That's nice, but a Javelin has a documented setup time and we went with that. Whether or not a crew can deploy a launcher "instantly" depends on several factors in SB that we don't model, because other ATGMs can also be deployed rapidly (much faster than the by-the-book setup) if, for example, the launcher is moved a short distance and is not unloaded first. If I recall, we went with the difference of the by-the-book setup time, and a video of it being used. Certainly we can have it setup a few seconds quicker, but it shouldn't be much quicker.
This is a ridiculous statement. The issue is not how fast they tire out, its how fast they recover. Careful balance has been taken to tire out infantry to prevent someone from sprinting a prolonged distance without having to briefly stop for rest. Your complaint would be valid IF the infantry required 5-10 minutes to rest, and that simply is not the case. The current behavior is a momentary exhaustion, to prevent all sorts of stupid and gamey behavior (ARMA/VBS-like always running behavior -- no need to MARCH). Having been 11B MOS Q'd myself, I can say its realistic enough as-is, given the wargaming design decisions around the behavior. Wearing full gear and running full sprint is not going to last long before you need a short rest, and that is what we are modeling (we are not modeling long term fatigue - rather its short term stamina).
VERY SPECIFIC stamina depletion rate decisions were made so that each method of movement has a real pro/con relationship, which is very important to ensure that each movement method has a reason to utilize it.
(Also, you aren't the only one around here with infantry experience either.)
The infantry have gotten much better with aiming (don't know if you are even looking at it), because a bug was fixed in their aiming behavior. I personally witnessed (a few weeks ago) two infantry units that advanced to contact in the wood and killed each other nearly to the man within seconds. So although it may not have been specifically mentioned in the changes, this has gotten much better -- at least not warranting the level of ridicule that you are giving it.
Secondly, everyone has to keep in mind that the infantry in SB are intended to be designed at a wargaming level of detail. This means all sorts of abstractions that cannot be directly simulated at first person shooter level are *intentionally* factored in to the little details like aiming routines, so prevent them from being laser accurate, to allow them to stick around longer, so an entire infantry platoon is not killed to the man in 5 minutes.
I agree that behavior is frustrating, but they aren't "freezing", they are getting up to aim and realizing that the LOS is obstructed. In technical terms the obstruction (in any game, actually) is a triangle that would be positioned between the target and shooter. All too often what we think is an absolute clear line of sight under some trees is actually not, because the branches on the trees are handled as panels, where most of it is transparent. Imagine a square shape of two triangles, with a branch texture applied to it. Most of its going to be transparent, but to the AI, who you cannot have determine LOS by transparency on a texture (it would be too costly), it sees a "panel" in the way, that the user might see through.
The point is, this one is certainly a valid frustration, and the eventual goal is to have the infantry check LOS (somehow) *before* they get up to aim, and to allow RPGs to be fired from the prone position. But honestly, even if the soldier could check LOS before kneeling, likely the same complaint would be made about the soldier "not firing" when "they should", but perhaps firing from the prone position would be the best improvement there.
Honestly, I am not sure what the point would be either way. You have your complaints, and we have some technical level explanations on why the infantry behave the way that they do (not the least because they were initially "tacked on", and because of the "wargaming detail"). We are making improvements but in the end, you will still have your complaints, and there will still be technical limitations and specific design decisions that deviate from what you expect.
Certainly if you level these sorts of bombastic complaints then you will of course get an explanation. And no one ever said that upgrading the infantry is not a priority; if that was really the case then we wouldn't have spent so much time fundamentally upgrading the infantry in 4.1 (infantry limbo, loading into PCs with door open indefinitely, infantry aiming improvements, infantry pathfinding improvements around buildings, etc).