DavidFields

With the appropriate CM2 module, it would be a blessing to see his stories put into scenarios--if it was not too painful.

This brings up a touchingly poignant point. 40 years ago, when I started in this genre, you could have talked to the actual soldiers who fought at the time. Now, with almost vanishing exceptions, you can't. Yes, "war stories" from veterans have there memory bias--particularly survivor bias ("almost" being killed is a tale which can be told, unlike being killed)--but we have, unfortunately, lost 10s of millions (to take an arbitrary number) of WW2 vet stories, world-wide in the last 40 years. I think I can feel the loss of those stories even in this forum. A front-line soldier, generally, would only give you small unit action stories--because they would not know anything else. (My father took care of veterans, medically, when I was young, and then I went on to do so myself when older) A soldier joining with a couple of buddies to take out an annoying sniper on their flanks, was likely such a common action that it went uncommented on, generally, in the written literature. There would be just a dead body, or two, to make a report on, and the memories of the soldiers taking part. I would encourage even more personal intimacy with regard to the scenario design. CM1 had some--there were adaptations of the old TV series "Combat!", and Band of Brother scenarios, and I seem to remember some sort of small unit "rescue" scenario. Now that we have 1:1 representation, "units" are not just units, but represent groups of (simulated)people. Zoom in on them, in our small scenarios, perhaps? [posted on what, in the U.S., is Memorial Day]

The LMG advantage (or, at least, non-inferiority to HMGs) at short ranges is also what I found in my micro-scenarios. If the enemy non-MG can get an early generic contact--because of the higher soldier number and larger weapon--, and start area firing, the tactical situation turns against the MG. [i would guess this is historically accurate?]

Glad to hear this. And, as I am tirelessly (and perhaps annoyingly) repeating: it is not just what we in the forum "like", it is about getting new people up to speed. There is a "feel" to the terrain cover/concealment which is hard to convey--and which can be most easily seen at very small unit engagement levels. And who wants to spend hours or 10s of hours on a large scenario, and then find you misunderstood what flamethrower units could do, for example? (Can they take out concrete bunkers from the rear, for instance? If so, would the units inside the bunker come out, pistols a'blazing--I would like a tiny, fun, battle which would demonstrate their capabilities.) This is not just a grog or history issue, there are specific CM2 practicalities. I am trying to use the QB as a substitute for small scenarios. But I am hitting limitations. I am having, for example, a hard time getting the AI to put troops into defensive bunkers, so I can test the FT in the situations noted above.. I...I just don't understand the resistance in this area. Compared to the larger scenario/maps this seems to be near trivial to do.

So, I experimented with situation "B" that I described initially. I happen to like QB map 21, which happens to have engagement ranges < 200 meters, generally. That would seem to favor the squad, rather than the MG. So I picked a german HMG versus a Soviet 44 squad, figuring it was the fairer battle than the reverse situation. Briefing (to try to set the scene): Bagration! Two battalions of Soviet infantry have advanced nearby, by-passing non-significant resistance positions. But a German HMG still lurks on one of the flanks. Your squad is tasked with eliminating that unit so that follow on forces are not harassed. Forces: Chosen in QB was a German HMG. I seemed to have to pick an HQ with it. To minimize the effects of the extra weapons (I didn't mind the HMG being in command--and put the leadership variable at "0") I altered the German HQ stats to conscript and unfit. [try to invent a story in here--I know it would be odd, but it was a big war and a big front--hard to imagine anything not being possible at least once] This cripples, I hoped, the German HQ, and indeed it was placed by the AI such that it had no role in the battle. I left the Russian HQ behind. Unfortunately (for my purposes), since I had a generic contact at turn 2, the two 1/2 squads were not out of C2 the entire time. Lessons learned: 1. It was the first time I had messed with the unit attributes in the QB menu. I can now see a variety of ways this "messing" could be interesting. 2. I seldom, in the past, have used Hunt for infantry. The increased spotting did not seem to justify the slow movement and fatigue, since the defense was likely to spot them first anyway--and then fire at them while they are standing. But with a generic contact, moving toward that with good spotting seemed more useful than the usual quick dashes I usually do, which might lose the spotting when they are lying prone after their dash. 3. Though the Soviet's 2 1/2 squads took out the HMG, eventually, but it was a near thing because the exercise showed me how a 1/2 squad could be not dead, but effectively removed from battle. A short HMG burst caused a casualty with one 1/2 squad, and with the "tired" from Hunt, it was essentially removed from battle for most of the 30 minutes (I would not have been successful with a 10 minute limit.). The second 1/2 squad, the maneuver squad could not get a contact on the HMG, because there was no C2, and was almost put out of action by a hand grenade, as it snuck up to the unit (ahem...no C2, but of course our god-like view guided the second 1/2 squad). Again, an interestingly close exercise. 4. HMG vs LMG?: I mentioned the generic contact on turn 2. So...might a LMG actually be better in these close-ish engagement range, less likely to be spotted? (Or, no worse, which has resource allocation implications when planning a defense)? If a LMG utterly crushed a Russian 1/2 squad, who might never see it before it fires, I think the odds would be very much evened up versus the other 1/2 squad, particularly since the LMG could more rapidly re-position itself. Much learned, with only a very few soldiers. And this has rejuvenated my interest in the series.

