You know what bothers me a bit?

[sburke]

And as usual, Oddball remains right and reasonable

Exactly, so let's keep the discussion to his impressions. Your response isn't exactly helping towards contributing to a dialogue. I am gonna spare the thread the response I intended as I already made the mistake once of allowing your bile to divert it. He has a point worthy of an actual discussion and he hasn't resorted to some ridiculously stupid and baseless statements about what the designers do or don't like.

[ASL Veteran]

And as usual, Oddball remains right and reasonable, and everyone else is whistling Dixie and pretending they can't see anything. Which fools no one.

The shipped scenarios don't feel like Bagration because the designers don't like the premise of Bagration. The closest they got was giving us some tank rider focused scenarios with T-34/85s - bully for that. But they still want to think of the war as a clay pigeon shoot by imaginary supermen in black, and they design to that Signal magazine script. It is not like we haven't seen it before (endless Tiger Tails, uberStuGs, etc). It is not like we can't tell when it is happening. And no, we don't have to pretend your stuff sandwich is caviar.

Have you actually played any of the scenarios that came with the DVD or are you just guessing about them? Perhaps if you could be more specific about the scenarios you have played and which you haven't played you could start to be taken seriously.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Not necessarily. There are other ways to give a German defender a good chance to win. One is to create a map where the terrain favors the defender. wooded heights above a river that the attacker has to cross, for instance. There is in fact such a map that comes with the game. Another or an additional evening factor would be to give the defender lots of prepared defenses, trenches, foxholes, wire, hedgehogs, sandbags.

Yes, there are other ways of balancing a scenario than quality or quantity of forces. But that is besides the point, which is that from an operational perspective the Germans did get steamrolled at Bagration, and if you want the tactical situation to be reflective of the operational situation they are going to get steamrolled there too. I don't see how any other result could be expected. The Germans had no chance whatsoever of winning Bagration.

[Michael Emrys]

But that is besides the point, which is that from an operational perspective the Germans did get steamrolled at Bagration, and if you want the tactical situation to be reflective of the operational situation they are going to get steamrolled there too. I don't see how any other result could be expected. The Germans had no chance whatsoever of winning Bagration.

Yep, that's so. I for one don't have a problem with that. But that mythical majority who want a balanced, competitive game will willingly throw all that history out the window in order to get one. That, as I have said before, does not bother me as BFC has provided the means for them as well as me to have exactly what we each are looking for. It does bother me a little that some of the posters in this thread have taken the position that theirs are the only wishes that BFC should pay any attention to. Fortunately for all of us, BFC seems inclined to do what it has always done, which is to make its own way through the discord. Long may it wave!

Michael

[niall78]

He has a point worthy of an actual discussion and he hasn't resorted to some ridiculously stupid and baseless statements about what the designers do or don't like.

Oddball has a point and makes it well and his views should be respected.

While I like the odd lost cause scenario I don't see it being a good theme for an entire game. As a player I'd find constant no hope battles a chore. The whole discussion is really just the age old war-gaming conundrum of realism and historical accuracy versus fun.

[Michael Emrys]

Is it just my imagination or do many of the posters in this thread imagine that inevitably in an unbalanced scenario they will be the ones on the short end of the stick? Can they not imagine how much fun it can be to simply trounce the other side? Grab them by the throat and pin them against the wall and proceed to deconstruct them with a maximum of violence? Isn't there some dark corner of your soul that would delight in that? Come on, 'fess up, it'll do you good.

Michael

[niall78]

Is it just my imagination or do many of the posters in this thread imagine that inevitably in an unbalanced scenario they will be the ones on the short end of the stick? Can they not imagine how much fun it can be to simply trounce the other side? Grab them by the throat and pin them against the wall and proceed to deconstruct them with a maximum of violence? Isn't there some dark corner of your soul that would delight in that? Come on, 'fess up, it'll do you good.

Michael

That's actually way more uninteresting than any last stand type game. At least then you can go down swinging with pride. A win with overwhelming odds is a soulless experience.

