DavidFields
-
Posts
719 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DavidFields
-
-
Frankly, that's hooey. Or if it's true, it's a cruddy way to go about it, guaranteed to mask our wonderment at this marvellous new development in bitterness and bile.
"bitterness and bile": such, I would guess, a poetic British/Commonwealth expressions, with overtones from Middle Ages or even Roman medicine.
I am sanguine enough, that I can't imagine my becoming so splenic as to be bilious very often. Or, perhaps, I am just too phlegmatic.
What I will fault BFC for, as an advocate for them, is this: The Campaign should somewhere be marked for difficulty--emotional (we are not robots playing CM2, for what reason then, to play except emotional) and tactical. I apologize if I am incorrect, but there seems a bit of "we will show that the veteran player can be broken in CM:BN". Perhaps, then, this should be explicit in the instructions--as a challenge/warning. There will always be conficting views on playing styles and wishes, but best, I think, if there are not unnecessary conflicts due to miscommunication. The first scenario in the campaign is easy enough, for a veteran, that College can come as an unpleasant experience.
-
Probably of help as far as responses:
1. Are you doing it directly, after winning School, or did you go through the longer sequence and thin the enemy? [For those going directly, what happens if one loses this one in that case? Defeat?]
2. WEGO or Real Time?
-
I suppose its not an actual difference with CMx2 but I notice that the scenarios are all a lot longer than they were in CMx1 (on average).
As a result you do actually have the time to advance slowly and do proper recon and spotting. I'm yet to find that I'm under any time pressure. Funnily enough this is actually of of the hardest things to get used to.
The battlefield seems a lot more dangerous place than it was in CMx1 (whether it really is or that's just an illusion created by seeing individual men go down, I'm not sure) so you really need to be playing it a slower pace. But I still get that CMx1 "press on, press on" itch that always seems to take over.
Calling in arty forces you to slow down as it also seems to take a lot longer than it did in CMx1.
Absolutely my experience also. I have to remind myself not to try to move everything every turn. With the new spotting stuff, having squads stationary for a few turns is a great idea, and with 60-90 minute scenarios keeping a reserve is more important.
In my opinion, this all makes CM2 more interesting than CM1, and I am now totally sold on changing over.
As for Artillery/spotting, I don't have stuff left over because I use a lot of anything heavy for turn 1 bombardment--I think the TRP type accuracy of that is a bit almost overpowering. Granted, it can be annoying to shell something which might have no enemy in it--particularly missing foxholes that the AI intelligently places in non-woods areas--but the calculations inherent in that turn 1 bombadment are almost a game unto itself.
My guess is that the difficult spotting is WAD--historic for Normandy, and an attempt to force artillery to be less decisive. Having not played CMSF, I probably have more of a butcher's mentality when thinking about what casualties my pixeltruppen are going to need to absorb when capturing a strong-point. Again, going to the issue of time, I am finding that 4-5 turns of suppressive fire might still not render an enemy AT gun completely innocuous (even seeing the bullets bouncing off the gun shield!), or an enemy unit in bocage completely curled up. But such effort is still likely necessary, and flanking the enemy has been much more important than CM1, clearly a result (and a good one) of the very different game engine, where one is not just in a "probability field" of defensive cover, but where exact positioning of cover is noted.
-
I am not sure why people are so irate at School. Or this campaign--which I am finding spectacular. Granted, maybe a warning at the beginning of the campaign about the difficulty could be warented--but those who post on this forum have this forum to find out plenty of info about it ahead of time.
I am just a routine BFC customer. At the risk of being repetative:
1. School is meant, I believe, to be lost or tied. Blast a bunch of germans with artillery (it seems almost to be a training tutorial for artillery.) Blast a few things with your tanks (without crossing the stream). Get a few people to the bridge to take that objective. (If you want to be a bit gamey, don't even send the engineers--so they don't get wacked by the TRP.)
2. Go to University. This almost seems like a tutorial for how to cross a bridge. The unaccosted crossing is done as is standard with CM1: plot waypoint before and after the bridge. AFVs on slow-- or, maybe move. That actually seems to me a realistic tactic for crossing a bridge in/near combat. There could be debris on the bridge, you don't want to run over your own people, and accidently rolling into a hole or off the bridge would likely ruin your whole day.