Interestingly, when I chose "split" for the squad, the HQ splits out, also, so I have 3 units. There are some very subtle design/coding decisions here. [ahem...the more I look at CM2 at the "micro" level, the more I appreciate the intense work put into it.]

+1. Looks like buck shot out of a shotgun--and the opposing infantry is decimated.

I appreciate your comments. I am not trying to be critical. I am trying to be helpful. I know I can't do scenarios. Umm....I have still not figured out how to download things from the Repository and put them in the right place--and don't want to try, worried that I would mess up something. And, I want to suggest, the base game is what many/most of those who buy CM2 will deal with. But, putting 2-3 units on a map, especially since we now have master maps, would seem to be such a much easier job than the scenarios currently, which are excellently (from what I have seen) designed. [And, unless I am missing something, allowing the QB to allow the pick of a single non-HQ unit would be nice--though, again, I have a work-around which I may post next time.] My initial query stands: Would it be useful for CM2, and the genre, to put a few more easier rungs on the learning ladder? One can venture the answer "yes". Discuss. One can venture the answer "no". Discuss. Or, one could venture, "yes, but that is irritating, and we don't want to do it". [Rankorian peaks into a Peng thread] I can't imagine that is an overly offensive discussion.

So, when making a QB, I took a Soviet Battalion, deleted everything but a squad and a company HQ--which is as small as I could get. When I launch the QB, I have one unit. It has 12 soldiers. It is lead by Captain Reshetnikov, who, I think, has a pistol. The unit is listed as a platoon HQ. The platoon can be split. Is this WAD? It is perfect for my purposes, and if it represents a design decision, no doubt based on technical info, I want say....very impressive.

Yes, if I were not at a conference, that is what I would be doing. Role the same QB and take the defense. Again, it will be interesting to see if the small Russian AT guns can puncture the side/back of the Panther, and at what range (the grogs would know the answer to this already). I think it might be easy for the Russians, with the plinking of the small stuff ? making the crew bail, or the Panther back out, like when the Germans "bring down" a KV-1 early in CMBB (though the Panther moral may make this more difficult--again, another interesting thing which could be adjusted. [one slight issue--can I get down to one tank on the German QB...I can think of work-arounds on that issue, or it still might be an interesting battle] Again, there happens to be no "scenario creation" issue here--I am using the QB, and stripping out units, taking just a few minutes.

Hmmm....I don't see how this is really responsive, and I think I have gone way out of my way not to make this personal. I am describing, with some enthusiasm, relatively simple ways to possibly make the simulation more accessible to others, without taking anything away anything from those who would like the current scenarios/QB. Other people have threads stretching to Operational levels, and I have not seen similar complaints. Indeed, no one needs to do anything for me to enjoy this change in style--I have worked it out. But, I don't want this to be about me. I really want to help people. I am telling no one in particular how to design scenarios or how to play the QB. If you don't want to spend your time reading this thread, then don't. I really do not want to waste anyone's time. BTW, the playing the one tank against the AT/ATR gave me a much improved idea of the blindness simulated by the simulation--at least in this particular situation. I don't have the grog knowledge to know it what I experienced was accurate, but at least I have a better feel for this issue now. I also play a lot of simulations where winning is not the essential issue--or, one defines one's own challenges. In this most recent case, I snuck my Panther through the woods and into the rear of the enemy (still, not seeing much easily, even when shot at). If that turns out to be too easy, I would force myself to stay on the road when advancing (pausing more? Blasting suspected enemy positions more?--something I think I do too little.)

