Jump to content

Recommended Posts

in essence, i try to incorporate some missions that are virtually impossible to "win" from a tactical standpoint, but if you make the right decisions according to the briefing - ie, in this case, don't get your squad killed - you achieve a victory as a leader. think of your score from this perspective, not necessarily always from a greater tactical/strategic standpoint. I think I make it clear in the briefings; let me know if any don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from a campaign design standpoint, I included mission #3 for a few reasons. first, i wanted to provide a break from the relatively larger scale beach scenarios in #1 and #2. I am a big small scale scenario fan. Even with the large scale battles, I try to make them play out and feel smaller.

Second, #3 is sort of a set-up for the main St. Laurent battle of #4. The idea was to make players appreciate the struggle that the town would be. Ideally, the difficulty encountered in #3 would make the victory, if you achieve it, in #4 more gratifying and that much sweeter. I'd like to hear if it succeeded in producing these effects for you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in essence, i try to incorporate some missions that are virtually impossible to "win" from a tactical standpoint, but if you make the right decisions according to the briefing - ie, in this case, don't get your squad killed - you achieve a victory as a leader. think of your score from this perspective, not necessarily always from a greater tactical/strategic standpoint. I think I make it clear in the briefings; let me know if any don't.

Sure, but the victory points allocations should reflect that. If I'm told to scout (i.e. observe) enemy units, and the points allocations are geared towards that, but then find that I can't do any actual scouting without getting all my guys killed ... what's the point?

You could have almost the same scenario, but with an altered VP allocation (and a MUCH shorter time limit) and have a nice little scen. Don't worry about allocating any points for the Germans down the back of the map - they simply aren't going to be seen, so all they do is represent points the US player cannot get. Cut the time limit to ~30 minutes, and have the AI mount a platoon attack from about the 15-20 minute mark, targetting the cluster of buildings near the first intersection, which is where the US player is going to hole up. Then lightly re-write the briefing to emphasise that it's a quick sneak and peek to identify the enemy's forward positions (ie, a task the player can actually achieve) with minimal friendly casualties. You could even emphasise in the briefing that the player should occupy one or more static OPs - as distinct from trying to conduct a mobile recon patrol. If the player tries to be rambo and overrun the whole map anyway, then his men are going to die-a-lot-now, and he will lose, QED. Et voila. The player's stated tasks and the sccenario objectives are aligned, and everyone is happy.

For a more extensuive change, you could do that, and cut down the map quite a bit so it only includes only the few areas the US player can actually get at or see into, cutting off ~100m (or more?) from the western and eastern edges. That totally removes the temptation to try and move into those areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to hear if it succeeded in producing these effects for you...

Not really. The German dispositions in #4 seemed to bear no relation to those I saw in #3, so the recon was wasted as far as I could see.

That said, #4 was fun, and as I said; the setup for #3 has a lot of promise. I like those kinds of small, task-oriented scens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried the first mission quickly. How does one make soldiers to reach the objectives? Should I send soldiers off the beach as quickly as possible or is it good that you assign some teams who then provide a covering fire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an absolute terrible campaign in all terms flat across the board, playing as US with the 29th. It seems like a diorama rather than an actual campaign. I don't know if the most current update patch with the soldiers skills broke it or it was better before. Terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, user1000 said:

This is an absolute terrible campaign in all terms flat across the board, playing as US with the 29th. It seems like a diorama rather than an actual campaign. I don't know if the most current update patch with the soldiers skills broke it or it was better before. Terrible.

Okay. Do you have any actual arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You get shelled to oblivion, repeatedly.....And there's SFA that you can do about it.  :mellow:

Well, it's a challenge. It seems the campaign tries to make you figure out just how much the 29th ID sacrificed in Normandy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a bloke who doesn't even own the game you are remarkably chirpy on the subject.  :rolleyes:

4 minutes ago, Frenchy56 said:

Well, it's a challenge. It seems the campaign tries to make you figure out just how much the 29th ID sacrificed in Normandy.

