Jump to content

Kampfgruppe Peiper Campaign


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, GhostRider3/3 said:

Hello everyone... say do any of you know the equipment and number of troops in Schnelle Gruppe Knittel?

Michael Reynolds book The Devils Adjutant gives the following OB for Schnelle Gruppe Knittel.

Stab SS-Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 1 (Knittel)

Stabskompanie (Golz)
Nachrichten Zug
Flak Zug
Fahrrad Zug (Kalatschni)
Pionier Zug (Dröge)

2. (SPW) Kompanie (Coblenz)
1. Zug (Gilbert)
2. Zug (Farny)
3. Zug (Siebert)
4. Zug (Jacob)

3. Kompanie (Leidreiter)
Puma Zug (6 x Puma)
VW Zug (14 VW)
VW Zug (14 VW)
VW Zug (14 VW)

4. (schwere) Kompanie (Wägner)
PaK Zug (3 x 75mm)
SIG Zug (3 x 150mm)
Granatenwerfer Zug (4 x 120mm)

5. Batterie SS-Panzer-Artillerie-Regiment 1 (Butschek) (6 x 105mm towed)

2. Kompanie SS-Panzer-Pionier-Abteilung 1 (Unglaube)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pete Wenman said:

Michael Reynolds book The Devils Adjutant gives the following OB for Schnelle Gruppe Knittel.

Stab SS-Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 1 (Knittel)

Stabskompanie (Golz)
Nachrichten Zug
Flak Zug
Fahrrad Zug (Kalatschni)
Pionier Zug (Dröge)

2. (SPW) Kompanie (Coblenz)
1. Zug (Gilbert)
2. Zug (Farny)
3. Zug (Siebert)
4. Zug (Jacob)

3. Kompanie (Leidreiter)
Puma Zug (6 x Puma)
VW Zug (14 VW)
VW Zug (14 VW)
VW Zug (14 VW)

4. (schwere) Kompanie (Wägner)
PaK Zug (3 x 75mm)
SIG Zug (3 x 150mm)
Granatenwerfer Zug (4 x 120mm)

5. Batterie SS-Panzer-Artillerie-Regiment 1 (Butschek) (6 x 105mm towed)

2. Kompanie SS-Panzer-Pionier-Abteilung 1 (Unglaube)

Good Stuff.... Damn.. I have that book as well.. Thanks for posting.

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody make it past "Lifeline mission"?  I have restarted this one about 6 times now.  I don't think there is any good way to do this one...   I am surprised at the assets given to KG Knittel. 

***SPOILER ALERT******

 

I know the KG would have been able to call in more artillery then just the x2 81mm from the attached scwhere Company.  It just seem hard to believe that you send such a small force to retake such a vital bridge... with the scope that the bridge effects the entire supply of the advance.

Also another annoying thing is you go for Speed.. getting Total Victories in the first 2 missions, and then you annihilate the enemy at Stavelot the first time and take the fuel dump there.... (which basically I believe gives you x2 King Tigers for the Stoumont battle.... then at Stoumont the US was defeated so decisively they surrendered to me... All the while in this campaign I do not see any real benefit in the "Speed decisions".  So now... going back to Stavelot with elements of KG Knittel with very little support to take on pretty much a fresh ATG Company, and 6 SP 105mm Priests... which by the way are so well placed you will never get a shot off first (also the terrain is beautifully adjusted to give them somewhat more of an advantage on any attackers angle of fire).  One last thing the designer either forgot to adjust doors in some of the maps, as well as adjust terrain so you can enter the doors, or figured they would be devious and not adjusting to add to the level of difficulty or basically giving the attacker the bird.  Beautiful maps, but when you look close there could have been a lot more fine tuning.  Path finding for pixel troops was a huge issue in Stavelot and Stoumont.

Just a small rant I guess, but I don't see how this campaign has any positives at all for having total victories while speeding off to the Meuse.  I just do not feel the campaign makes efforts to adjust a different outcome even though you can have total victories for every battle.  so what's the point of the campaign then?

