Field Marshal Blücher
-
Posts
2,040 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Field Marshal Blücher
-
-
Just a note: I see under the "Best rated files in the last 90 days" there are two campaigns, "Devils Descent" and "A Bridge to Close". I'll assume both are against the AI and get to setting one up.
Yes, both of those are intended for human vs. AI play.
-
Hi Erwin,
Very useful feedback. Seems that if I use the "exit unwanted units" idea in the future, I need to make them way smaller and in places that you'd need to deliberately move them to. Sorry about that. I thought the setup zone was invisible to the arty spotter, but I guess there were a few spots he can see.
-
I stand corrected. However, I think route viability depends on one's experience of bogging and immobilization. Since I experienced 30% of my tanks going out of action every scenario even when moving SLOW on roads, that definitely encouraged me to choose what seemed the shortest route with the least cross-country travel.
Yeah, I can see that. Again, your bogging experience must have been incredibly annoying. I won't make that mistake again, rest assured!
-
I have noticed that Vulture has found almost the exact same attack plans as I used when I played these scenarios. That's a a bit of a shame as it implies only one logical course of action - and that limits replayability.
Note to designers: Try and create scenarios where there are at least two equally possible attack plans.
And again, I will reply: this is not the route I took while playtesting it. There are at least three viable attack routes I can think of for this map.
-
Much brighter now..looking good.
What's the purpose of removing unwanted units from the map in this campaign?
In every mission you get trucks, and in some you get halftracks. The player may decide that they clutter up the map too much, so if that's the case they can just send them to the rear.
-
Where can I get this campaign? I don't see it in the repository.
Nice aar btw. Fun to read!
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1572
It's there.
-
Also, this doesn't work in WEGO, but if you're fast in RT you can cancel the order as soon as the explosion happens.
-
Glad you liked it! This scen was definitely meant as a change of pace, so I'm glad that worked out.
-
Out of curiosity can you poll your testers to find out how they moved their armor? On or off road and what speed?
Hmm, I lost most of their usernames. I can tell you what I did though: 99% of the time I used FAST move. I don't think I ever moved them SLOW, QUICK, or NORMAL, and I maybe used HUNT and REVERSE for the remaining 1%.
BTW: Why did you eliminate the engineers (at least for the 3rd and 4th scenarios I have played)? I know my engineers were alive and even had a couple charges left after the 2nd scenario.You didn't split your forces, right? In that case I did it because the terrain was more open, and less in need of engineers. Your mileage may vary. I honestly never used engineers to blast holes for tanks in my playtesting, only infantry.
-
Possibly thru bogging/immobilization in earlier scenarios I lost 2x234/1's. But, your briefing maybe should be edited to allow for the fact that one won't get the full complement of whatever due to losses in prior scenarios.
Noted.
That should definitely have said "2 sections of" instead of "4."I just received my reinforcements and I am down to 3 Panthers and 2 Pz IV's. None of the tanks have been KIA, all but one were immobilized by wet terrain in prior scenarios, (one lost 2 crew).I really recommend changing the weather to "Dry" for your otherwise xnt and fun campaign as losing so many units to conditions beyond my control and despite my very best efforts to use roads etc. is frustrating/irritating and not conducive to gameplay value/enjoyment.
(I suppose you could rationalize it and say that the losses are due to Allied ground attack aircraft, but then why not have aircraft?)
I'm just so sorry to hear about all of the trouble you're having with bogging.
I didn't have nearly as many problems when I playtested it, and none of my beta testers mentioned it as a major problem either. I honestly don't know what to say. Screwed by the random number generator? Or was I lucky? :confused: -
But again, won a Tactical Victory even after all US surrendered around 12 minutes to go. This lack of victory levels that mean anything... Is that a design issue, or does the game system make it hard/impossible to provide meaningful victory levels?
No, that's mostly a design issue. Honestly I just didn't think it was that big of a deal.
Note: At start of 4th scenario briefing says that one will have "four 234/1's plus 3 Pumas," but I only got two 234/1's (plus 3 Pumas).Have you lost two 234/1s? There should be four there.
-
The other issue is that as in the first scenario there seems only one reasonable plan to follow. I used engineers to blast vehicular holes in the bocage on the right flank and sent a couple Co platoons and 2 Panther and 2 MkIV's towards the large buildings to the right - expecting them to be defended. They were surprisingly not. (I suggest placing at least an MG, sniper, AT team or squad in those large buildings if only to slow down the German player.)
