get started in was first of all learning all the different factors that interact within the game, of which there are many, many, many, and then creating a model in my mind of how they interact with each other. This, of course, tends to be a characteristic of almost all complex endeavors.
Michael

The issue with CM is not to do with controlling the game, issuing orders etc. The UI isn't the greatest, but it's far from the worst, so in terms of actually playing the thing there isn't much to get to grips with.
Learning the capabilities of the weapons and units is a decently long study, but the manual and/or wikipedia will help a lot, and whilst this will help this is not required up front.
Tactically, there are plenty of resources for how to manage things on this scale - Bil's Battle Drill blog was eye-opening, but there are tons of youtube videos which illustrate the same kind of planning that's required - but again, that's really a guide to how to do this *well*, rather than how to play at all.
 
The actual difficulty with CM is that it's a harsh and unforgiving sim - depending on the scenario, a single mistake can set you back a lot.
What really compounds this is the length of the feedback loop - CM scenarios tend towards the long side (even short ones will usually take a couple of hours of actual-time to play out minutes of game time), so it can take a long time to learn from mistakes.
Liberal use of the save button can help, but not if the mistake happened significantly earlier in the game, and the thought of reloading a real-hour worth of time can be demoralising.
 
One of the advantages of Shock Force over some later titles (Red Thunder in particular) is that there are a lot of scenarios with a comparatively small number of (US) units, even in larger battles. That makes CMSF one of the better titles to learn with, alongside CMBN.

Pretty short. Coming into CMBS was smooth for me. But I have a decently extensive knowledge of military hardware... 

I recall that when "Battle for Normandy" came out there was much moaning over how steep the learning curve was (much of it my own, by the way). So, you pays yo nickel and you takes yo ride.
Michael

I've compared learning the game to a student driver learning to drive a standard. The first time behind the wheel you'll swear there something's horribly wrong with the car, that driving  stick is just IMPOSSIBLE! By the third attempt you will have gained some confidence and start enjoying it. Eventually you'll be merrily zooming around town like you were born behind the wheel.