pnzrldr

Gents, a couple points, 1. The campaign is designed as a breakthrough, and the Soviet forces are designated to execute a fighting withdrawal until the final battle. No - there is no way to execute a proper tactical withdrawal with the CM AI. While you can now move your forces back based on triggers (either enemy, enemy armor, or friendly hitting a specified location/obj/line) you cannot get them to reverse out, fire covering smoke, face a designated direction, or any other action that would facilitate an effective retrograde. The designers have ruthlessly tried every tool the game engine team could give us for controlling the AI's actions. One could, using triggers, initiate a counterattack from one direction to allow another force to subsequently disengage, but this would require a good bit of mind reading by the scenario designer and could go dreadfully wrong if the human player used an unanticipated course of action. I promise to try this in a future scenario and see how feasible it is. I think some have already done so. 2. Yes, the scenarios include Soviet 'exit' objectives, and many of their forces will leave the map as you advance, depriving you of potential points. You must balance the risk of pressing them closely to gain kills and thus points, against the hazard of their fire. However, do not despair. Any forces that exit the map will be available for your destruction (read this two ways) in subsequent missions, especially mission 6. 3. You all have the same access to the editor that we do. Nothing to prevent you from building your own scenarios - or campaigns - and posting them. You can build them with any unit size you desire, from PLT up through Regiment, and can research the history, create the map underlays from historical documents, build the maps, add flavor objects, select the forces, set their morale and stats, deploy them, build the AI, and carefully playtest them over and over again. It is possible to spend countless unpaid hours building this for the enjoyment of others. You can then spend your time on the forum defending criticisms of your creation. :cool: If you build it, I will play it and supply you with ample feedback. Promise. 4. Despite the playtesting which was done, the campaign undoubtedly has numerous flaws. My sarcasm in 3. above aside, we do welcome your input and criticism. All of us want to deliver fun, challenging content that expands your understanding of historical tactics, sparks your imagination for an immersive experience, and generates greater interest in this our favorite tactical sim. I sincerely hope that despite the issues, the majority are enjoying this and the other content in the game. Thanks for playing, and despite my thin skin, for the comments. P.S. I only built mission 3, but will wager I speak for the team.

German campaign features KG split in two, each with ~ a BN of Armor and BN(-) of PzGrenadiers. Maps are quite big - I don't recall the exact size, but bigger than 2kmx2km I think.

QB options: 1. Buy TRPs. 2. Buy Grilles. 3. Buy (more) STuH 42s. 4. Don't go into the woods - <big sign> "Here there be Dragons! Abandon hope, all Ye (Germans) who enter Here!"

Beutezug is both small and German. ;-) Yes, the Campaign is big, but if you fight your Mk IVs improperly in Mission 1, the Troop Levels will be much more manageable by Mission 6! Seriously, acknowledge your note, and will consider pushing for a smaller, perhaps leaner campaign for subsequent module, should one come along. In the meantime, the repository is always open, and the editor tools available to me are the same ones available to you! Pnzrldr Blunting the Spear Mission 3, Beutezug

Quad 20mms. Russian infantry HATE those. Seriously, you must suppress them first. I appreciate you fired HE in first, but it just didn't get where it needed to go. Was one of the three battered survivors a leader? I have found Russian infantry overwhelmingly fragile when subjected to suppression w/o a leader nearby. I too have gotten mowed down by tough survivors, but I have also seen whole platoons break and run when effectively suppressed.

You guys are so far out of your league you have no idea. The beta testers looking into this stuff are studying actual historical scientific test data, from a variety of sources, which looks not only at the the cannon but also the specific ammunition. Plus modeling a 3 dimensional vs. 2 dimensional impact angle. Plus a host of other factors, many completely transparent to you. I am Armor Officer by profession and have a degree in history. I know of no other game/sim as thoroughly researched, or a community of designers and testers who work as hard to get things right. It is still not perfect, but it likely as close as anyone will come in your lifetime.

