DavidFields

I am a geriatrician (physician who treats the elderly). When I started my career, almost 30 years ago, there was always one question I could ask any new patient (this is in the US): Were you in Europe, in the Pacific, or have a reason not to serve? (because If you did not serve in WW2, you had a ready reason to give about that). Now, I have lost most of them, though when I have an alert new 90 some year old I can still probably understand where they were in the war if they were fighting in Europe. [early in my career, I did have a WW1 vet, who had been gassed in that war, but still lived into his 90s] When CM2 came out, I asked a similar question to the OP, because it seemed too much of a port from CMSF, modern war (that has, I think, changed). But I will make one qualification about trying to get the average WW2 vet to explain his experience: if they were young, inexperienced, they were usually just trying to stay alive. Food. Rumor. What your buddy told you. Getting home. Proud, mostly, and mostly putting it in the past--the ones who were not on anti-psychotic because they still had nightmares about German attacks. There is a flavor about WW2 combat which may be hard in the future to capture because those who fought it will be gone.

Combatintman, I was always surprised by the lack of comment on scenarios, also. I tried to get something going about them in Red Thunder--unsuccessfully. My approach to the scenarios is to start with the smallest and work up. With that strategy, I got to Assault, and not even to the end of that scenario, in RT. My suggestion--made with perhaps annoying persistence--is that they include tiny scenarios, as in 2-3 units on each side, to hook people in. It could be "StarCraft" style, adding new units with successive scenarios, and with some [fictional--though ideally based on some real incident] story. That would lead people to scenarios like yours, "pay-off". At least CM1 had "Band of Brothers" and "Combat (the old TV show). But...I will stop and disappear again. I don't like being annoying.

1. The T34/85s are fun. Mobile. Not a SU-Monster, for sure. Not uncommon. Reminds me of a Panther, or even more, an early war MK-4. By this point in the war, the T-34 part was mostly under armored. But as an infantry support tank, such as in this scenario (and those types of scenarios are my favorite), it is very good. 2. I have seldom been able to spot a German AT during my tinkering. That is delicious. The guns are far enough back, and in good cover, that I can have one of my tanks blow up and still not see where the fatal shot came from. This puts the AT units back as an important unit. (I still don't know where they are. I won't load the other side and look--that would be too boring.) 3. Tied to that, the inaccuracy of the mortars/artillery seems much more realistic than the initial CMBN launch. This raises the cost-benefit analysis of trying to take a gun, or a forward observer, out--no longer mortar/sniper, more shells have to be allocated. 4. Tied with that is that even a direct hit on a gun might not silence it. If even one crew member is still left, the gun could fire/kill. Since you only have 3 T-34/85, unless you do something "gamey" like blast a position, move a tank forward, but if it gets hit reload the turn and blast the position more--again, to me that would be boring--you can't be sure that a gun is knocked out, and you don't have enough armor to "test by seeing if the AFV will be blown up". The result is that you have to respect the attack lanes which are denied to you by AT guns. Again, I spent multiple hours thinking how to "break" the scenario by taking out enough AT guns to let my armor roam wild. Couldn't do it--at least, not in a fun way. The flanks are covered. Great. Have to go up the middle. The scenario briefing basically says that is what he wants you to do. The construction of the scenario backs that up. Fine. I actually like that much better than having a deceptive briefing--I know people sometimes try to be clever with deceptive briefings, but I am not usually a big fan of that. The basic objective is to cross a creek and take hill 400. But note the hill just before the creek, and overlooking hill 400. Note the paths in the dense forest on the hill. The scenario designer has spent a lot of time constructing a map with all those interlocking forest paths. Probably will be of some use? I also like how the artillery is not dominant in this game, at least in the early part. Initially you get two 82mm mortars. The one "gamey" thing I did was set one of them to "harass", maximum, with a delay, into the German rear, near the burning building. That is to try to throw off the well-advertised AI counterattack. After much agonizing, I left the TRPs in their initial placement. I am not sure that is optimal, and it is the kind of thing that can have me agonizing for a long time before I proceed with my first turn, but, again this is good to me, I don't think their placement/artillery will be the crucial factor in this scenario. To me, the "gamer" mind is one sort of style. At times, when I really begin to think about the death involved, I have to step away and take a break. But what I want is a challenge, sufficiently immersive in reality, and then a narrow win. No struggle = no fun. But, for the fun, eventually a narrow win, generally, is important--even if I have to define for myself what is a win.