[womble]

Is it just my imagination or do many of the posters in this thread imagine that inevitably in an unbalanced scenario they will be the ones on the short end of the stick? Can they not imagine how much fun it can be to simply trounce the other side? Grab them by the throat and pin them against the wall and proceed to deconstruct them with a maximum of violence? Isn't there some dark corner of your soul that would delight in that? Come on, 'fess up, it'll do you good.

Michael

Sure. Once or twice. Or I can just set up an unmodified points Assault against an AI defender in a QB. I don't think I'd enjoy it as much against a human opponent, even if there were victory mechanics in place that meant he could beat me even if I killed and broke every last one of his men and toys.

[Michael Emrys]

That's actually way more uninteresting than any last stand type game. At least then you can go down swinging with pride. A win with overwhelming odds is a soulless experience.

I was going to say that you sound like you are taking all this way too seriously...but then I noticed that you are in Ireland. Carry on, my good man.

Michael

[slysniper]

Is it just my imagination or do many of the posters in this thread imagine that inevitably in an unbalanced scenario they will be the ones on the short end of the stick? Can they not imagine how much fun it can be to simply trounce the other side? Grab them by the throat and pin them against the wall and proceed to deconstruct them with a maximum of violence? Isn't there some dark corner of your soul that would delight in that? Come on, 'fess up, it'll do you good.

Michael

No, not really, I prefer to do that with the defender having decent odds and I manage to force it into a one sided slaughter, now that at least feels like something has been accomplished.

The type of battle you want would have no interest to me unless you have very restrictive goals that both sides know about to provide any challenge at all. Like the defender gets an automatic win if he gets 5% losses on the attacker.

[Lethaface]

My 2 cts:

Hello, I'm lethaface, I play CM and have uber german armor fetish Who here doesn't? Because of the game I have developed several other fetishes.

Anyway I'm glad Benpark chose to make a scenario that he thought would be great, to hell with what the general consensus or historical consistent bla bla should be. Fictional scenario's are often very much fun because creativity is used to create a FUN scenario instead of to reproduce a historic scenario. At least, that is my experience and how I view things.

Regarding briefings: I more or less agree with JonS. As long as the briefing tells me (correctly) which side I'm fighting for, what units I have under my command, what reinforcements are expected, a global estimate of the enemy forces and most importantly: an objective; that is more than enough. I don't see anything wrong with the briefing for this battle.

This is CM. Fact is between your forces and the other end of the map are enemy forces present, probably in somewhat similar strength. You won't face an enemy division pak front with a half squad of troops, nor will you get 10 IS-2 to take on 3 Heavy Armored Cars. At least until a historical extremist is going to make such a scenario, 'Based on a true story'. My experience in life is that everything with the label 'based on a true story' is not suited for real men

Given it's a game the enemy will probably have chances to retain at least a draw. So, if you have 14 T-34's it would be normal to expect something which can put those T-34's in problem. I think you have an outstanding force mix and a great looking scenario that i'm currently playing H2H as the russkies. If the briefing tells me to move at maximum speed, I'm moving at maximum speed. The maximum speed attainable when moving into enemy lines that is. This is not C&C, so that means scouting / probing probable enemy positions, etc etc. Of course all done in the way true Hussars would have done it.

Concluding: I don't understand the negativity for a scenario being unhistorical, there are plenty of historical scenario's for the like minded. Also the briefing being vague about what's coming is GOOD. How boring would life be without surprises? The good thing about CMx2 is that you can reload the game if you don't like the outcome of a particular surprise, whereas in RL you have to suck it up.

Thanks Benpark!

[Kommissar]

Agreed Lethaface. I understand the criticism that based on the description, it's a little surprising to find so many Panthers and defenders, but I don't think that there's no place for a balanced scenario, even if "balanced" battles were rare in the time period.

There have been several attempts at scenarios that depict actions aside from the balanced slug-fests, like the first mission from the German campaign in CMBN where you have to scout out enemy positions etc. The problem is that it was boring and not what the engine was designed for.

