You know what bothers me a bit?

[Oddball_E8]

In some scenarios (I won't name them) you get the idea in the briefing that the germans are trying to stall you with a small group of rear guard units or something like that.

And then when you play the scenario, it turns out the germans have almost as many tanks as you do (often panther or tiger tanks) which just strikes me as odd.

At this time the germans had far fewer tanks than the russians and the norm would be that the russians would outnumber them by quite alot (which is fine if you fight at long ranges since the germans tend to dominate then anyway).

But when you start getting missions where the germans are only outnumbered by a factor of say 1.5 to 1 it starts feeling odd.

maby I've just got this preconcieved notion that the russians tended to attack with large numbers of tanks while the germans were largely outnumbered, but it just feels wrong to me.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't because I'm some sort of russophile, far from it (although I do tend to like the look of the russian tanks over the germans).

I love playing missions as the underdog germans trying to fight off a hord of russians.

But in some scenarios in the game it just feels like a 1 on 1 fight almost. And in those cases, it just feels off to have the russians attack with a force comprised of almost equal numbers of tanks.

Or rather, it feels odd that the germans would leave such a large number of panthers or tigers as a rearguard unit.

Meh... maby it's just me.

[womble]

I wonder whether RT suffers a bit of "First-in-family-itis" when it comes to the style of battles it can offer. As the first in its family, and perhaps even more importantly, first in its theatre it will attract new players to the franchise, who won't be as used to the concepts the game permits the tactician to explore, such as asymmetric victory conditions. It would be bad for the game if the early reactions were "OMG, all I got was this lousy bunch of straggler infantry and the Russians just rolled over me with T-34/85s!! Lolwut!! BFC fix or do sunfink!! /ragequit" when they simply hadn't read the briefing properly or looked at the VCs and seen that they only needed to ambush 1 of the enemy tanks to get a win... As the theatre progresses, I guess there will be more room for BFC to "inflict" that sort of game on their by-now-habituated customers.

Also, the OstFront mystique seems to me to be deeply rooted in the clash of the Big Iron, and it would be a let-down for the majority of the scenarios to depict the "reality" of the armour-shorn germans, however interesting the mismatch.

[Baneman]

I think what you expect was generally the case, Oddball, but there would also have been many cases where the Russian attack stalled because they hit a well-defended German position.

CM by its nature of trying to give both players a chance to win a scenario/battle, will represent a greater proportion of these.

More desperate defence scenarios with careful attention to victory points and conditions to give the defender a chance at winning the scenario despite being overrun generally show up later as the title matures and designers have had more time.

( is what I think, anyway ).

[niall78]

It's the same reason why scerario designers within the community don't build 'Starving out of supply 103rd Infantry division, 1st Regiment, 2nd Battalion get steam-rolled by 3rd Tank Shock Army' - Russians lose VC if the game isn't over in four turns. They just aren't interesting.

Any kind of game that isn't in some way balanced is boring. Holding a half a mile of front with an out of ammo understrength company against fifty t-34s with supporting infantry and an hour long barrage to begin with might be historically correct but it isn't fun to play from either side. There's no challenge with the Russians and zero hope with the Germans.

[kensal]

I think Oddball's point is also that some of the briefing notes can be a bit misleading - I note that in the Scenario creation guide prepared by JonS he suggests avoiding doing this, but I have noted that some scenarios do give what is presumably intended to be a historical flavour, playing down the expected power of the other side, to give the player a surprise.

Personally I think that's ok to an extent and not unhistorical. I think players need to be treat briefing notes with a degree of scepticism though

[Michael Emrys]

I think players need to be treat briefing notes with a degree of scepticism though

As was said long ago and oft repeated since, military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

Michael

[JonS]

I think Oddball's point is also that some of the briefing notes can be a bit misleading - I note that in the Scenario creation guide prepared by JonS he suggests avoiding doing this

Oh - you're the one that read it

But that's not quite what I wrote:

Providing information on the enemy is crucial, but it must be tempered to try and retain FOW and surprises. In general, I think it’s a bad idea to outright lie to players, but that it’s okay to be vague or to omit some information, although the broad outlines should be correct

I still think that. Flat out actively lying is a bad idea, but omissions or vagueness is ok, I think, dependent on the context. Writing good briefings is tough though. Eventually I've come round to a position that I think the briefings need to provide enough information to allow the player to come up with a viable plan* before setting up and pressing the Start button for the first time. If you're lying to the player in the briefing you're robbing them of the opportunity to come up with that plan, and you're wasting their time, and you're wasting your own time too.