But once again, only having one clearly superior axis of advance limits replayability.
Heh, just like in the first mission, this wasn't the route I used when playtesting . . . there is another one.
-
(WEGO Warrior) Completed the 2nd scenario and it was as much fun as the first, and quite different. Game auto ended with a few turns left. Won a Tactical Victory, but I thought I did better and have no idea what the US did to get a 500 point bonus.
Re: Tactical Victory: in this campaign, don't worry about the level of victory. I think the best you can do in any scenario is Tactical Victory, so consider that a Total Victory for yourself!
Re: Enemy Bonus: The "Bonus" Parameter is a points bonus that that side gets regardless of what happens in the game. It's an easy way to set up what the player needs to to get a win: get enough points over 500 and you win it!
Issues: I chose earlier to concentrate my forces and go for the village rather than the woods scenario. However, the 2nd inf company was wasted. While I used all the armor for support, the 2nd company was basically left sitting in the rear while 1 Co did the entire job. I don't think the map is large enuff for 2 companies of inf and I would have probably suffered unnecessary casualties just cos there would be so many extra targets for the US.Good to know. If you stay concentrated, you can expect a wee bit of overkill.
It may be wiser to split ones forces when one is asked. However, due to excessive bogging of the armor, it would be a lot harder to win with half the number of tanks.Interesting perspective!
Re Bogging... Caution: One can QUICK move wheeled vehicles all over the place in wet conditions and I don't recall ever seeing one bog. Tanks, esp German on the other hand, bog and get immobilized so often that you would think that nations would have abandoned tracked vehicle designs and converted everything to wheeled vehicles since in CMBN they can safely speed anywhere in any wet condition. I use SLOW almost all the time now with armor, and there still seems to be a 30% chance of bogging/immobilization in any damp/wet conditions even on roads.Interesting--I didn't experience very much trouble with bogging during my playtesting, and I mostly used "FAST." I suspect the bogging mechanics may need looking into if the wheeled vehicles are better about avoiding bogging than the tracked vehicles.
Thanks for the feedback, Erwin!
-
Note edits to my original feedback post re 2nd scenario "Designer Notes" when I tested the SPLIT KG option and my findings re dismounted vehicles not appearing in the 2nd scenario.
Thanks for the edits. I frankly have no clue about the missing 234/1. When I get a chance I'll take a look at the narrative for that mission.
-FMB
-
Some feedback re this Campaign:
1) Just completed first scenario and enjoying it immensely. I love the decisions one has to make to decide what to do re the 2nd scenario. Well done!
Thanks!
2) Slightly troubled by the Pumas. There were incredibly rare - like Elefants or Sturm Tigers - a failed experiment I guess. I suggest a mention in the briefings or designer notes about how come this KG has been "honored" with a platoon of them.Good point. The Pumas were only added very late in the development cycle, so I forgot about adding a note about their rarity.
3) The briefing says there will be no offboard arty support (despite the luxury of having two FO's). I had spotted AT guns and was maneuvering to kill em with direct fire when I was surprised to notice an 81mm mortar became available. I have no idea when it arrived or how long it had been there. Obviously, it made a difference. Please mention reinforcements like this in the briefing.Oops, this is also a problem from the development cycle. Originally the mortars were on-map artillery, so the briefing was correct but I failed to change the briefing when I changed the force setup. Hopefully the rest of the campaign is free of this type of thing.
4) I appreciate the attempt to immerse the player in the moment with the lengthy designer notes/briefings. But, they were too long and actually confused me as I didn't see any additional important info that the briefings had failed to offer. I feel I wasted time rereading the several pages of designer notes hoping to find some key info I had missed, but never found any, plus it didn't make any difference to the battle outcome. As CM is not a roleplaying game, the personalities of the officers really do not matter, and I would cut this stuff out as it's unnnecessary reading.It's only in there because people requested it.
Never fear: it is unnecessary reading, so there's no need to read any of the designer's notes in any of the future missions if you don't like it.5) At the end I suffered about 6 KIA and 7 WIA plus an "Other" destroyed (altho' not sure what that was - see below). The US surrendered with about 5 minutes to go, so I got all the victory points. But, I only got a Tactical Victory - which surprised me. The briefings say that friendly casualties are not a concern. So, am curious what else I could have done better.That has nothing to do with campaign design and 100% with the way the game works. A Tactical Victory is, I think, the best rating you can get in most of the missions. The way the scoring is set up, don't worry about the first word. "Victory" or "Defeat" is all that matters.