Edited by GhostRider3/3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play WEGO as well.  Obviously it's harder than RT.  That's why real men play WEGO.  :)  I am halfway thru Stoumont.  Was doing good so long as I kept the armor in front.  As soon as the inf has to go in there is that inevitable drip drip of casualties - no matter how careful one is - even if it's only one or two per turn it adds up.  Most annoying is the frequent friendly fire incidents.  Almost all due to guns firing HE thru woods and nearly always exploding on a tree one cannot see.  Guns that insist on firing many rounds thru the same tree is an aspect of CM2 that's increasingly irritating. 

So far I love this campaign and am very impressed with the maps and situations.  The problem with all campaigns is that one doesn't know exactly which units are going to have to fight again in later missions.  (Or is that in the briefing?  If so that info was buried.)  It's too easy to have one or two platoons take a lot of casualties, while others are mostly intact...  it's frustrating when one gets the beat up platoons to fight with in the next missions, and it's often impossible to get a win.  One would think that in RL, the better shape platoons would be used for important combat missions and the beat up ones would be sent to the rear for security work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of anything like a dynamic campaign in which the player has some input into what happens 'between' battles is a major weakness for CM. Really wish BFC would take a close look at what Graviteam has accomplished with Operation Star and now Mius Front -- by no means perfect games and CM still has an edge over them in certain respects (modeling of infantry combat chief among them -- it's far superior in CM) -- but Graviteam Tactics has a fully featured dynamic campaign that puts CM to shame.

For instance, the fact that in CM you can't (between battles) consolidate sections of platoons have have been heavily attrited. 1st section has 5 men left. 2nd section has 4.. why not combine into a single section?  I'd rather have one full-strength or near full-strength section in a platoon than 3 sections of 3-4 guys each. Or the fact that, like Erwin says, you have zero control over force makeup... so that instead of a relatively intact platoon of Panthers, say, you wind up with the one that has 2 tanks whose 75mm guns have been knocked out. Helpful.

The HE rounds getting fired through woods also drives me crazy. I always try to give "Target Light" commands but sometimes a tank spots a new enemy unit and just lets loose with the HE... often doing more damage to nearby friendlies than to the enemy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'd rather have one full-strength or near full-strength section in a platoon than 3 sections of 3-4 guys each."  Actually, I like the small sections (so long as they have automatic weapons) as that's more flexible, they are a smaller target, and one or two guys with a SMG or MG can do a lot of damage.

However, I completely agree that it makes no sense to be forced to play with a platoon or tank that is combat ineffective, when there were other units that were just fine at the end of a previous mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

.

However, I completely agree that it makes no sense to be forced to play with a platoon or tank that is combat ineffective, when there were other units that were just fine at the end of a previous mission.

One way to get around this I suppose would be to have a 'force evaluation mission' (something that's quite popular with community made campaigns) where you can choose which formation will lead the next attack through a rather simple selection of one of x number of objectives. If memory serves, @kohlenklau's Wacht am Rapido campaign had something like this where you got to select between two formations to act as your Spitze. I haven't gotten around to @George MC's latest campaign (but its to be done right after I finish my current one - looks fantastic George) but I believe he has something similar viz. selecting what forces will attack next.

Its not Graviteam levels of dynamic but its as close as we're going to get bar the full introduction of an operational overlay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good idea, (altho' more work for a designer).  Like you say, one could have "Attain Objective A if you want to use Platoon or KG 1 in the next mission", "Attain Objective 2 (or simply CF) if you want Platoon 2/KG 2  to be in the next mission" - sort of thing. 

CM2 allows the designer to designate core and non-core units, but the system seems confusing.  One of the issues is that one is tempted to waste the non-core units and protect the core ones.

I hope there is a way to have the effect of selecting the best shape units to carry on in a mission.  It's frustrating to replay one (or more) missions to protect one set of units because later on in the campaign (when it's too late) you discover that you will need them again, and if the units are too depleted, the campaign becomes impossible.