3. After taking the Long Way Around (possible movie title), past a very tactical Bumper Cars (could be renamed Flank Them! Flank them!), I am at Ridge, and the Field of Doom (TM--as a previous poster has noted) appears, very early on, as possibly a Walk in the Park (franchises still available). If true, that is likely due to Casualties Inflicted being more than Casualties Taken (medals and/or congressional investigations pending).
Since I am on vacation, I have not been able to confirm over the past week that Ridge is now doable. (The things we sacrifice for family harmony! ....fortunately I was able to borrow my sisters computer to check the forums....shush, if you are anywhere near OBX, keep that quiet)
All this is to say, to rage against School is, respectfully, missing the point, I think--teaching us to lose, or at least not win, so as to showcase the branching Operations system.
[Can't imagine trying to post in a non-native language. Kudos to those that attempt it.]
[WEGO]
-
If I'm understanding the situation you're describing, my experience is that that is, and should be, the case. Is this what you're describing? (squad) ______(enemy)_____ where the assaulting unit is firing lengthwise down the trench at what would be, sort of, the "flank" of the trench?
Yes. In CM1 I don't think it mattered. It matters in CM2?
-
Of course, even taking the long way, one eventually gets to Ridge. It will be interesting to see if German loses from previous missions affect the difficulty. On the other hand, my losses include the 3rd platoon HQ, so I can't call any deep 105 artillery.
-
I only play against the computer, so well thought out AI plan is key for me.
And my preference, generally, is non-puzzle scenarios, where good tactics are the key, and winnable, by a thread, the first time through, not requiring pre-knowledge of the enemies positions.
-
I sort of assume College was meant to be lost, or the campaign would be torture. Seems like he same with Ridge.
I took the loss with College, enjoyed University and learned a few things. And then went cross country for a very nice Bumper Cars--just finishing that.
*******************************not much of a spoiler--University
What I learned with University was that I need to practice tactics with trenches. My men took the hill, piled into the trenches, where there was then a MG battle between them and the Germans behind bocage. Got'em! I thought, with terrain advantage.
But I felt that I ended up the worse in that battle, with my men in the trenches taking a lot of causualties--casualties which were in the end unnecessary (I was not going to take the distant right zone--happy just to take the road exit zone, which was only possible because of the saluatory effects of night falling). If I did it over again, I would put fewer people in the trenches, and watch more carefully how I positioned them. Is the facing of the trench actually a factor in CMBN? If someone is firing end-on into a trench, and a trench which is sloped down to the firing unit, does that somewhat negate the protective effects of the trench?
-
My question is this: Other than waving off the FFE, is the inability to target behind things working as intended?
In other words, I think someone put on the board a post about how difficult it was, in real life WW2 Normandy, to see spotting rounds in the bocage.
So, for crabbit's purposes, the patch may keep him from wasting artillery, but will not get his wished for FFE into the compound?--on purpose?
-
I am making my way through a latter scenario in this campaign, Bumper Cars, and I am very impressed with, to my amateur eyes, the tactical sophistication of the scenarios in this campaign.
I now apologize for my earlier sort of intimations that CMBN might have been too CMSF influenced. I was taken aback by the artillery, on both sides, in School. I now see that the campaign has a wide variety of different scenarios, and by Bumper Cars the feel of the simulation seems to be all WW2 Normandy.
-
In thinking that CMBN sometimes feels more like Hurt Locker than Band of Brothers, I keep coming back to the small mortars--60mm. If all politics is local, my impression was that these mortars were the most local of artillery. The command and control works great for relative spotting and unit cohesion issues, but the artillery feels too slick in the communication--even if it may have been toned down from CMSF. Think manual typewriters with ribbons, and platoon/company commanders who want to use ammo for their own needs.
This will even be more important with the Commonwealth troops and the 2 inch mortar.
I am certain this has been amply discussed at Battlefront, but my suggestion would be:
1. Small mortars can't be used in pre-planned bombardment. I don't think this is what they were used for--at least within the CM2 scope. [This is where the grogs indicate I know nothing about WW2 tactics.]