No, it's not a challenge.....It's a depressing massacre. 

I'm trying very hard not to be rude to the designer, who clearly put a great deal of effort into making it.....But it does not play well at all.  :mellow:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

For a bloke who doesn't even own the game you are remarkably chirpy on the subject.  :rolleyes:

No, it's not a challenge.....It's a depressing massacre. 

I'm trying very hard not to be rude to the designer, who clearly put a great deal of effort into making it.....But it does not play well at all.  :mellow:

 

Well, I didn't get that it was literally unplayable from what you were saying. But it's always fun to try and defend/assault a position with your remaining 20% complement, you know.

As a prospective buyer I've already interested myself in the additional content I can get. And even though CMBN has the most content, it still isn't really that much. There's only so many campaigns floating around, so it would be better if they could actually be enjoyed.

Edited by Frenchy56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I just tried it again, to see if I was being unfair.....I wasn't.  :mellow:

Typically within 180 seconds of the start every unit under your command is either dead, panicking or hopelessly pinned.....You do get reinforcements, but they arrive piecemeal so you can guess what happens.  You even get a destroyer, but it takes a while for those things to fire (around seven minutes, even using the multiple TRPs provided) and all your officers will likely be dead long before they ever do.

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I honestly can't be bothered to try.....My best effort got a couple of men to the Promenade Road in the first mission as I recall, but they were in no state to go any further.

However it may be possible, if you hide all your units for the first five turns until the destroyer & the rangers turn up**.....The designer does appear to have AI units attempting to generate smokescreens for the player, but they arrive far too late unless your units hide (they'll still get shelled and all your Shermans will be brewed, so they won't be able to make smoke for you once you do push ahead).

Not much fun.  :(

**  Not an entirely realistic option as they are still a good 20-30 yards off-shore!  :rolleyes:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

- It was made before machine guns became more lethal with the 2.0 upgrade.

- It was a community release made virtually right after release so I'm guessing the author was getting used to the editor etc.

- Feel free to jump into the editor and make a better one. :) The 29th ID is certain'y a good division of focus.

- The Omaha mission could work if changes were made to that scenario to account for dot point 1. Having the naval support from deployment to lay down a barrage? It could even work as part of a campaign still if the campaign script and overall design accounts for the horrendous losses the player is going to experience.

Edited by Ithikial_AU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It wasn't the beach landing mission I disliked. It was mission 2 or 3 that ruined the campaign for me.  And I'd be happy to give a reworked version a whirl, provided there were no fictional PZIVs in it.

Edited by Warts 'n' all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, user1000 said:

Has anyone tried it with the 4.01 patch

Yes, three times.

27 minutes ago, user1000 said:

to see if they could get off the beach?

Probably, but it wasn't a task I would relish, you would have to be quite gamey about it and TBH it's just generally bloody depressing.

17 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

- It was made before machine guns became more lethal with the 2.0 upgrade.

That would explain a lot (I don't think I owned CM:BN that far back).

17 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

- It was a community release made virtually right after release so I'm guessing the author was getting used to the editor etc.

- Feel free to jump into the editor and make a better one. :) The 29th ID is certain'y a good division of focus..

As I said, I was doing my best not to be rude to the author as making even a single scenario of that size requires a great deal of effort, let alone a campaign.....Nevertheless it really does not play well in the current game (I'd love to see it updated, if I could get the campaign de-compiler to work I would happily give it a look).

17 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

Having the naval support from deployment to lay down a barrage? It could even work as part of a campaign still if the campaign script and overall design accounts for the horrendous losses the player is going to experience.

Some of the author's timing choices do seem odd from a purely game perspective.....I do wonder if he was following a published timeline of events, rather than focussing on playability? 

This, combined with the slaughter that the multiple MG-42s and mortars wreak on the poor forces huddled on the very flat and featureless beach, make for a rather miserable experience at present.  :(

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said:

What the troops on Omaha would have given to have had a landing that was only "rather miserable".

Depends, "rather miserable" in English or American?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...