Micro-scenarios, proof in concept. Scenario C Sooo...as many of your likely know, the Soviets do not have Tank-hunter units, as I usually know them--or I don't know them when I see them.. So I pick a couple of 45 mm AT guns and 3 AT rifle units, plus HQ for the Soviets. Then I accidently pick Panthers instead of PkIV for the Germans. (I fibbed slightly before--who does not like Panthers?--16 and 16 attack and movement as I remember them in PanzerBlitz) The HQ unit I leave behind. Thus there is only one Panther-led by Oberfeldwebel Bruinstein. Ok.....place your bets...who is going to win. [Rankorian counts. A slight vote for the Panther.] Yes, the 45mm guns and AT rifle units are no match for the Panther armor. But the Panther is alone. Map 021--an excellent map. [Grandchild, not the one born today, but the one we are watching, asleep, as is wife] Things learned: Sometimes tanks can cut through forests easily, then, at times, they come against complete blocking terrain. This seems reasonably realistic. The command tank, which I left behind, had a radio, with a long, but not infinite reach. At 700 meters or so, in certain terrain, the command line turned dark red. Since the HQ commander had a -1 rating, that may have not have been bad. Unbuttoned or not? I chose unbuttoned, was fired upon at time 16 (out of 30) and buttoned, unbuttoned later, and my TC was shot. I was impressed that the AI could find and my Panther shot at things I could not see. Minor loss. 6 casualties on the enemy side, and one on mine. Fast and fun, fun, fun. The concept looks good.

So, I can set an enemy unit, in a QB, to become a reinforcement? If so, that is an excellent piece of information to have. I can then actually run a 1/2 squad against a sniper team or two--no HQs involved.

Thanks JasonC. And Apocal, your stuff sounds great. Why isn't it, to make myself an annoying person, in the base game, times 2-3? I hope I am making myself clear. I don't pitch this about what I want, exactly. I am a gamer. There are so many historians and military experts in this forum that my personal suppression meter reads "shaken" when trying to post here. Oddly, perhaps, this is about keeping the excitement I felt when I first played PanzerBlitz into the next generation. Alll day long, I have been thinking about "C" in my initial scenarios. Having a MkIV tank, my favorite, go through a town with two Soviet Tank Hunter teams in it. [unfortunately, I have to go to a medical conference for a few days, so my desires need to be delayed. And my sixth grandchild was born today, which involves being of some help to some young people--outside life does intrude] Tedium with "C"?: minimal. One unit. But plenty of "interesting choices"--which is what game designers are looking for. Buttoned or unbuttoned (with unbuttoned, partially, being bait to lure a long distance shot, which would reveal enemy location--but...at what cost?). What speed, and stopping for how long? Use the HE, blindly? At what. Change the weather--so getting off the road would be undesirable. Change the lighting--the time of day. Win/lose: fire up the QB/scenario again, with the AI picking, likely a new location for its units. Change maps--urban, trees, wide open, with different set-up zones. Too easy: add another enemy unit. Or shift to a weaker AFV. Too hard, take an enemy unit away. Or substitute a Tiger. Try an AFV with the defensive smoke, and see what, if anything, that would do. Change the morale of the crew, and/or the commanders abilities. Or think of the multitude of variations: an armored car versus to two anti-tank rifle units. The potential possibilities that I have just outlined in this one post.....very high.....and multiplied by the different armies, almost unimaginably high. And each time one starts, with, I hope 10-15 minute time limits, one is sitting there with one tank, and one tank crew--whose names and rank you will actually take the time to look at--a map with no contacts, and have those initial anxieties as one plots the first turn. I mostly disagree with the idea that at this granular level, the Tac-AI will not look good. With my micro scenario against the sniper, I was very impressed with the Tac-AI response. It was like watching a movie. I moved the units into position, and it was like I said "action" when the Tac-AI pivoted units in response to threats. [And, wow, Area fire against a generic contact in the woods, by my 1/2 German squad turned out to be highly effective--a lesson to me in itself] The downside in putting the first few rungs on the learning ladder into the base, shipped, game of every module is?