The only scenario I've played that falls into this category is Dawn Patrol, which was "realistic" in the sense that there was a massive imbalance in favour of the Germans. Any sane commander would have called off the probe once the strength of the German position became apparent. Still, it's not a fun scenario to take a dozen casualties and then call off the attack, even if that's what would have happened IRL.

[BletchleyGeek]

This one turned out sour rather quickly. I find a bit surprising that when scenario designers come forward with quite cogent arguments, they're "maneuvered" around and their explanations ignored.

Given the scope of this initial Eastern Front installment and the number of scenarios - 18, which is not small, and let's not forget that CMRT release got delayed because of testing those scenarios - I think the sample of situations depicted is well balanced. I haven't gone through all of them - there literally hundreds of hours of play here - but I have already played two battles in the Baltics, one battle in Eastern Prussia, one battle in Galitzia and two or three happening in Belarus. I see there are at least three scenarios covering the fighting in Eastern Poland and even one set in the Hungarian plain. This is not just a "Bagration" game, very much as CMBN wasn't just a "Normandy" game.

And even during the "Deluge" that was Bagration for Army Group Center, there were a few major German counterattacks involving several divisions operating in concert. Obviously, they didn't achieve much (or, arguably, anything) of lasting operational or strategic significance, but they're there, mostly forgotten and very poorly documented. I've got one scenario in the works (and a few other planned) covering one of such operations (PM me if interested in playtesting it). On the other hand, I've also found quite a few examples of successful local counterattacks performed by elements of the divisions destroyed during Bagration (involving mostly infantry and assault guns, of course). But the historical record of those is fragmentary and obscure. Not many of the participants ever came back to have the opportunity to tell the tale, and the Soviet histories don't devote a lot of detail to very local actions where the Red Army wasn't successful and didn't affect operational outcomes.

Playing also a bit of John Tiller's Minsk'44 "breakthrough scenarios" it becomes obvious that there are plenty of opportunities for Soviet forward elements to find themselves confronting a locally superior or equal force. In any pursuit battle, where the pursuer is limited to not many roads, the defender has the opportunity to use interior lines and concentrate its strength against, relatively speaking, unsupported and isolated forward elements. The thing is, naturally enough, even if the Germans were very good fighting that kind of mobile defensive battles, you can achieve so much with so few resources. In that sense, the 'Bagration' setting is not that different of the late Summer and Autumn 1943 fighting, where major German mobile units had to be broken up - and therefore, losing their operational offensive capabilities - to keep in check - never for long - the advancing Red Army. This is a motif you can also find in the fighting on the Chir river during the winter of 1942 and 1943. The expression 'Fire Brigade' appears in quite a few war games, and for a good reason.

Also while designing my first 'for real' scenario, I came to realize that 'balance' isn't a criterion I like to use or adhere to while designing scenarios. It is not even well defined. I think that the notion of 'variability' is much more interesting: it invites replaying the scenario, and breaks with the convention of the "the bigger battalions winning the day". If the bigger battalions commander make poor decisions, that bigger size will just mean a bigger friendly body count. In the scenario I mention above I found that the key to variability is enabled by having a rather big (2 by 2 kilometers) area covered: there are plenty of opportunities to render enemy *numerical* superiority irrelevant by dislocation. Indeed, "dislocation" isn't a given like "attrition". It does require the commander - the player - to read well the terrain, apply firepower not to destroy the enemy, but to create opportunities to render most (or a substantial part) of the enemy force irrelevant.

[JasonC]

BG - "I've got one scenario in the works (and a few other planned) covering one of such operations" And I can go get a stack of Signal Magazine copies from the library and read all the German propaganda I can stomach. But where in God's name is Operation Bagration? Left on the cutting room floor, apparently.

In case everyone just forgot, the thread started with someone noticing a mismatch between a scenario briefing he received that did describe a very typical tactical situation in the actual historical battle, in which Russians with mech forces were in pursuit of a flying German enemy --- and what he got. And he didn't get that, because it is not there, not because it didn't happen but because someone in love with black suits preferred 6 Panthers playing "clay pigeon hunt".