Jon

* not a perfect plan, a viable plan.

[Oddball_E8]

I think what you expect was generally the case, Oddball, but there would also have been many cases where the Russian attack stalled because they hit a well-defended German position.

CM by its nature of trying to give both players a chance to win a scenario/battle, will represent a greater proportion of these.

More desperate defence scenarios with careful attention to victory points and conditions to give the defender a chance at winning the scenario despite being overrun generally show up later as the title matures and designers have had more time.

( is what I think, anyway ).

Well that's true, but many of the scenarios are designed to be played from only one side. There doesn't have to be that careful balance then.

It's the same reason why scerario designers within the community don't build 'Starving out of supply 103rd Infantry division, 1st Regiment, 2nd Battalion get steam-rolled by 3rd Tank Shock Army' - Russians lose VC if the game isn't over in four turns. They just aren't interesting.

Any kind of game that isn't in some way balanced is boring. Holding a half a mile of front with an out of ammo understrength company against fifty t-34s with supporting infantry and an hour long barrage to begin with might be historically correct but it isn't fun to play from either side. There's no challenge with the Russians and zero hope with the Germans.

Speak for yourself. I prefer missions where I am outnumbered and where it's a real struggle to survive despite the odds when playing on the defensive.

I can tell you this much, the scenario I'm currently playing would be a complete cakewalk if I was playing as the defender.

Even against a human opponent, I don't see how it would have been anything but a huge struggle for the attacker.

(Won't name the scenario, but the russians have about 2x the tanks from what I can gather, but they're all T-34/85's and the germans have Panthers at relatively long ranges and with good flanking positions. Add to that some of the newly nigh-unspottable AT guns and the attacker is in for an extremely rough time)

[Oddball_E8]

I'm just going to bring up one of the more obvious examples of this (while trying to avoid spoilers as much as possible)

Now, the briefing states something to the effect of "you are chasing down the fleeing germans. There may be slight resistance consisting of rag-tag rearguards but they should be no problem for you. Advance as fast as possible."

Now.

Looking at the stats here, the defending germans has the following:

215 men

6 Panthers

2 PzIV H

2 Hetzer

1 Möbelwagen

1 Pak 40 75mm AT-gun.

3 platoons of infantry with support (3lmg, 2hmg, flamethrowers and Anti-Tank teams).

The russians have:

326 men

14 T-34/85's

4 T-70 light tanks

8 platoons of mixed infantry with support (MMG's and PTRD's)

On-Map artillery consisting of 4 81mm mortars with very little ammo (30 rounds each).

Now... I know this is supposed to be one of those "oh my, you ran into more resistance than you thougt" scenarios.

But, unless you play it as one of those from the start, you will struggle to meet the victory conditions.

Especially since most engagements between tanks on this map will take place at 600-2k (unless you drive your tanks through woods or other movement patterns that don't really make sense for the scenario).

Add to that, the fact that the map is so long that you can't really move your infantry on foot all the way and you have to clear a bunch of areas along the way.

Now, This would probably be a good scenario (IMHO) if it had either noted in the briefing that it seems the resistance seems harder than usual OR if the defender had fewer tanks at their disposal (or the attacker got more reinforcements).

The only thing that might redeem this scenario is that it is listed as a Meeting Engagement and not an assault or attack.

HOWEVER, the briefing certainly does not paint it out as a meeting engagement so it is very easy to miss that. (which I obviously did since I treated it as an attack.)

[benpark]

I made this one. I won't be able to write an incredibly long point by point response, but I'll try to give you some insight as to what I was thinking.

Spoilers below....

The scenario is Baranovichi. It was the one in the AAR on Rock Paper Shotgun a while back, and is now residing in your scenario selection.

This scenario is designed to be played in any way- from HTH, Allied or Axis side. BFC like to have a sizable number of these. People will play from any side anyway, regardless of the suggested method. I have Soviet as preferred, as I think it is more of a challenge. It's actually pretty even for HTH, so those playing that way should get a few good plays from it. And we know a lot of people will play as Axis for the first run through. It had to be a challenge from all sides. Let me assure you this is not easy, and is probably for me the biggest challenge in scenario design. I'd love to start making campaigns where the balance for two sides and HTH is no longer an issue!