LukeFF: despite my comments, I don't entirely disagree with you. Like the Peng forum, though, he just seems to be a quirk of the forum. I was incredibly upset when, years ago, he weirdly eviscerated some new forum member for some...reason. He is just so odd, which he might even admit, and he could tell you, I think, the military forces in Albania for any given month of the war, that I consider him interesting.

9 soldiers versus 7 soldiers: I just tried to do the A. scenario I outlined above. QB, I took a Germany infantry unit, stripped out everything but a infantry squad and HQ. Took an infantry Soviet unit, stripped out everything but a sniper--but had to have an HQ. So, I picked a map with a small village. Split the German squad. But since the Soviets were going to have an HQ, I kept the German one. Even better back story: German platoon officer takes a few men and go after a sniper. (I split the platoon in half, and took the part that did not have heavy weapons) Interesting stuff: The platoon leader was Oberleutnant Berger. the half squad was Leutnant Krewel.(I thought that was fairly high up the chain of command, but I had never really looked at the rank of the leaders before). In short, I notices the terrain and the uniforms more. There was less need to keep saving--usually I need to save each turn, because re-doing it because of some trivial issue would be so painful. I better understood toe visual/voice range issues (the change in color of the red command line is brilliant) And I had a blast. Over in about an hour and half (the map was so large that 10 minutes was not viable, but I happen to make contact with the enemy units at minute 20 of the 30 minutes.) Fun. It was just darn fun. This is nothing about learning tactics, which I have some knowledge of. (having two "teams", I was able to use fire and maneuver elements--5 KIA and 2 wounded to no injuries on my side, but I was incredibly fortunate, and am interested in trying this again.) Still had to tell my wife "wait a minute", when family events intervened. I am going to change my tone a little. My concern is not just about the steep learning curve--though that is there. It is about serving a bite size portion of war so that the tedium is minimized. Yes, there are videos as to how to play better. But playing a scenario, and getting 10s of hours into it, and then finding that your did something basic incorrectly....that is not just an issue of a mulligan (just taking up golf, so the metaphor used in the forum already is very apt), it is about enjoyability. I "rolled" a QB recently, allied attack, tiny. Got a Soviet battalion, with AFV attachments. Granted, Probe is probably a better choice. Granted, that Soviet force is like a German Company. But.... "tiny"? I have looked at the first scenario of the Soviets. Yes, given this is Bagration, doubling the Soviets might be reasonable, and exciting to think about. But even in its smaller size, will I ever play it? (I loaded the tractor factory scenario in CMBB for similar reasons--just to see it, and to enjoy the forum discussion)

Well, I am glad the flamethrowers were not immediately launched at me--good sign. I have met Bill Hardenberger, nice guty, saw his site, and think that the base game would benefit from what he has designed. ME: I am not going to argue with you. I am only going to suggest that playing a scenario multiple time, for fun, would be preferable for some people than getting an hour or two into something and realizing that they should have done something different at turn 1. Well, ME, maybe I will disagree with you. I am talking about very simple situations, that in the current scenarios would be a less than 10 minute diversion, which would be the building blocks for larger scenarios. And, BTW, what is the big loss of time doing a 10 minute scenario? Might take me 1 1/2 hours--what does that say about scenarios 30+ times as complicated?