2. There are heavy penalities for using the small mortars by high level FO, or other company FO. Sort of the opposite of the larger stuff. Yes, a company on the right flank might be able to call in fire from mortar in a different company on the left flank, but the chances of miscommunication must have been large. In practice, wouldn't they, I ask, not usually take such chances?
-
I tend to think some of the difficulties with terrain, and even the hedgerow, is intentional--FOW. I was fooled on an impassable hedgerow (University, left flank near the end of the board), but now I have learned. Never, I hope, again to make that mistake.
My guess is that BFC knows is player base:
1. Those salivating over getting Regiment size OOBs in a Kursk campaigns.
2. Those who argue over the location of the water containers on the tank models.
3. Current or recent military. (those who didn't think, like me, C2 was 1/2 a plastic explosive...wait...wait...see if they get it). [some of whom are now adapting to CMBN life]
And the rest. For the rest, I know BFC is not Blizzard, but it would not, it seems to me, to damage the brand and realism to have a campaign with a bunch of micro-scenarios like this:
Scenario 1: squad against a sniper in a building.
Scenario 2: squad and HQ against a 2 man scout team in a the woods.
Scenario 3: squad and HQ and MG against a squad...somewhere.
Scenario 4: toss in a mortar.
etc.
Throw in a back story, ala Saving Private Ryan, and make it seem as though they are picking up troops by winning along the way.
By 15-20 microscenarios, the player can move a couple of platoons around, with attached MG, artillery, and AFV platoon. Still ain't gonna beat Courage and Fortitude, but it is a start.
I got my 21 year old son through the tutorial firing range, but I knew I was not going to get him any further. Coming off Fallout 3, or Everquest 2, he just does not have the aculturation to understand a platoon sweep and assault with covering fire(now called Overwatch).
He could. The graphics are good enough, with reasonable soldier movements (and deaths). The urge to hunt is timeless. But how about a gentle ramp into CM2?--building to the future.
-
This AAR might influence me to buy this game.
I wandered in here from CMBN, interested in the idea of a WW1 simulation that actually workes. The AAR was fascinating, and raised dozens of questions in my mind about strategy.
And the German player: I incredibly sympathize. It would have taken veins filled with ice water to reach that far into France, have one set back in Amiens, and then set up a defensive position and go elsewhere. Maybe the right thing to do, but....if the pivot did not work, one would have asked oneself, "What if I had pushed a little harder?" Not to mention that your study of the French front was likely intense at that point.
Fortunately, this was only a game. What if that human impulse had cost real lives?
-
Very impressive. What I liked was the idea of infiltrating the platoon to the far right side. Even without knowing the German disposition, I think that is an excellent reading of the battlefield, and one I would be glad to try if I replayed the scenario.
But run the same plan 10 times, I wonder how many tanks would be lost, on average, with your battle plan. The AT guns for me got a knock out on each of two tanks on the first shot, and it seems you were fortunate with the Panzerchecks.
Perhaps in real life I would have been relieved of command: given only one go at this battle, I would have not have wanted the possible loss of all 5 tanks.
One of my regrets, actually, was taking my engineers to the bridge. I think the enemy artillery cut the wire (I...think), and my engineer platoon was decimated--losing that unit for me forever. Maybe I would bring one engineer squad, under smoke.
Waiting for my forces to be in better position for the attack would have been my choice, in any case. I'll take the draw, but wish I had tried the right flanking infantry, as noted above.
-
I do a few things to make CM:BN easier for myself. I trade flexibility for convenience. This is assuming playing as US, an attacking mission, and not much enemy armour:
1) Before the mission starts I use almost all the indirect fire assets available, including all the "on-map" stuff. Every mortar, every cannon. If there is a village or town where enemy might be, I use very large area circles on "harass" for maximum duration. If there are suspicious hedges in front of me, I use linear bombardments slightly behind them on "harass" for maximum duration.
The advantage of doing this is that the bombardments are usually accurate, harassing fire lasts a long time and I don't have to think about what to do with all those ****ing mortar sections.