When replacements are available that's less of an issue.  But, in campaigns like this where there are no replacements or ammo after mission #3, one needs the ability to select the better shape units to carry on with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is having 33 men killed and I think 20 wounded and 2 halftracks lost a lot fro the first mission? I came with in friendly parameters but still seemed high. You see I took a risk in the end and decide don a mass assault from three sides..I lost the halftrack and 22 of the men killed in this attack. However it did win the battle.

 

Not sure if I should go back pre the assault and wait abit longer. I was mindful though if using up to much HE trying to recon by fire troops in the buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wodin said:

Is having 33 men killed and I think 20 wounded and 2 halftracks lost a lot fro the first mission? I came with in friendly parameters but still seemed high. You see I took a risk in the end and decide don a mass assault from three sides..I lost the halftrack and 22 of the men killed in this attack. However it did win the battle.

 

Not sure if I should go back pre the assault and wait abit longer. I was mindful though if using up to much HE trying to recon by fire troops in the buildings.

That's quite a lot - I'd restart the Campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One needs to play this campaign like CMSF - aim for no casualties and maybe you'll suffer minimal enuff that you can continue the later missions.  Certain platoons keep coming back.  SO, if they get beat up early and arrive depleted in a later mission you may have to replay several previous ones.  (I absolutely HATE doing that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you lose that much, a mounted assault? You've got by far superior, experienced infantry and plenty of time to finish the mission.

 

Spoiler:

I ran the tracks up the road to the first few buildings, then dismounted all the infantry and sent them right out into the field in a line, advancing to contact. Kept the tanks on the road parallel to the infantry, all very simple to pull off. Only 13 casualties in total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2016 at 4:43 PM, Wodin said:

Is having 33 men killed and I think 20 wounded and 2 halftracks lost a lot fro the first mission? I came with in friendly parameters but still seemed high. You see I took a risk in the end and decide don a mass assault from three sides..I lost the halftrack and 22 of the men killed in this attack. However it did win the battle.

 

Not sure if I should go back pre the assault and wait abit longer. I was mindful though if using up to much HE trying to recon by fire troops in the buildings.

Wow that's a lot of casualties for the first mission.

Spoiler:

You have plenty of direct fire support available IIRC, and a mortar? I moved one platoon to the left and attacked frontally with all my armour and the rest of the infantry. Suffered a few casualties from the initial firefight (some stubborn MG nests) but using overwhelming fire support quickly annihilated the roadblock. In my play-through I have stalled at Stavelot, thinking I have made a mistake using up my all my artillery and heavy mortars. I do know that Stoumont is a meat grinder and will easily cost 100 casualties total with full artillery support. Anyone finished the campaign already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Doc844 said:

Staumont is a bitch.  I just got a total victory but at the cost of 100 dead and 98 wounded. :wacko:

Ouch! During testing I managed a TV of the daytime version (without fog) while taking some 100+ casualties and one Pz IV. That was, however, with a full compliment of forces and ammo so I expect to take more casualties when I reach there while playing the full campaign.

Edited by Lethaface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Ouch! During testing I managed a TV of the daytime version (without fog) while taking some 100+ casualties and one Pz IV. That was, however, with a full compliment of forces and ammo so I expect to take more casualties when I reach there while playing the full campaign.

I lost a x1 panther killed, x3 panthers with various states of damage, x1 Pz lV killed and a few hanomags blown to bits.  I have 1 full company of fallshirmjagers intact, the rest of my infantry Companies are in tatters.  Poor bloody infantry. :wacko:

 

Reading about the campaign and the horrible terrain is one thing but playing it on combat mission really gives you a feel of how horrendous it must have been.  It seems your not only fighting the yanks but the terrain as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Doc844 said:

I lost a x1 panther killed, x3 panthers with various states of damage, x1 Pz lV killed and a few hanomags blown to bits.  I have 1 full company of fallshirmjagers intact, the rest of my infantry Companies are in tatters.  Poor bloody infantry. :wacko:

 

Reading about the campaign and the horrible terrain is one thing but playing it on combat mission really gives you a feel of how horrendous it must have been.  It seems your not only fighting the yanks but the terrain as well. 