C. " I don't like the looks of this." Briefing: Because of some mechanical issues, your AFV fell behind the rest of the force. Now repaired, it is catching up to its unit. But is the town ahead, cleared by your forces hours ago, still empty of the enemy? Your objective is to get to the exit zone in the middle of the town. (Ideally, one would have a map whose edge went through the center of a small town, with an exit zone in the center of the town) Forces: you have a tank [or, imagine going through the list, any AFV]. The enemy has two tank hunter teams. Duration: 10 minutes. [Again, think of the different issues which can be involved. Sit with your AFV and spot for a few turns? Blast likely enemy positions? Unbuttoned, or not? Or, just dash for the exit zone. I have described each of the above scenarios as the human being the attacker, but one could also envision playing the AI n the defense, or H2H. Different nationalities, with their different infantry AT are going to feel different--and the differences would be interesting and instructive. You could also get the "feel" for the different spotting abilities of different AFVS, buttoned and unbuttoned, and even their different off-road abilities, if you put the attacker somewhere where there was no road] After playing the above scenarios for hours.....and one could have almost endless versions of them, particularly if all the modules had a variation of them, and some people might never want to play anything else......then.....then...the player might want to move to something like a platoon. With attachments and broken into sub-squad components, about 12-14 pieces, and with scenarios stretched to 30 minutes, that is, in cold reality, 30+ times more complex. The scenarios I outlined would show off the terrain, 1:1 representation, flavor objects, things like posters on the side of buildings, etc., so loving placed into CM2 but hard to fully appreciate with the size of the current scenarios. BFC has smart people, and they have likely considered and rejected moving in this direction. I could imagine some rationale like this: I am describing "Squad Mission" rather than Combat Mission. That the "C" in CM is essentially "company", scaled up or down, and that is what they want to stick with. But my response would be that if you want a new, younger, generation to start in the genre, and you want us in the older generation to do more than admire your digital Tiger tanks, and actually play the simulations, it would be helpful to give a more helping hand to get people engaged in CM2 than the current shipped edition does. I don't see how what I am proposing diluted the experience for those already enjoying your creation.

Firstly, how can one mention banning JasonC, as one thread mentions? Can one ban a deity, or do you consider him just a Titan. Secondly, I will likely buy any CM2 module/base game that BFC put out. Thirdly, I hope to make this post more useful than my CMBN forum meltdown of a month or so ago. And nothing I write is to counter anyone wanting battalion/regiment size scenarios or campaigns, and 3 hour time limits. I am just advocating something be added to CM2 to make it more newcomer friendly. With the version 3 engine looking so good, and a significant number of very complex scenarios and campaigns available, the hard stuff has been done. I am just a little puzzled that the easy stuff is not in CM2. My guess is that BFC would like to minimize the progression of posts in the forum that went like this: Post one: "Used to play ASL [or, my father did], looks great. Post two: "Gee, the learning curve seems steep" No post three. My suggestions: 1. Add 10 minute scenarios as an option. 2. Make maps which are about 1/2 to 1/4 the size of the smallest maps we have now. (not vital, but aesthetically useful). 3. Allow easy QB selection of squad, sub-squad, and individual vehicle choices, and allow those choices to be non-point driven (I realize this is more complicated than 1. and 2.) 4. Add scenarios like these: A. Sniper! Briefing: your platoon in being held in place by a sniper. The leader asks you to find and eliminate that threat. Forces: you have 1/2 squad, and the enemy has one sniper team. Duration: 10 minutes. [Note what can "play " with here, with such a scenario. You could get a "feel" for cover and concealment in different terrain--as the different AI plans could put the sniper in different places, like a building, or the woods, or behind a stone wall, etc.--even better if a "trigger" could move the sniper to another location. By moving the 1/2 squad, one could try different ways of moving--Quick dashes, or Hunt, and see what works well. Or try different amounts of time sitting in one place and spotting, versus moving. If one put a similar scenario in each CM2 module, or even better, a similar scenario for each nationality, you could notice the difference in the different nationalities with regard to sniper teams and infantry squad/sub-squad weapons. I could see playing around with a scenario like this for hours) B. MG! Briefing: your platoon in being held in place by an enemy MG. The platoon leader orders your squad to find the MG and eliminate the threat. Forces: you have 1 squad [+/- an HQ] Duration: 10 minutes. [Now, for those who must have it, you have a fire and maneuver element, by splitting the squad--which, unlike CM1, seems necessary and not optional. Think of all the variations one could introduce! The MG could be an LMG or an HMG. The AI plans could put it in different locations. You could design this for a city map, or a rural map. You grogs could easily put a back story on this. Don't call it a "training mission"--all scenarios are essentially training us to improve. And again, think about how this scenario would "feel" if designed for each nationality, or even change with the same nationality at different time of the war.] --To be continued

"At least with the current approach" seems to me the critical issue here. Hmmm.....bring back the "setup" phase from CM1, and allow the --defense-- essentially access to the Editor, locked for everything except putting in certain terrain or terrain deforming features? Then calculate (or, recalculate) LOS. I know...we are not supposed to even suggest anything at this point. But I am going to guess that 5-10 years from now, after finishing the last East Front module, you are going to sit down and say, "we need to get this foxhole/entrenchment/camouflage thing done". You shifted to 1:1 soldier representations--I can't think that this will be a bigger challenge.