I have mentioned this scenario before. But after tinkering with the scenario, very intermittently for months, I wanted to write more about it--not as a historian, or a military person, but as a gamer, who is looking for a good game. Some people may blast though a scenario, getting perhaps a big victory, and then move on. But I like to savor the work that went into the scenario's construction. I plan multiple posts, and no pictures. This will be retro and conceptual. You can fire up the scenario to see most of what I am writing about. First, to me the scenario is a "puzzle". I mean that in a positive sense. If you play this scenario and get a big victory the first time, I am going to say you, even if great, were lucky. You cannot, I don't think, look at the scenario for the first time and know what approach, of many possible approaches, is going to be successful. There is just too much unknown, and unknowable, about the German force and the location of each unit of the force. The scenario usually shows you some shadows initially of AT guns and a few other units--which is clever. But the locations are vague. I tried more than a dozen hours trying to attack down the right flank. I finally realized the scenario was not built for that approach to be successful. Indeed, I am sure there are many people who very much dislike this type of scenario--where the designer seems to have some approach in mind. But if the puzzle is interesting, so is the scenario. I think the puzzle is interesting in this case. The reason for these posts is to make the scenario even more interesting for players. Even with the information I am about the give, it will still take much time to operationally move and use the units involved. And people can find out how to improve, and comment on the improvement, about the approach I will be describing. Next post: general issues.

You are exactly correct--and I almost put that. (I just thought Panzerblitz was a more interesting word, and FPL is 3 letters, not 2, and that the emphasis of the CM title is a certain offensive, not the leaders of the offensive. But, as I said, you are correct. The big game difference between the two games, IIRC, is that Panzer Leader had opportunity fire. This kept units from just running from woods to woods, which made the first title often be referred to as "Panzerbush") We have come a long way in 40 years--the computer now rolls the dice.

Are we guaranteed that all the footage seen was from that offensive? What is the tank at approximately 1:41? There is some "stuff" behind the turret--a rectangular bulge--which looks non-WW2.

It would have been a clever allusion to the history of tactical WW2 gaming, at least in America, to name it Combat Mission: Final Panzerblitz.

Yes, though I'll bet there was a lot of thought at BFC before picking the title. And when I think of alternatives (given they seem to want a 4 letter abbreviation), their choice looks better. Combat Mission: Reich's End --would be better for the sequel to Red Thunder Combat Mission: Bastogne to the Elbe. --descriptive, but maybe not as catchy Combat Mission: Hitler's Gamble --probably one does not want that man's name in an internationally released title. And the title eventually given to the BB assault --is-- inelegant and almost trivializing. "Battle of the Bulge" now often meaning attacking your weight problem. So, maybe "Final Blitzkrieg" will catch on. I'll bite. Are BFC titles translated into German, and, if so, is Bewegungskrieg what they will use?

Ok. I guess I am just asking for an explanation of the name. I thought "Blitzkrieg" was a very specific attack doctrine, which can be explained better on this forum by those other than me. Is the title referring to the assault commonly know as the "Battle of the Bulge"? If so, was that really a blitzkrieg? For one thing, the air power, as evidenced by Stuka's early in the war, was not, I don't think, a factor. A surprise attack, yes. But neither the earlier attack into Poland or France was truly a surprise, And thought the particular avenue of attack into France was surprising, I did not understand that as a particular "Blitzkrieg" aspect--the term being uses as a particular way of using one's combined arms forces. I can't imagine the term is being used for the Allied's advance into Germany--which was methodical. And at this point in the war, I thought the Russian's, and thus the Allies, had already found the counters for "Blitzkrieg", including defense in depth. I realize that one of the criticisms of German military thinking was not to adapt to those counter measures, but I thought by the "Battle of the Bulge", Blitzkrieg was not really a viable option for them operationally to pursue. [Again, I am feeling old, and that WW2 reality is fading.] But I am very willing to understand otherwise. I