It would be one thing if this were a reflection of great variety. It isn't. The variety is conspicuously lacking. Every fight pretends the Germans are gloriously winning the war in Russia with their superior tanks, against occasionally oh so daunting odds of --- 3 to 2.

As for disposing of the straw men, I already explained what could make that situation reasonably historical, and still challenging for either side. You can go make all your panzer fantasy fanboy scenarios *too*, if you like. As long as we can *also*, *occasionally* simulate what *actually happened* in 1944 on the eastern front. Once in a blue moon, maybe.

Why is this so all fired hard to grok? Give us Bagration, and you can keep your additional clay pigeon hunts, and we won't play them but we also won't care. When all we get is your silly propagandistic fantasies, even in scenarios *billed as* and *briefed as* more like what actually happened, we are not amused. It is not clever, it just makes us first want to vomit that you think it appropriate, and second not want to have anything to do with you, henceforth.

[MikeyD]

Are you playing another game besides the one I have?

[AttorneyAtWar]

BG - "I've got one scenario in the works (and a few other planned) covering one of such operations" And I can go get a stack of Signal Magazine copies from the library and read all the German propaganda I can stomach. But where in God's name is Operation Bagration? Left on the cutting room floor, apparently.

In case everyone just forgot, the thread started with someone noticing a mismatch between a scenario briefing he received that did describe a very typical tactical situation in the actual historical battle, in which Russians with mech forces were in pursuit of a flying German enemy --- and what he got. And he didn't get that, because it is not there, not because it didn't happen but because someone in love with black suits preferred 6 Panthers playing "clay pigeon hunt".

It would be one thing if this were a reflection of great variety. It isn't. The variety is conspicuously lacking. Every fight pretends the Germans are gloriously winning the war in Russia with their superior tanks, against occasionally oh so daunting odds of --- 3 to 2.

As for disposing of the straw men, I already explained what could make that situation reasonably historical, and still challenging for either side. You can go make all your panzer fantasy fanboy scenarios *too*, if you like. As long as we can *also*, *occasionally* simulate what *actually happened* in 1944 on the eastern front. Once in a blue moon, maybe.

Why is this so all fired hard to grok? Give us Bagration, and you can keep your additional clay pigeon hunts, and we won't play them but we also won't care. When all we get is your silly propagandistic fantasies, we are not amused.

Have you even played the game?

What a load of BS honestly, your only defense is to go around and call everyone Nazi fan boys because some scenarios have "balance". I guess the next time I use Panthers or Tigers I should remember to slap on my swastika arm patch and heil Hitler before we play. I understand where odd-ball is coming from but other than your posts where I learn something, you just seem to be on some nazi witch hunt for players on here. The next time I see a kid playing with a toy Tiger tank model kit Ill be sure to tell his parents to sign up at the nearest Hitler Youth school.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Have you even played the game?

What a load of BS honestly, your only defense is to go around and call everyone Nazi fan boys because some scenarios have "balance". I guess the next time I use Panthers or Tigers I should remember to slap on my swastika arm patch and heil Hitler before we play. I understand where odd-ball is coming from but other than your posts where I learn something, you just seem to be on some nazi witch hunt for players on here. The next time I see a kid playing with a toy Tiger tank model kit Ill be sure to tell his parents to sign up at the nearest Hitler Youth school.

+1

_________________

[slysniper]

I am also wondering what game they are playing. I have only played a few battles so far, But if I had to say which side has the advantage. The battles I have played have all favored the Russians.

I also wonder why so much hatred for the Panthers, they sure have been no uber tank against me or for me. I have seen 5 or 6 now go up in flames to T34/85s at about 1000 meters. So when some think it is so one sided. Yes maybe on a test map, but in the game, where the side that gets the jump and sighting first and able to put rounds on target, it seems that takes away the other advantages.

