powdermonkey

Morning all, 
this is my first ever post on this forum so please have patience if i am bringing up points that have already been discussed elsewhere.
Firstly i'd like to say that i love this game and have all the WWII releases. I have played it a lot. So, i do not speak lightly or from lack of experience when i say  that i feel it is currently unplayable. i have a number of issues ranging from the quite trivial to what i consider game-breaking.
First and foremost is the the vulnerability of  infantry to all the weapon systems in the game (particularly Arty), the ineffectiveness of cover and the futility i experience trying to keep casualties manageable. I come hot-foot from trying to play the second mission in the Polish assault on Monte Casino in CMFI during which i watched as a 110 man company hunkered down in rough ground was reduced to 20 men in less than ten minutes. The barrage was not heavy in either caliber or volume, i would have understood if it had been a heavy and sustained 210mm rocket barrage but it was not, it was a medium, probably 81mm mortar strike. In such a situation it is a matter of historical record that men will dig scoops in the ground with their helmets just to get a little lower and that once anywhere near below ground level you were afforded a certain protection from HE shells, even in relatively open terrain and excepting direct hits of course.
I feel that that unit would have been suppressed, yes, would be sustaining casualties over time, yes, been broken, quite possibly if the incoming fire was heavy and prolonged enough, going anywhere, no, annihilated almost to a man, no. This is only the most recent and pertinent example of this phenomenon.
A similar thing could be said for infantry suppressed in decent cover by small arms fire. Such a unit again will not be going anywhere, will not be returning fire effectively but will also not be taking excessive casualties as it is notoriously difficult to hit a human being in cover with direct small-arms fire if they are trying there damnedest not to be exposed. What i find at the moment is that one HMG at even quite long ranges will continue to chew through a unit suppressed, in heavy woods for example, until they break and run. 
i consistently use arty, smoke and heavy weapons over-watch to try and minimise infantry losses only to find that the moment they come into, almost, any sort of enemy contact a unit will regularly lose 50+ % of its strength.  I can attest that at the end of most missions these days infantry units engaged will have suffered somewhere in the region of +70% casualties across the board. It is my opinion  that this is highly unrealistic and unsustainable. If such had been the ACTUAL casualty rates in WWII there wouldn't have been anybody left to tell us about saving Private Ryan... let alone save him for that matter.
the second point i wish to make is the reaction of infantry when coming under fire small arms fire, which is, generally, hit the dirt and curl into a ball until they have taken enough casualties to stand up and run back through a hail of bullets. Standard infantry doctrine dictated that in such a situation they would take whatever cover was available and return fire, EVEN if they could not see exactly where the enemy fire was coming from, they would try and lay down counter fire in that rough direction in the hope of suppressing the enemy instead. This never happens, and rarely happens even if they can spot the firing unit.
In a related example about behaviour under fire, a twelve man squad enters a stone house and comes under fire from a two-man LMG team across the street. One man is hit and instead of taking cover behind the windows for example the entire squad turns around and runs back out of the house, taking an additional two casualties in the process. They were regular infantry. 
Apologies if this turned into something of a rant but i would be interested in your thoughts, and there are other points i should like to make, however, i think that's probably enough for one post.
Cheers all,
pm.