Superb. I liked the use of force. The Tigers defeated the initial force on the right flank. (yes, this was a gamble--could have lost key units to a lucky shell)(understand why going left flank would be attractive, though the OP did screen that side well) The infantry and non-Tigers pursued the fragmented remaining forces. Simple infantry assaults on tanks were not very effective, but panzershrecks were. Nice demonstration of German TDs. I would be interested in what BH and other experts thought of the conceptual plan. Can't imagine actually taking the time to actually play the scenario, though. Took them 5, my guess is very dedicated, months.

Steve, I still do not understand. While giving us the big fights, why can't we have the small ones-- like "Combat" the old TV series?

Agree with JasonC. I can only presume that there is some corporate strategy which is moving the simulation in this way--such as trying to sell it to some military or other large entity. I can't understand it otherwise.

Just finished watching the video of the first battle. To state what is likely obvious: you are very good at this stuff. That you "happen" to have the right stuff in the right place when the unexpected occurs is no accident.

I completely agree with Rison/Chad post #15. But this point has been made so many times, to a usually very responsive company, with so little result, that I have decided there must be some real structural reason it is not being done. Again, I also believe the first time through a scenario is the most exciting run. My calculations, with Wego: A 30 minute fight, taking in real time 15 minutes a turn, decided by turn 20: Takes 5 hours of real time to play (plus the initial planning time--which can be the most enjoyable part.) Can conceivably be done in one setting. Or, even though the first run through can be the most fun, if one really screws up, and finds that out 10-15 turns in, one could go back and replay the first turns with only a few hours lost. An hour fight, decided by turn 50, say: Takes, for me, about 12 1/2 hours. This will involve multiple days, and re-orienting oneself (like re-sitting down to a puzzle) each session. Find out that you messed up something 1/2 way through...maybe something not obvious, and maybe it was just how the terrain/forces turned out that made my action an error, and artillery issues can be particularly a problem.....yes, yes, I can take the loss. But, hey, if we are going to retry the scenario to try to get the win, 12 + hours re-hashing it is a bit much. Let's not mention the 2 hour battles, where people need every one of the 120 minutes. And let's not mention that if there are more than about a reinforced company of troops, given all the squad splitting, TA, way-points, checking command (I like the ~ hint I recently ran across), 15 minutes is way too optimistic for me to make a turn. I know, there are some incredibly fast movers/players. I start thinking I am some mentally "slow" or odd person. But then I see a thread like this, which pops up regularly.....I read the explanations....I still don't get it...but there must be a real problem/block/business issue or absolute corporate resistance on this issue.

I have been messing with this scenario for awhile, and I wanted to mention that it is one of my all time favorites. Very clear briefing. Good intel at the beginning. Does not seem to have gimmicks or puzzles. Just an...assault. For discussion (and, of course there are spoilers-like, but doubt that is an issue). Did you go to the right or the left as the Soviets? I went to the right, but could see a very different, interesting battle going left. Use your tanks as taxies, or use them for overwatch? I used mine for overwatch, but it was painful to get all the infantry to the front. Though I did it some on this battle, it takes a gun to my head to ride exposed infantry units on tanks or trucks near the front. Sometimes it works, but I feel like an incompetent when it does not. How much of your initial artillery did you turn one set for as a target--albeit with a delay? I did that with all my off-board mortars. One of the big reasons I liked this battle is that I though it was winnable/playable on the initial try. I don't like having to know where the enemy troops are. Totally clobbers the immersion for me. I htt the hill, on the right side, and the village/crossroads behind it. Again, not quite completely finished, but very pleased with this battle. Finally, I save with the number being the number of turns left (ie, with a 60 minute battle, my first save is 060, and I go down from there). On easy scenarios, I may make saves like 060-045, so I don't have to delete so many saves later. Is that something others do?