2) I only advance with "ordinary" infantry platoons, ones with three "ordinary" squads in them. As much as possible I ignore the other assets in the platoon - bazookas, MG sections - until they're actually needed. Generally I keep one platoon per field; one squad on the left, one in the centre, one on the right, command squad slightly behind the centre.
I ignore the "complicated" weapons platoons and try to keep them safely out of the way until needed, unless I can spot good places to set up MGs.
The advantage of this is that I don't have to think about what to do with all those ****ing MG and bazooka sections until I have to.
3) If the advance hits anything hard, I bring up the MGs and bazookas. I point MG teams at anywhere bad guys have been seen and tell them to shoot. A lot. I try to move tanks up behind the infantry. I try to make sure that my tank can see (and be seen by) ONLY a) friendlies and
the place I want it to be shooting at, and to make sure that the tank is shooting at that place as soon as it comes in sight.The advantage of this is that I don't have to worry so much about moving my tanks independently and about all the many many things that make them dead because they always have a line of good solid bodies in front of their thin thin armour.
I usually beat the AI with small loss - not claiming any special skill as I don't play HTH! - and of course in practice I do more complicated "proper" tactics but I work from pretty basic basics and hopefully they may be useful to someone new to the game as they are to me.
Crude, but I like it, for CMBN.
Because........
pre-planned artillery is so powerful.
Hitting behind hedgrows, where the enemy is, is so tough during the actual play, due to difficulty spotting and seeing the spotting rounds. (not an issue with pre-planned artillery)
And the abundance of infantry AT--though I always like to keep infantry ahead of my armor, in all instances.
I have taken a lot of MG squad casualties by moving my MGs up too soon. Keeping them back, and spraying enemy positions heavily is probably the best idea.
I think my understanding of ammo loads comes from early war CM1. I find the tank and ammo loads generally very ample in WW2 American units--losing ammo due to death of troops seems to be to me more of a problems than losing it to firing it--again with 44 American units.
-
===Major spoilers===
My first, blind run through (elite difficulty) I got a minor victory - I was too cautious and left my run to the territory objectives too late. I wasn't happy with my performance, especially with my use of the artillery, and I wanted to try some things out, so I did it again, winning with a major victory.
Both times I started with a fairly sustained, planned 81mm mortar barrage of the small woods on the right. Even if wasting ammo, it seemed like an ideal spot for an ambush and I felt it was important to clear that flank (it's also a smallish, contained area ripe for an area barrage).
To start out I sent a two-man scouting party up to the bridge. Once they were in position and had spotted the barbed wire, I sent a team of engineers to blow the wire and the secondary FO to try and help spot enemy positions (the main FO I kept in the building, where they never came under fire). I set the 81mm mortars up right at the back to the far right. The 60mm mortars with their accompanying machine guns were placed in the field with long grass to the right where they have reasonable oversight of the right side for direct fire as well as suppression if there is anything left in the small woods. I also set up a couple of machine guns on the stoney mound in the ploughed field to the left. Remember to set close in cover arcs so they don't reveal themselves too early.
The tanks appear when it is still quite dark, so I lined them up in the open field to the right and moved them forward slowly until the were parked up under the trees for cover. Perhaps I just got lucky, but this popped the remaining two AT guns, both of which were knocked out for the cost of one tank (the same tank took fire from both AT guns). The 60mm mortars were able to provide direct fire suppression of these as well.
The main difference in how I played both games was in the use of the 105s. First I used them for smoke cover and firing on the forward defences, but I think it is best to use them to neutralise the troops on the hill. As the hill is the best position for oversight for the Germans, with bunkers and tree cover, it is logical that this is where FOs will most likely be. So the second time I forgot about smoke and used both 105 batteries to lay down linear barrages across the width of the hill - doing this I noticed a drop in the amount of shelling my side took (it also felt really good to give some back). Given this, I am wondering if a light-maximum barrage (if only with just one battery) would be best to keep them suppressed for longer.