PT, in all deference, as we are prone to write on this forum: I tried to read your defense of the difficulty--it is way too long for me to, enjoyably, read. Don't you (and this may be an issue) want to be enjoyable? As a former competitive chess player, MD with a Harvard medical sub-specialty degree, who took three semesters of calculus, reads the Economist, the New Yorker, and reads about particle physics..... And has played war sims since the 1960s, including all the ones you described in your post (I think), I am going to give the opinion: YOUR CAMPAIGNS ARE TOO HARD. PERIOD. Ok, we can discuss what "too" means, and, likely, disagree. But the concept of even a 2 hour scenario, with, say 15 minutes per turn, turns out to be 30 hours. That is without save-scums, and multiple replays, which would make each battle even longer. I don't mind an occasional re-do (due to making some stupid tactical error), but to go back 10-20 hours, frequently, is ...... campaign-breaking. Again, punt me from the forums. Heaven knows I have other things to do while on-call. I can scan Paradox forums, or, Zeus help me, find out if they have finally fixed Rome 2. The...campaigns here ...are....regrettably...too...hard. I am not here to beat you--you win. I give up. [looks around] (On a non-related note. Can't wait 'till I am hunting KV-1,-2s.) Way....too................difficult. And too long. Well...let me put this in a different tone: Consider designing some easier campaigns in the future, just as a change of pace.

As a non-former military person, I do not use Area Fire enough. I seldom run out of ammo, and seldom need to go to vehicles to get more. I am used to games....but this is less a game than a simulation, and real soldiers are not going to trade their lives to save a few bullets. This is not a FPS, where the truppen inject a stim pack to come back alive, or just rest a moment--where, then, the ammo is the critical choke point to success. Thus, my tactics need to improve, and that has been part of the steep learning curve for me with CM2. Losing ammo by having few people to carry it is a losing concept. Thus, to me, modifying the Area Fire may be an issue, but it is less of an issue than, essentially, a tutorial for the non-military to learn what true military tactics entail.

I would love the OP idea--though I would guess it would not happen for 2-3 years in any case, even being deliriously optimistic. Even with CM1, BFC did not see a market for such a series, though there were mods to get the German invasion of France in there--on a small scale. Crete was in CM1--my favorite campaign. I will go further: I would like to see the German invasion of Poland. But then we get to the issue of cavalry units--and that is likely a non-starter. As far as making the vehicles, is that the critical difficult step? Or is it that each time frame, and each theater, has peculiar game mechanics which need to be tweeked to make it feel realistic?--particularly to the Grogs of this series.

[bangs his head on the computer desk] Maybe I have been a dunce. I have been having trouble positioning towed AT guns. Maybe it is this: I drive up to where I want it, unlimber, and then move the gun to where I want it. But...gee...maybe that is the wrong sequence? Am I supposed to move the gun, then unlimber. "Unlimber" was not to me, obvious in its definition. [cue: Monty Python un-limb-er of the Black Knight]

OK, it is no secret that I find the campaigns extremely long and difficult--but persist. Two general questions: 1. If one can't figure out how to win a battle, or just finds it too exhausting to redo (the second battle), is if better just to go back to set-up phase, truce, and take the loss of the battle without taking loss of troops? In other words, does bloodying the AI count for anything, generally, in a campaign? ( I know, one is playing against one's own version of success, and it would be great if a victory could be won without saves, etc. But PT's campaigns take occasional losses, I think, as almost given--and it is interesting to see the different paths, not just the one where one wins every time) 2. I started the game after the 2.0 engine upgrade, but before the most recent patch and MG upgrade. Will I still have some bridge pathing issues that I hear about on later battles? Should I start all over? (Which would...ahem...give me a chance to improve my results)