For me, this is not about what you or I think, but looking at the market, and potential market for CM2. I would look at is from the idea of how to triple, or quadruple, or raise to a factor of 10, the number of sales, without compromising the fidelity of the series. I find it hard to imagine that more than 1-2 people ever won that Kiwi scenario on the first try--I am not going to say zero, because there always seems to be some super gamer somewhere that never loses. If you can't rate the difficulty, that does not mean no one can. And if you wouldn't like a rating system, try imagining those people who would. Even little blurbs in the Designer's Notes will be helpful "Though there are few units, there are significant tactical challenges here, at it will likely need to be played more than once to succeed." Or, in the Designer's Notes, and list of specifically more specific "spoilers" the player could roll down, with the last ones being very specific on what will likely work. Otherwise, as it is now, if a player has trouble with a battle, there is no help. Even the forum comments on remarkably few of the battles. That is because, and I will be happy to be corrected, most of the battles are played by very few players. And I would be very interested to see any estimations on how many customers ever finished --any-- of the CMFI campaigns.] [Ah, I see the "Invasion of Gela" campaign was also in there. Probably what you meant when you have said you had training battles. But the first battle, labeled as "tiny" would, I estimate, take a newcomer 8+ hours to run through once. And if that customer did not succeed, and did not have fun....that customer is probably gone forever. Just messing with the UI and camera controls is an, unavoidable, issue. Do we really need to enter the concept of "fire base" and "over watch" to a gamer who, literally in the terms of the CM2 universe, does not yet know how to shoot a gun? No intro to "section", "squad", platoon? And who below the age of 35, "follows along in the manual" for any game.....or car....or electronic device? In my opinion, you need to hook the customer, and then teach them, not rely on the other way around. Content? I estimate CM2 has, conservatively, very conservatively, about 1500 hours of content. But with the changes in the mortars/MGs etc, the initial CMBN/CMFI content obviously needs to be changed to adapt to them, as a priority, or it will be a continuing liability. The Module/Family/update model may have been financially reasonable, and I have no doubt it was (especially after the trauma of CMBB), and that is good, but, I don't know if this was realized at the time, that requires that not only the engines of the Families be updated, but there should be a simultaneous update of the battles/campaigns reflecting those engine--most importantly the under-the-hood stuff, not so much the command lines and eye candy. My alt-game is EU4. I know steep game learning curves, and about games that have to bring new people in and still satisfy the veterans (I came into EU at about 2.6) But CM2 is incredible. The under-the-hood physics, and the tweaks to it to achieve "the feel", the modeling the AFVs and soldiers, the graphics--though, the graphics are never the big issue for me, hence the other game I follow. I just strongly disagree with some of the marketing philosophy, which seems to be tied to scenario design philosophy. If sales are booming, and the above does not make sense, please ignore me--I will be pleased. Really. This is, admittedly, not a real life or death issue.

I agree with both your paragraphs. I am just noting that someone relatively new to CM2 could accidently pick the smallest scenario, as small = smaller number of units to move, and be in for a frustrating time--and have no idea the battle was not typical. I actually become sad thinking about that. But that goes to an old issue, often raised, of labeling/grading battles according to likely skill level needed. Even if imperfect, I think that would be hugely helpful, and very popular--and that you would find an initial craving for easy or very easy battles. The game itself, to my knowledge, does not reference the Bill H site--possibly, with his permission, they should. [by what measure can one currently judge the difficulty of a battle if not by size? Of course, the initial CMBN was only sortable, IIRC, alphabetically. But then that meant I did "Courage...." before "The Road to ....", which was likely the wrong order to go with]