6) When the briefing essentially says "casualties don't matter" does that imply 100% replacements? I always play to minimize friendly casualties at almost any cost as all the campaigns I have played so far do not seem to replace casualties in future scenarios.No, in fact I think there are 0% replacements.
If that was what you read, it was worded incorrectly. What I meant was that casualties do not matter for determining victory or defeat in each mission. It's up to the player to determine what an acceptable level of losses is. Keep up the force preservation, you'll need it! 7) I noticed that you provided an EXIT zone to get rid of "unneeded units." I did not bother although I had a bunch of kubelwagons and trucks sitting around. Does one get points for getting them off the map? A mention in the briefing as to your intentions would have been good.No points, it's just done to unclutter the map if you want.
Other than that, great first scenario. Have chosen to keep my KG concentrated vs the town route next.A question re the game system. I dismounted my two 232's and used the crews for recon. One of the crews never got back to their vehicle. Am wondering if that was counted as a KIA "Other" vehicle?? Certainly at the start of the 2nd scenario I only have one 232.
Hmm, no idea here.
-
one question...just downloaded the campaign and started the first mission, how did you manage to get those reinforced German squads?
Um, those are normal motorized (as opposed to armored) Panzergrenadier squads . . . I think they're the largest of all of the German squad types, so maybe that's what you're thinking of.
-
sdp: Just to clarify, can we put all three of your Italian mods (listed in the previous post) in the same (say) "ZZZITALIAN MOD" folder and have them work ok, or do they conflict with each other?
Or, should we only use one of your 3 Italian mods at a time depending on scenario seasonal requirements?
I'm not going to speak for sdp here, but I strongly doubt you can use all three at a time.
-
"I personally don't split my German squads into more than their constituent teams..."
Not sure what you mean. In this scenario one can split German squads into 3 teams. What those teams are composed of is up to the player. I started with the AT team (which then had a regular inf icon) and then split the remainder of the squad using the Assault split command. One of the Assault teams had the AT icon even though it had no AT.
I had not noticed that phenomenon in any of the games I played before.
I understand.
My point is that I only really ever use "Split teams"--in other words, I don't use "AT Team" or "Assault Team" commands. That's why I'm saying that I personally have never experienced this problem, but I do know that others have encountered it, and it's not specific to my campaign.
-
Wow.. Im sort of confused... you can have both Terrain types when you load the game?
IIRC the way his current mod works is that it comes with two terrain types already (one for winter, one for less arid summer than what he's been working on here) and when you put things in your Z folder you exclude the terrain types that you don't want. So you can't have both types when you load the game, but you can pick and alternate between times you load the game.
-
In the first scenariob I broke a German AT team off and then broke the remainder of the squad into Assault teams. But, for some reason the AT team has a regular inf icon, and one of the assault teams has the AT icon(!).
Anyone else experienced this?
I don't think this is specific to the campaign--I think I've heard other people complain about this in general.
I personally don't split my German squads into more than their constituent teams, so I can't say for sure.Yunnan province is located in China's southwestern border of kunming, the provincial capital. During the warring states period, here is the yunnan tribes living place. Yunnan, namely "clouds south", and the other is the one that is because is located in the "yunling the south of the name.Hmm . . . I don't recall hearing anything about a Pacific module . . . uhhhhhhh . . .
-
ahh does that portend battles with the 6th FJR?
Maaaayyybee . . . .
-
What are Franklins? Are they not some type of sausage?
Benjamin Franklin is depicted on the $100 bill, so they are sometimes referred to as "Franklins."
-
Not to toot my own horn (of course I think my campaigns are the best!
) but in addition to FtDtSS, I also made Cobra's Strike (4 missions, core force is Airborne Infantry platoon) and Operation Hangman (10 missions, all infantry, but fairly large and broad core forces). I am also a big fan of all-infantry missions. -
Any updates on your return to the Devils' adventures? Back soon I hope?
They're waiting on the new modules right now.
And some other projects . . . so it may be a while. But they will happen.
Towed guns in the offense. How?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
My understanding is that the way they were used historically in the offense is that they were deployed on an objective after it had already been taken in order to defeat enemy counterattacks, rather than used during the offensive phase itself.