Once the 105s started to fall I began moving the infantry forward in well-spaced teams eventually followed by the tanks for close support. The 81mm and 60mm mortars were kept for clearing the troops in foxholes and the reinforcing machine gun company was put in the same field as the 60mm mortars where they could suppress the entire right side. By the end they took some shelling but nothing too devastating after evacuating them after seeing the spotting rounds.
In the end I lost around 60 men I think, and stupidly one more tank to a shreck because I started to lose focus. I'm sure it could be done better, but I hope this might help.
Spoiler******************************************************
Very impressive.
In part, and I think this is not unreasonable, there is luck involved. Getting the two AT guns at a reasonable price, for example. (I lost 2 tanks)
Of course, it is nice to know that there are only two AT guns. Let's say there were 3, or 5--moving the tanks forward would be a disaster. Hence, after I lost 2 , I retreated the others--thus my infantry would have not close support.
And getting the German FO is wonderful.
My, sort of, point is that with FOW one has trouble knowing what the artillery has killed. Pushing ahead without knowing that could be a disaster. Given that, I am going to contend that a draw is reasonable conclusion.
But, going through University of Hard Knocks, and now on Bumper Cars scenario, the question is whether I can complete the campaign with my relatively decimated infantry.
My guess, without having played CMSF, is that the casualties in CMBN, necessary, would give a current NATO Blue commander angina.
-
University: did not replay it completely, went back to one save about 30 turns from the end. I don't think I understood the victory conditions well enough the first time. Shifted most of my stuff to the left flank, and got Minor Victory. I survive to move on.
The method to my madness on making these posts is so that new players on the board who have problems with Courage and Fortitude are not overly discouraged--since alphabetically it is early in the Campaign folder, one could unsuspectingly start it as a first campaign, and be crushed.
Both School and University are demanding. Perhaps they should be labeled as such (I found Over Hill, Down Dale, on the other hand, to be easy--which meant one did not know of what was coming later)
Sounds, from other threads, that BFC is thinking about the "difficulty" issue. In this case, I am not sure even adding units, or experience, would make things easy--just the shear micromanaging could be intimidating.
More like the grading for ski slopes? This is a "black diamond", and as long as one is aware of that, have a blast.
We do this for fun. In skiing, put me on a steep trail, and I am not having fun--I am miserable. We want, I think, to avoid putting CM2 players into surprising miserable situations.
-
Wombie, if you win School the first time through, I would, and maybe others would, be interested in the Spoiler. I was happy with a Draw.
-
Interestingly, I got them in a random/random tiny QB as an Allied player. They were great--all the extra mortar rounds, then a moblile MG late battle. I was very impressed.
[Did not do a cost comparison--but seemed to have plenty of forces for a successful attack.]
-
Well, this thread has evolved significantly from my OP.
Let me partially try to answer my own question, after some experience with the game:
1. If one can, there is the "flee in all directions" tactic, if one is observant enough to see the spotting round. I don't remember doing this as much is CM1. Am I wrong, or has something changed?
2. If unable to flee, I am learning to "hide" more often. In general, out in the open, it seems to me that the realism of following every projectile course in CMBN means that lying flat on the ground is highly preferable to kneeling (much less standing). From a micromanagement standpoint, that means not only putting in cover arcs often, but ending movements with "hide" commands more consistently--I am slowly learning, with my pixeltruppen being a bit annoyed at my previous ignorance. Unlike my conception with CM1, where "hide" to me meant something like "get behind something", here it seems to have a specific anatomical meaning--lie on your belly.
-
I was going to start a thread: Are pre-planned barrages too powerful? So, instead, I am glad to, rather, add to this thread.
Compared to CM1, pre-planned, TRP accurate pre-planned barrages are even more effective, in my opinon, because of the linear fire plan orders. The linear fire plans seems to triple (more or less) the abilities of artillery--so they can fire along ridges, or along forrest lines--much more efficiently than before. Then there is the anti-personel choice, the higher abundance of artillery in the '44 US army, and little overhead protection of current foxhole/trenches.
If one is confronted with mostly infantry, a linear fire order, paralleling he edge of the map, crossing the likely start area, would be horrifying.