Get them T 34's to 600 meters or less and then the fun really starts. Hail the Russian Army.

Now I agree with the fact it would be nice to have some well designed scenarios where you have stugs and Pz iv's instead of Panthers all the time, because as pointed out, really this was what most battles might have had and they would reflect the challenges better as to what many soldiers really faced in the time frame. But it appears some just want to complain for the sake of it, like it really matters.

[BletchleyGeek]

BG - "I've got one scenario in the works (and a few other planned) covering one of such operations" And I can go get a stack of Signal Magazine copies from the library and read all the German propaganda I can stomach. But where in God's name is Operation Bagration? Left on the cutting room floor, apparently.

In case everyone just forgot, the thread started with someone noticing a mismatch between a scenario briefing he received that did describe a very typical tactical situation in the actual historical battle, in which Russians with mech forces were in pursuit of a flying German enemy --- and what he got. And he didn't get that, because it is not there, not because it didn't happen but because someone in love with black suits preferred 6 Panthers playing "clay pigeon hunt".

It would be one thing if this were a reflection of great variety. It isn't. The variety is conspicuously lacking. Every fight pretends the Germans are gloriously winning the war in Russia with their superior tanks, against occasionally oh so daunting odds of --- 3 to 2.

As for disposing of the straw men, I already explained what could make that situation reasonably historical, and still challenging for either side. You can go make all your panzer fantasy fanboy scenarios *too*, if you like. As long as we can *also*, *occasionally* simulate what *actually happened* in 1944 on the eastern front. Once in a blue moon, maybe.

Why is this so all fired hard to grok? Give us Bagration, and you can keep your additional clay pigeon hunts, and we won't play them but we also won't care. When all we get is your silly propagandistic fantasies, even in scenarios *billed as* and *briefed as* more like what actually happened, we are not amused. It is not clever, it just makes us first want to vomit that you think it appropriate, and second not want to have anything to do with you, henceforth.

Thank you very much for reading so carefully what I wrote. Maybe, if you did your homework, you would have understood what such "operations" entailed for the German forces involved. Or maybe you think you're above "doing any homework", but that's your problem, not mine.

I have never read any Signal magazine, nor I've ever been interested in doing so. I'll keep my thoughts private about what you can do with those magazines yourself.

Oh, and have a nice day.

[BletchleyGeek]

Now I agree with the fact it would be nice to have some well designed scenarios where you have stugs and Pz iv's instead of Panthers all the time, because as pointed out, really this was what most battles might have had and they would reflect the challenges better as to what many soldiers really faced in the time frame. But it appears some just want to complain for the sake of it, like it really matters.

Beutezug features a combination of Tank Destroyers, Panzer IV's and StuGs.

The Passage features a Pz IV Coy. You really need good tactics to overcome the T-34/85's in that one.

The German campaign features a Pz IV equipped German armored formation.

In Tankovy Desant you have StuG's and you'll really like to have something else.

In Woroblin Bridgehead you have StuG's.

I'm not counting the scenarios where you have mix including any of the German heavies. But considering how many scenarios feature German armor, saying that Panthers/Tigers/King Tigers are overrepresented is a bit of a stretch.

[sburke]

Have you even played the game?

What a load of BS honestly, your only defense is to go around and call everyone Nazi fan boys because some scenarios have "balance". I guess the next time I use Panthers or Tigers I should remember to slap on my swastika arm patch and heil Hitler before we play. I understand where odd-ball is coming from but other than your posts where I learn something, you just seem to be on some nazi witch hunt for players on here. The next time I see a kid playing with a toy Tiger tank model kit Ill be sure to tell his parents to sign up at the nearest Hitler Youth school.

In fairness and though it pains me to do so...and you have no idea how much... I gotta say at no time did JasonC call anyone a Nazi fanboi. He has a hard on about anyone wanting to do a scenario that includes the better German armor units throwing "we" around as if he represented the Union of Concerned Gamers or something. However that is a long way from calling anyone a Nazi. (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt he is referring to the uniforms of the Panzer forces and not specifically the SS).