 

That sounds like quite a minimal toll, actually -- you did well losing relatively little.

I managed a major victory but it was more costly -- can't recall the numbers exactly (don't think it was 200 casualties for me but definitely over 100 dead and wounded) -- I lost 3 Panthers, plus chalk up another Panther as a mobility kill (and one more immobilized due to bogging), 1 MkIV, 2 "Stummel" half-tracks. I essentially lost an entire platoon of Fallschirmjaeger, and my pioneers had heavy going as well.

 

Currently battling my way through Lifeline -- have to say, I hate that this is one of those battles where you are racing against the clock more than anything else. 1 hour for this scenario strikes me as deeply unfair. 1.5 would be a lot more reasonable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sandman2575 said:

 

That sounds like quite a minimal toll, actually -- you did well losing relatively little.

I managed a major victory but it was more costly -- can't recall the numbers exactly (don't think it was 200 casualties for me but definitely over 100 dead and wounded) -- I lost 3 Panthers, plus chalk up another Panther as a mobility kill (and one more immobilized due to bogging), 1 MkIV, 2 "Stummel" half-tracks. I essentially lost an entire platoon of Fallschirmjaeger, and my pioneers had heavy going as well.

 

Currently battling my way through Lifeline -- have to say, I hate that this is one of those battles where you are racing against the clock more than anything else. 1 hour for this scenario strikes me as deeply unfair. 1.5 would be a lot more reasonable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just about to start Lifeline and it does look like a tall order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strangely I walked away from Stoumont with only 98 total casualties and the loss of 2 Panthers and 3 misc vehicles.  The only mission that is giving me a headache right now is "Lifeline"  Even with 2 King Tigers and 1 Panther... the Priests and entire company of AT Guns not to mention bazooka teams sprinkled everywhere is devastating.  I still am having a hard time with the Campaign designers on why would they  allocate so little from "Fast Group Knittel"  especially since I have had Total Victory after Total Victory.. it seems this campaign although immersive and lovely does not keep pace with your victories or actual decisions... for example moving fast.. and then taking the fuel depot, seemed to have zero effect vs enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CM2 system doesn't seem to reward Total Victories in subsequent missions any more than getting the lowest victory level (or even a draw in most cases).  I suspect that in this campaign one has to CF as soon as one gets a draw or Minor V in order to save units for the next missions.  (That requires a lot of gamey saves and CF's to reckon when one has reached that point.)

Not much point in having one company of inf intact and a 2nd in tatters when you get the 2nd back in following scenarios.  But, one doesn't know which formations will return.  One would think that in RL command would assign the best formations, or at least not the most beat up one for future attacks.  It might be a good feature to request from BF - the ability to have the CM system assign formations with a minimum force level to accomplish a mission in a campaign - if necessary by combining other units that won't be coming back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mission lifeline is one tough SOB.  I have 37 mins left on the clock, I've taken out 6 Priests but I've only managed to take the first objective.  My force is largEly intact but trying to screen away from that hilltop position just eats in to the time.  A yoke else having kittens over this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Erwin said:

The CM2 system doesn't seem to reward Total Victories in subsequent missions any more than getting the lowest victory level (or even a draw in most cases).  I suspect that in this campaign one has to CF as soon as one gets a draw or Minor V in order to save units for the next missions.  (That requires a lot of gamey saves and CF's to reckon when one has reached that point

True, generally speaking in CM2 you can only have a win or lose in campaign design, but you can set the victory threshold for the win. Meaning you can define what type of victory you need to move onto the next map. This could be set up to give the player a "prestige" bonus of units in the next battle, and if he doesn't have an adequate victory (or is defeated) he branches to the next battle without the bonus units. That's one option.

Edited by nik mond
Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...