So the scenario is maybe more "fair and balanced" than the usual- but it is a Meeting Engagement in spirit, rather than an assault on a trench line.

I wanted in this case to make a scenario where the player would have three options for attack, and still consider force preservation and speed. Left, right and center- even on a narrow, long map are each to be considered. The AI plans are carefully plotted to allow for active, flowing gameplay from either side, but prefernce for first play is for the Soviet side.

This is not a static scenario. I myself feel like the AI triggers have allowed a new CM experience. I wanted that to be apparent in this scenario.

People seem to like a challenge. I've given you one, hopefully. Some people seem to do really well at scenarios that I consider hard, and the obverse is true as well- so "hard" is relative. I'm less a "gamer" than I am a "historical time machine" user of CM. I don't care for gamey tactics, or even for HTH myself. I am surrounded in my life by competition, so I come to CM to relax, particularly the in the Editor (though it is still a lot of work!). I usually make pretty historical representations of battles or places- master maps and scenarios. This scenario is a different type for me- largely fictional and based on the map first, with a set of tactical problems related to the terrain.

However- the battle before Baranovichi did feature certain elements of what I present to you. The forces are the ones in the area. The Soviet cavalry came up against German armor and were then presented with the basic challenge before you- keep moving forwards in the face of local counter-attacks that sometimes would achieve near parity of force on a local level. It's important to realize how many battle types there are on the eastern front- it's not all bedraggled German defenders in trenches vs. Soviet tank masses at this stage. There are still as many types of battles as you can imagine in as many climes. That's what I have been waiting for since CMBB. Expect German counterattacks in 1945, too! And Soviet ones in 1941! It's got too much to offer, and surprise should be part of the fun.

So, not everyone will like it. There are plenty of others there that you may enjoy. I myself prefer the old CMx1 meeting engagements quite a bit, so that's what I wanted to relive with this one.

I'll be back in pretty historical territory for the next module, I'm sure, and those won't be even or fair...at all.

[benpark]

And as far as the briefings not being completely honest-

We have been doing this for how many years now, and should know not to trust any of it completely! What field commander ever has a clear idea of what's happening in a fluid situation.

[JasonC]

OddBall is right, and the force composition given is ridiculous. It also suffers from serious giantism as a scenario. And 3 types of German AFVs? Where did the Hetzers come from, in the first place? They would be StuGs if anything.

Pick either 4-5 Panthers *or* the 2 Panzer IVs and 2 StuGs, and cut the German infantry force in half, and you have a reasonable scenario for a Russian attack. You can cut the Russians back to 1 company of T-34s plus the T-70s, they don't need 14 T-34s. You can give the Germans 1 heavy PAK, or 2 if they got the Panzer IVs and StuGs for their armor. You can give the Germans some off map artillery to stem the tide of Russian infantry, if you are worried about balance after those changes.

That would *still* amount to a case of "you hit a lot more than you were expecting".

As for the claim that people don't like lopsided reasonable odds scenarios, it is just incorrect. The more numerous side cannot readily bring all his numbers to bear, if you design the thing right. Meaning, given the defenders some terrain and some field fortifications and obstacles to channel the attack. Someone has to go first, and they will get whacked. There is nothing remotely boring about that kind of tactical situation.

[benpark]

I'd say the scenario is on the smaller side, sizewise. The map is long, but there should be time to get across it with time to spare.

[ht-57]

@ JasonC

While I've always admired your knowledge on all things WWII, I'd be remiss to point out two things, firstly the intent of the scenario designer. " This scenario is a different type for me- largely fictional and based on the map first"

Second, its a game.

That being said, I'm sure that alot of folks, including myself would enjoy a highly accurate scenario for cmx2 designed by yourself.

[Oddball_E8]

Since we are on this scenario specifically (even though I was only using it as an example of an overall trend), I'll post my thoughts on it.

Throughout the briefing this was made to sound like an attack scenario. It even plays out as an attack scenario (considering the setup zones of the germans covering 70-80% of the map) and not a Meeting Engagement as it is advertised as by the designer here.