Whoops! Missed the human dimension in the earlier post. Certainly does put a different spin on things. Only other thing I can offer here is, try to make him fight in two directions at once. Other than that, it will be a tough slog.

Note: I haven't played this one, but will make some generalized comments. I hate Mk IVs myself, eggshells with tracks, but have learned to use them. They have some long range advantages over the T34, but you must be very careful. You will likely struggle on the first scenario of the German campaign too, if you don't figure these frustrating tanks out. First, check your tactical handling of your MkIVs. Make sure that unless you are in a close fight with infantry, your tanks are unbuttoned to gain spotting advantage. Go to Bil Hardenbergers' blog http://battledrill.blogspot.com/2013/08/combat-mission-tactical-problems-cmtp.html and read (or reread) the section on hull down. Never offer your opponent a fair fight. Once you are certain you are putting your tanks hull down, look for some woods to hide them in. Not much on this map, but see what you can find. Use the same waypoint tactic you do for hull down, and move them gradually towards the edge just until they can see. Wait a turn or two to see what you can spot. Once you spot something, consider using "target briefly." In the new 3.0 engine, if you set a "target briefly" command, and then click the "target briefly" button again, it increments up another 15 seconds. Recommend using "pause" for 30 seconds with "target briefly" for 30 seconds, and then reversing your tank into cover. Never just sit up and duke it out. Pull forward, shoot a couple rounds, back up. Pull back up in a slightly different spot. These are real world tactics, but do work in CM as well. Finally, look for opportunities to put more than one of your tanks against just one of his. In beta testing, I was getting my butt waxed with Mk IVs until I learned to concentrate their fire. While the tactician in me hates bunching my armor up, there are times when pulling two or three tanks forward into nearly adjacent locations in order to mass fire on one T34 is the right way to go. For what it is worth, I checked the beta test on this scenario for you and most of the testers got German victories, with at least two Russian AI surrender "Total German Victories," so it is possible, if you learn the tactics. As a professional tanker, I can assure you that the tactics that work in this "game" (or sim) are the ones that work in real life too. Enjoy!

Wow, Russian recon troops are SOOOO not very lethal! I hope Zaitsev is getting some kills - can't tell. Scouts are getting chewed up by those Kar-98s.

1. Use the "Target Armor Arc" command. If you hold down 'shift' it will make your arc a full circle, at any selected range. 2. The round struck the enemy vehicle and caused portions of the armor or other internal equipment to dislodge from the inside of the vehicle at lethal velocity and go flying around inside. Unpleasant if you are the crew. However, does not always cause casualties. Usual effect is some equipment damage and a morale/suppression decrement. Note that you have a tab in the UI to keep track of system damage to each part of the vehicle, which shows degrading colors by system. 3. Yes, but only with an extraordinarily lucky direct hit. I've seen it twice in CM, once by an 81mm US mortar (I was Germans - scratch one Mk IV) and once on a T-34 from a German 120mm during beta testing. Usually they have some suppressive effect, causing crews to button up, occasionally you get an immobilization or minor damage to a vehicle. Work much better against open-topped light armor like halftracks or Marders. Overall, they are mostly ineffective versus armor and much better employed with their limited ammo supply against vulnerable infantry targets - whom they will happily obliterate. But, if that is all you've got....

Micro-spoiler! Ha, really? You named the crack Russian Sniper Zaitsev? LOL! Classic.

Togi, I fear your opponent in a PBEM of this scenario will be unfairly advantaged. If you can win this one H2H you have some serious bragging rights. Not intended for H2H as the Russian AI deliberately handicaps the Russian troops to help simulate their surprise and 'rear echelon' position. With a free thinking opponent I expect this to be very, very tough. Will be interested in hearing how you do.