With the 3.0 engine upgrade, I thought I would try a CMFI/Gustav battle. I hardly played the series--the posts on the board about the campaigns seemed disheartening. So, I picked the smallest battle, which was this one.......seemed familiar from the boards....searched and found this thread, and once again railed at the marketing issue of having a new, or relatively new, person try the series and run into something like this. "Teaching someone how to lose" is a poor, in my opinion, business strategy. It accounts for, in my opinion, the initial flurry of forum posts when a new module comes out, then some posts on "challenging", "great, challenging battle" posts, then....silence, and very few battles talked about on the forum. Because, I will posit, after the incredibly hard "challenge" people either rage-quit, or rationally decide that such brutality is unfun. I consider this series the heir to PanzerBlitz/ASL/CC/CM1, and attracting 16-30 year old gamers would seem to be important. Thus one would have fun, easy, initial battles, and then lure people into learning WW2 tactics and history. If that is not important to BFC, I respect that judgment. But......I did enjoy seeing that artillery is now not "sniping". That spreads for 81 mm are more like 100 meters rather than 10 meters. And the MG fire feels better. Not that I came close to winning this scenario...yet...or probably never. And I don't like the CMSF like walls around the farm. I have been to Italy--it does not look like Bagdad (since, among other things, the Ottomans did not succeed in taking Vienna in the 1600s). But it raises this issue to me: since so much about the engine has changed since CMBN 1.0, and I am thinking about the under the hood stuff, wouldn't it be reasonable to have the battles/campaigns updated, as a decisive issue, to reflect these changes. This, it seems to me, is more important to pay for than a battle pack--and I would pay. Otherwise, they are useless, and all the play-testing that went into them deceptively unhelpful.

OK, will go with the obvious: Take the paratroopers from MG, put them into Normandy, and do the inland D-day airborne landings.

OK, I will bite. I would like to see a campaign that one could unreservedly send a player who is brand new to CM2 and know that person would have fun and begin to learn the basics. For example, the possible briefing for battle 1. Lieutenant Richardson stands up to talk: "Alright, you wet-behind-the-ears recruits. We almost had a disaster yesterday when squad 1 did not communicate with squad 2. Remember, just because YOU see something does not mean All of us see it! You have to COM-MUN-I-CATE. Keep on those radios and keep linked up to me and the other squad. Now, in 30 minutes, I want squad 1 to lay down some suppressive fire on that house over there on the right. Squad 2, I want you to go through the forests on the left, circle behind that pill box, and blow it open from the rear. Squad 2, if you encounter some enemy over there, back off, and call in mortar fire. I don't write so good, so no one get killed, so I don't have to write one of those #%#& letters to your parents" [There will be a small enemy team in the left woods] [The scoring criteria will be weighted toward very low casualties] Lessons, hopefully, to be gleaned from this exercise: 1. A beginning understanding of relative spotting. It is a great idea, but takes newbies time to adjust to. One can read about it in the manual, but it is not the same as experiencing it. 2. A beginning understanding of calling in artillery. In battle, not a training exercise, so as to be more exciting. 3. Learning how to blow open a bunker from the back door because...god help us...it is fun. Maybe gunning down the bunker survivors when they flee should not be fun.....but CM2 is not an amusement park simulator. As an added bonus, this is a good skill for a newbie to know, because otherwise those bunkers can be very perplexing when you first run into them. 4. A very beginning of understanding of suppressive fire, to be expanded upon in the following battles of the campaign.

I think the OP suggestion is excellent. Think of the Fog of War situation now with tanks continuing to fire at AFVs, not knowing that they are already Knocked Out. The OP suggestion would not be much different, and also would be, I think, realistic. As a gunner, why would you stop firing when an enemy tank pops smoke?--for a few seconds you know almost exactly where the enemy tank is--the tank is where the smoke is. You also know the enemy tank is in trouble, and may be somewhat panicked. Thus an excellent target. And with WW2 tanks being less nimble than there modern counterparts, getting those gears engaged and grinding into reverse was no small matter. A 1-5 second delay in losing spotting would make smoke seem less like a magical shield. My guess, though, is that this is more difficult to code than we might suspect, or it would otherwise already be done. This goes to the idea of the AI, and Tac-AI being programmed to sort-of-knowing where the enemy is when it loses spotting, and acting on that. It is probably somewhat balancing that the AI and the Tac-AI have the same weakness in that area, with the human player being having the advantage of being able to override the Tac-AI and at least order area fire (though we are not allowed to specifically target the smoke, or a specific forest area, for example--probably it would give the human player too much of an advantage over the AI?).