If this was indeed a Meeting Engagement and the setups were designed as a meeting engagement, the number of tanks on the german side would still feel a bit over the top considering the length of the map and the distances of engagement in most places. The Panther is effectively a heavy tank compared to the T-34/85 at any longer distances.

Now, I feel that the main problem with it is indeed the number of german tanks that are severely difficult to kill with the russian T-34's from any distance greater than 600 meters (assuming the AI doesn't turn it's side, which is how I took out three of the panthers. I dread to imagine how it would have played out if those panthers had stayed facing their front to me).

In my view, what we have here is an attack or even assault scenario with a severely undersized attack force.

Either that or a direct lie in the briefing that states that you are to push through these rear-guard elements that are blocking your path.

EDIT: Sidenote about the panther. I keep seeing it in almost every scenario. And it feels wierd since, while they were supposedly the main tank of the german army, the Pz IV still outnumbered it and those rarely show up except as a "one-off" here and there.

Granted, I still haven't played through all the scenarios, but that's the feeling I'm getting.

I know there is a fascination with the Panther (and the Tiger) so a bias for that with scenario designers is to be expected, but still... it strikes me as odd.

[George MC]

Might be lot's of Panthers because 5th pz who are involved in a lot of these actions had a battalion of them - they were used a lot as fire brigade units in 5th Pzs operations.

PzIVs do figure prominently in lot's of the scenarios. But be careful for what you wish for as they suck when you face off against the Soviet armour, especailly if you've been playing with lot's of Panthers in your command...

[JasonC]

George Mc - The 20th Panzer was in theater from the start, in reserve in the southern sector. It had Panzer IVs. There were 2 Panzergrenadier divisions in the sector from the start. They had StuGs and a small number of Panzer IVs. There were StuG brigades in the theater from the start, including one that intervened very early up north, as well as companies of them scattered throughout the infantry divisions that made up the bulk of the army group. All told there were 500 StuGs in theater from the get-go.

We ought to be seeing StuGs in nearly every scenario in which the Germans have armor (which incidentally should not be in all scenarios, nor in all scenarios in which the Russians have armor), and Panthers in just a few of them. In the first week or so of the fighting, StuGs should outnumber Panthers 8 to 1, Panzer IVs should outnumber them at least 3 to 2. If you include a handful of Tiger Is, then those and the Panthers combined should be about as common as a Panzer IV, making up only half the turreted tanks. And the turreted tanks, all of them combined, should be outnumbered 3-4 to 1 by the turretless stuff, mostly StuGs.

The reason this isn't what we see in RT scenarios is not history, it is the designers having a German uber armor fetish, and a cartoon view of history base on it, that has very little contact with reality.

[George MC]

George Mc - The 20th Panzer was in theater from the start, in reserve in the southern sector. It had Panzer IVs. There were 2 Panzergrenadier divisions in the sector from the start. They had StuGs and a small number of Panzer IVs. There were StuG brigades in the theater from the start, including one that intervened very early up north, as well as companies of them scattered throughout the infantry divisions that made up the bulk of the army group. All told there were 500 StuGs in theater from the get-go.

We ought to be seeing StuGs in nearly every scenario in which the Germans have armor (which incidentally should not be in all scenarios, nor in all scenarios in which the Russians have armor), and Panthers in just a few of them. In the first week or so of the fighting, StuGs should outnumber Panthers 8 to 1, Panzer IVs should outnumber them at least 3 to 2. If you include a handful of Tiger Is, then those and the Panthers combined should be about as common as a Panzer IV, making up only half the turreted tanks. And the turreted tanks, all of them combined, should be outnumbered 3-4 to 1 by the turretless stuff, mostly StuGs.

The reason this isn't what we see in RT scenarios is not history, it is the designers having a German uber armor fetish, and a cartoon view of history base on it, that has very little contact with reality.

You are missing my point... I think a fair few of the scenarios are built around 5th panzer. Why? Because there are very few unit histories that provide enough detail.

Re your comment - most of the scenarios do have PzIVs as well as Stugs.

[Fizou]

The reason this isn't what we see in RT scenarios is not history, it is the designers having a German uber armor fetish, and a cartoon view of history base on it, that has very little contact with reality.

In all fairness, I think the designers are aiming for what people want to play. Both fetishism for big cats as well as scenarios that are a challenge both in the case of vs AI and in H2H.

[Skwabie]

^last I heart it was fetishism for Cromwells. ...Thankfully this is eastern front.