You are correct though in assessing it as a load of BS. Apparently his sole measure of self worth is wrapped up in being the uber grog. Nothing can stand in the way of the uber grog's perspective of what is right and holy in WW 2 discussions. Sad thing is that even when he is providing useful info he can't even participate then in a constructive conversation as he is too busy tripping over his ego. Apparently he will not be satisfied until we have a scenario that has a German company slaughtered in an artillery barrage which you are forced to sit through for 4 hours to get to the victory screen.

His position however is not Oddball's. They may overlap, but don't be confused by the ravings of the uber grog with the OP's comments. Oddball started with specifics of scenarios and how he felt the briefings were mis leading (that in itself could be a valid discussion and I am sure the designers of those scenarios would appreciate the feedback). It seems though what he is trying to express is something more. I won't try to regurgitate what I think he is saying as I will likely just butcher it, however I for one would like to have that discussion.

If JasonC wants to rave about how CM:RT doesn't reflect Bagration he can start his own damn thread and stop hijacking this one. Our responding to his ravings is only perpetuating it. Myself included.

[AttorneyAtWar]

In fairness and though it pains me to do so...and you have no idea how much... I gotta say at no time did JasonC call anyone a Nazi fanboi. He has a hard on about anyone wanting to do a scenario that includes the better German armor units throwing "we" around as if he represented the Union of Concerned Gamers or something. However that is a long way from calling anyone a Nazi. (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt he is referring to the uniforms of the Panzer forces and not specifically the SS).

You are correct though in assessing it as a load of BS. Apparently his sole measure of self worth is wrapped up in being the uber grog. Nothing can stand in the way of the uber grog's perspective of what is right and holy in WW 2 discussions. Sad thing is that even when he is providing useful info he can't even participate then in a constructive conversation as he is too busy tripping over his ego. Apparently he will not be satisfied until we have a scenario that has a German company slaughtered in an artillery barrage which you are forced to sit through for 4 hours to get to the victory screen.

His position however is not Oddball's. They may overlap, but don't be confused by the ravings of the uber grog with the OP's comments. Oddball started with specifics of scenarios and how he felt the briefings were mis leading (that in itself could be a valid discussion and I am sure the designers of those scenarios would appreciate the feedback). It seems though what he is trying to express is something more. I won't try to regurgitate what I think he is saying as I will likely just butcher it, however I for one would like to have that discussion.

If JasonC wants to rave about how CM:RT doesn't reflect Bagration he can start his own damn thread and stop hijacking this one. Our responding to his ravings is only perpetuating it. Myself included.

Fair enough, when I said "we" by the way I meant the next time me and a friend start up a match, unfortunately I can't edit the post anymore.

[sburke]

Fair enough, when I said "we" by the way I meant the next time me and a friend start up a match, unfortunately I can't edit the post anymore.

I wasn't referring to your use of "we". I was referring to this:

You can go make all your panzer fantasy fanboy scenarios *too*, if you like. As long as we can *also*, *occasionally* simulate what *actually happened* in 1944 on the eastern front. Once in a blue moon, maybe.

Why is this so all fired hard to grok? Give us Bagration, and you can keep your additional clay pigeon hunts, and we won't play them but we also won't care. When all we get is your silly propagandistic fantasies, even in scenarios *billed as* and *briefed as* more like what actually happened, we are not amused. It is not clever, it just makes us first want to vomit that you think it appropriate, and second not want to have anything to do with you, henceforth.

Maybe I am misunderstanding it and he is referring to himself as the inbred royals do. It would fit with the ego and the drama queen manner of expression. Henceforth.... really? rotflmao As Bill the Cat would say "pffffttt"

[costard]

Bill the Cat for president! "This time, vote for the worst!" Is Breathed still writing?

[sburke]

Bill the Cat for president! "This time, vote for the worst!" Is Breathed still writing?

yeah, the Disney movie Mars needs moms is from one of his. Not sure where my little vinyl copy of Billy and the Boingers went... sigh.