I don't recall a battle I have played which had aircraft, because most people know the call-them-in method was ahistorical. But, like the Naval Ships in CMBN, there is the fun factor. Somewhere in the war, there was likely at least once a "Saving Private Ryan" final battle scene, where the plane streaks over the battlefield and blunts an armor offensive. Giving the player the opportunity to perhaps recreate that is probably...fun. Unrealistic dead bodies, no civilians, some of how off-board artillery is handled, the entire concept of being able to command all your forces in detail....many decisions were made which are not realistic.... And having planes be always hazardous, so as to "teach" players how bad CAS was would not be, I think, a good marketing move. So I am glad they fixed the planes for CMBN/FI in the latest patch.

Wow...wow...."poisoned"....ever think that maybe a mistake in execution/presentation occurred, learn from it, and be appreciative? In my opinion, hard does not equal unfun, easy does not equal fun. Realistic can be fun. But the attitude behind many of the scenario/campaign designers is, frankly, astonishingly unfun. Great people though they all may be, and understanding this is a generalization. BTW, whoever did the CMRT scenario Assault--nice job with a clear and interesting briefing, pre-battle subtle info on the battlefield, and economical and clever battle situation. I have read PT's explanation of his philosophy of design. Besides what I disagree with, as I recall, it was about 40 lines of un-indented text. It is unfun to even read! Now, a campaign which broke down the German defense elements that JasonC describes. Put them together in a sequence so that a reasonably adept Soviet player could win the first time through (it's not that I don't like replays. I don't like it if the only way one can win is by knowing the enemy forces. Dead of the Night is very elegant, fun, and replayable.) Give hints to the Soviet player, perhaps, to make success more likely--not to deceive the player. Give them enough forces to win--the Soviets did win, even against those German tactics. Vary the difficulty from easier to harder in the campaign. (I was stunned when someone made the obvious, to me, suggestion that campaigns should be ranked in difficulty according to their hardest battle and someone on the design staff ?disagreed?) To me, JasonC has handed you a conceptual framework for some fascinating campaigns. Educational, incidentally or not, but also entertaining--as much as war and the dying of soldiers can be--which is not always, and sometimes I need to step away for awhile. But it is ultimately about the projection of power and the, sometimes vain in multiple senses, uses of intelligence to project that power. Yes, per my sig, everyone has inherent worth and dignity. But the poutiness is unbecoming. Read. Learn. Improve. And this is not about my CM2 gaming skills, in my opinion. (or me reading, learning, improving--I am on this forum constantly to do just that) It is about other's ability and enjoyment. No, I don't develop scenarios/campaigns. I just upgraded my CMBN/CMFI, so as to help Battlefront to be supportive. I don't want to inflict emotional anguish--to the very fiber of my being that is not me-- but I fervently wish to see a different campaign design philosophy so as to generate a larger, and even new, base of interest in WW2 tactical warfare. In that, and others could disagree, I see myself as very pro Battlefront.

This, plus the FPS comment. My understanding is that most soldiers become somewhat attached to their particular weapon--which they have maintained and know how to use it. The idea of picking up another's gun, much less of a different type than one usually uses....I am sure it happened, but my guess is that it would be an outlier. Maybe for the heavy weapon in the squad.....maybe....but to take an SMG off of a dead body and immediately use it effectively....would take a "presence of mind" which might not be common. And the tone of the OP? Even if there were a CM2 problem, I am not a fan of the approach. (and think the responders have been admirably polite)

Curious. Since they are both WW2 simulators, one would think that balance in ASL would be approximately equal to balance in CM2. And both were trying to simulate reality, not some cartoon version of it. So, for example, a German platoon, with a mortar, should have similar firepower characteristics in both games. Besides this issue of making good maps, does anyone have a sense of what in the portrayal of the weapon systems was different. Or, more controversially, which was closer in there simulation to real life?