[benpark]

I have absolutely no interest in portraying German uber-anything. I also have one other scenario in the campaign from the Soviet perspective, and actually prefer playing as such.

I'd suggest that those of you that want a particular scenario to be a certain way to get busy in the Editor. Take mine apart! I'd be very interested to play some of your efforts in RT.

[George MC]

^last I heart it was fetishism for Cromwells. ...Thankfully this is eastern front.

That's a bit of a cavalier remark!

Ho! Ho!

[sburke]

In all fairness, I think the designers are aiming for what people want to play. Both fetishism for big cats as well as scenarios that are a challenge both in the case of vs AI and in H2H.

Cut it out, there is no time for well reasoned logic when the Giant Radioactive Ego that ate Phoenix (GREtaP) is in the room.

I for one am glad he had the bravery to speak up. All I have seen on this forum is thread after thread complaining where are all the StuGs?, that is what the community lives for. They are tired of Panthers, they cry out for turretless armor to take on T34 85s and JS IIs. BF! they cry, why why why do you make us fight battles with Panthers and King Tigers when all we really wanted was some StuGs and maybe once in a while a Pz IV. Heck we don't even want armor, where is the scenario where we sit under a punishing 3 hour artillery barrage?

It is time the designers were called on their German uber armor fetish. Me I gave up on them long ago and I only play scenarios designed by the GREtaP. Thank goodness the repository is just overflowing with them.

George I hated Studienka and I swear I will stop playing it just after I finish one more try. Damn Panthers.

[sfhand]

George Mc - The 20th Panzer was in theater from the start, in reserve in the southern sector. It had Panzer IVs. There were 2 Panzergrenadier divisions in the sector from the start. They had StuGs and a small number of Panzer IVs. There were StuG brigades in the theater from the start, including one that intervened very early up north, as well as companies of them scattered throughout the infantry divisions that made up the bulk of the army group. All told there were 500 StuGs in theater from the get-go.

We ought to be seeing StuGs in nearly every scenario in which the Germans have armor (which incidentally should not be in all scenarios, nor in all scenarios in which the Russians have armor), and Panthers in just a few of them. In the first week or so of the fighting, StuGs should outnumber Panthers 8 to 1, Panzer IVs should outnumber them at least 3 to 2. If you include a handful of Tiger Is, then those and the Panthers combined should be about as common as a Panzer IV, making up only half the turreted tanks. And the turreted tanks, all of them combined, should be outnumbered 3-4 to 1 by the turretless stuff, mostly StuGs.

The reason this isn't what we see in RT scenarios is not history, it is the designers having a German uber armor fetish, and a cartoon view of history base on it, that has very little contact with reality.

Bro, with all due respect, and I personally feel you are due quite a bit of respect, why not make a scenario the way you think it should be and then post it in the Repository?

[pocketrocket]

George Mc - The 20th Panzer was in theater from the start, in reserve in the southern sector. It had Panzer IVs. There were 2 Panzergrenadier divisions in the sector from the start. They had StuGs and a small number of Panzer IVs. There were StuG brigades in the theater from the start, including one that intervened very early up north, as well as companies of them scattered throughout the infantry divisions that made up the bulk of the army group. All told there were 500 StuGs in theater from the get-go.

We ought to be seeing StuGs in nearly every scenario in which the Germans have armor (which incidentally should not be in all scenarios, nor in all scenarios in which the Russians have armor), and Panthers in just a few of them. In the first week or so of the fighting, StuGs should outnumber Panthers 8 to 1, Panzer IVs should outnumber them at least 3 to 2. If you include a handful of Tiger Is, then those and the Panthers combined should be about as common as a Panzer IV, making up only half the turreted tanks. And the turreted tanks, all of them combined, should be outnumbered 3-4 to 1 by the turretless stuff, mostly StuGs.

The reason this isn't what we see in RT scenarios is not history, it is the designers having a German uber armor fetish, and a cartoon view of history base on it, that has very little contact with reality.

Quoting numbers like that is absurd tho, because whilst those might have been the over all ratios in theatre, they will not represent the ratios in each specific engagement.

I like historical scenarios they are great, but I also like completely a historical ones that are made for balance and entertainment and so do many others, when creating scenarios with those outcomes in mind, quoting historical ratios is just moot.