There may be a slight bit of confusion here.
a) the CM:C game is fully supported by Battlefront
b) a new .exe of CM:BB will be included with the game, and new code has been written to allow a "bridge" between CM:C and CM:BB
Now, Geordie is correct in that CM:BB itself is, at present, "unsupported" at least as far as no new features or bug fixes. But I want to clarify that CM:C is supported.
The preview isn't showing much new that hasn't been discussed in public before. The screenshots are certainly new, but my own reaction is kind of one of "so what"? The game seems to track a lot of really trivial stuff, in ways that the player won't have any direct control over, and in the meantime has patched together a mostly unworkable campaign system in which giant battles will be fought for no apparent purpose on a map you can't plan operations on, for objectives that have no real military value.
For example, ammo is tracked, but from what has been said publicly, we don't know what ability the player will have to change the level of supply. Say you're in Stalingrad and want to hole up in the Tractor Factory. Can you overstock a position with ammo in the event you're surrounded and cut off? (They did that historically) Or are the ammo rules mere chrome?
The tactical battles seem to be fought on 2 x 2 maps, with the action driven by flags (they would have to be, since the game is being marketed at a solo-play as well as 2-player). So are the flags going to be laid out on military objectives (high ground, crossroads, buildings) or just stuck in the middle of map sectors? And who wants to play a 60 turn game on a 4km-square map every time a game is generated? Yes, I know the game allows an auto-play feature, but firstly, how would anyone know whether or not it could be trusted, and secondly, why would you want to let the computer play it out? I would rather have the game generate a battle and map with parameters appropriate to the situation - i.e. a company vs. company fight should take place on a 1 km square map for 30 turns, with the action scaled down appropriately. I've seen no evidence based on what has been said publicly that this will happen, nor any discussion that it was even considered - JasonC brought it up 2 or 3 years ago IIRC.
I'll look forward to the preview in Armchair General, but the tease doesn't seem like much of a tease, not for me, anyway. The antiquated map (and I've been hammering that point every chance I get like a broken record only because it's true - Soldiers at War used the same 3/4 map view 10 years ago and it sucked then, too) is completely inappropriate for an operational level military game, ditto the goofy icons. BFC set such a high standard for clean, easy interface with CMBO and have been going steadily downhill from there, with CMSF's idiotic hotkey system being the absolute lowpoint. We'll see if this marks a new low....