This is not a reality issue, this is a general conceptual issue: I thought in CM 1 the concept was that the battle was after the initial barrage. The concept, again, is that withstanding the initial artillery barrage is...no fun.
Work arounds: give people artillery after turn one.
-
How about I am used to WW2 scenarios, never played CMSF, find Modern Warfare foreign, and find this campaign interesting...much like the campaign Blitzkrieg (?sp) in CM 1.
Did you play the next Scenerio, University, when you lost? I came close to winning it the first time, likely lost on casualies, and not have a new respect for the falling sun, but will have to have a second go at it.
-
Wow, University is tough, and long. I feel as though it is giving me a course in infantry batallion tactics. And despite my, "try to get it right the first time", 50 turns in to the 90 turn scenario, I suddenly realize I may not win, and may actually try it a second time.
Nicely done. Fair. Just, in my opinion, University is tough.
I think the hardest thing for me to learn is patience. 90 turns of WEGO is a long time--can't remember CM1 scenarios being so long. I think I probably push my infantry too hard--and use "Move" too much on these long maps, when sprints and resting may be safer.
-
Ok this mission is a pain in the a**. Spoilers Below:
This mission really fails as a fun mission. You are given hordes of units to control that you must filter through one little choke point. The enemy has craploads of artillery and you have no cover. Basically it is a meat grinder.
........
Pretty much for round 2, I'm just going to sit back and blow the hell out of the Germans with artillery for 1 hour 30 minutes, then move one guy up to the bridge near the end.
.......
All in all, horrible horrible mission. Thumbs down.
In my opinion, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the key [i don't think this is a spoiler] is looking at the situation prior to the start of the scenario. With open terrain, one is not going to get across it without killing everything in cover on the other side. Since that ain't likely to happen, particularly if one only likes to play scenario once, for keeps, I didn't even try.
Thinking in campaign terms, not scenario terms, my objective was to pound the other side, preserve forces, and get the bridge.
Result: draw 600 Allied to 516 German. I lost 24 KIA, 10 WIA and 2 tanks, Germans lost 46 KIA and 65 WIA. Could I have done better? Yes, if I had not been playing "blind", and knew the enemy set up. I won't go into Spoilers at this point. But I was quite pleased.
And was quite pleased at a scenario which rewarded restraint.
I enjoyed the scenario, and have been impressed by the design of the campaign thus far--clearly done by someone who has an enormous amount of experience, and wanted to do something subtle--also seems like a semi-tutorial in both artillery, and in moving largish infantry formations.
Do those of you who win "School" not get to play the "University" scenario?
the place I want it to be shooting at, and to make sure that the tank is shooting at that place as soon as it comes in sight.
please disallow pre-planned arty
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I agree with the sentiment of the original poster--though perhaps not a complete ban. I think it is as much an issue with the attacker flawlessly hitting likely defensive locations.
The flat bocage maps may be making this even more of an issue. If I am unlikely to be able to see anything during the scenario, it makes more sense to use my artillery as pre-planned bombardment.
Yes, of course, there was pre-planned bombardment. But:
1. Should it be in the scope of a CM2 scenario (or, to what extent)? This, of course, is subjective decision.
2. I think the linear bombardment ability is particularly devastating. It allows the only usual way of hitting behind a long Hedgerow, allows blowing up an entire hill ridge, and allows one to target the edge of a forest. Just taking out the linear pattern (yes, an arbitrary decision) would markedly decrease the likely benefit of pre-bombardment.
3. A counter to pre-bombardment on the defensive side is putting troops out in the open in foxholes--if foxholes were a more effective place than currently to put units in, that is.
I realize this is going over old ground. And I realize there are workarounds. But from a purely fun standpoint, the risk of being made miserable by being whacked on turn 1 will turn a lot of people off the game. (Granted, one could use a lot of pre-planned artillery and miss everything--but then you get the same result, that the fate of the scenario is determined on turn 1--not a very enjoyable prospect.)
It is just one of those things that, even if it only happens once, if you get thoroughly murdered with artillery on turn 1, either on offence or defense, certain people will throw the game out the window. And then not buy more modules. The people who play CM are clearly not into easy thrills--but we all have limits.