P.S. This is my first published scenario, so if anyone wishes to provide gripes, complaints, addendums, referendums, etc... feel free! It is intended to be tough, so if you are posting a major or better victory on first playthrough, I failed. ;-)

FWIW 3 of my 4 Jpz IVs survived this scenario (Total German Victory), despite losing both my Tigers. They KO'ed a combined 14 Russian AFVs. You must play Jpzs as tank destroyers. Hide them deep in woods, or on reverse slopes behind villages, to peek through gaps between buildings. If you find the right spots for them they are lethal, but they are not intended to go toe-to-toe with tanks from the front (unless they are Jagdtigers!). The key to winning this scenario as Germans is in the mission brief - defend. Defend until there are no more Russian tanks or assault guns. Then mop up the INF, seize the OBJs and await the Russian AI surrender.

Oh yes I DID want it to happen!

Really guys, take a deep breath. They actually just want to ensure that when it IS released it doesn't SUCK! Final playtesting to ensure the scenarios look like they at least been played ONCE and a bit more i crossing and t dotting is a good thing. Trust me, we want you guys to LOVE it, not HATE it when it comes out. Promise.

Note that the US Army in crafting its OPFOR at the National Training Center, eventually reflagged as the 11th ACR "Blackhorse," was smart enough to couple Russian tactics and doctrine with thinking leaders and outstanding reconnaissance. This is multiplied by the 'home field advantage' the OPFOR has in the Fort Irwin Mojave Desert, but makes it an enormous uphill fight for any US commander who takes them on. So a force that defeats them really has some bragging rights, and the whole of the US Army - including those that don't fare so well - are stronger for the struggle.

Oh the things you can do as the human commander that are impossible for the AI!

FWIW about the movement commands, I have always favored quick over fast, because I am paranoid about bogging or track damage. Have suffered the odd and infuriating immobilized vehicle that I have not been able to determine a reason for, and assume this is due to my operating it in an abusive manner. Not sure if it makes a whit of difference, but I always go to a short line of 'slow' when crossing a wall, fence or other potentially track-damaging obstacle, and I cross softer ground at 'move' to try and mitigate bogging. Would be interested to hear from older grogs on how the track damage, immobilization, and bog models work, and whether these techniques mitigate potential damage. P.S. Bil, does the INF squad have a spot on the German armor? If so, does that increase the probability of the ISU's getting a spot? Another model question.

Gents, I too would love for this game to be a graphic, dazzling, eye-candy feast. But if I want to see something really cool, I can go oogle the high-end circus-maximus 1st person shooters, or perhaps the "Wargame" series or something. But as a military professional, this "game" is the only one I have found that justifies my time investment not for looking cool, but for realistic challenging tactical problems with plausible outcomes. Nothing else I have run into makes me want to grab all my subordinate combat leaders and MAKE them play it. Given the plethora of ridiculous Hollywood combat nonsense games versus the stark landscape of really well thought out, deep-content tactical simulations, I will accept the visuals the way they are now, while I continue to applaud the incremental improvements the development team continues achieving.

Wow, that newly textured Hetzer really is gorgeous. Been looking at the 'naked' unskinned one for too long. Pretty durn nice terrain backdrop too.

Lets imagine this thread, coupled with the new TCP/Wego option, portrayed on Twitch like ChrisND's latest movie. How about head-to-head games, with tactics and analysis, but on video rather than over weeks on the forum? Not that I don't love the well thought out AARs, but these new capabilities do engage my very American desire for instant gratification. I don't WANT to wait to see this armor duel play out! I can have my popcorn microwaved in 3.5 minutes - bring it on!

Conversely, my Grandmother-in-law was imprisoned for three years here in the U.S. - a (fairly benign) concentration camp, in Colorado - simply by virtue of her Japanese ancestry. Funny thing is, she was told at the time and still believes to a degree today that it was for her own protection. Some of her family's friends were substantially harassed, vandalized and even attacked. Much of their property was never returned or recovered. But she doesn't much resent her incarceration. With a degree in history, I have found it of overriding importance to remember and really try to internalize that people 'back then' (whenever back then was) had a different set of values. They didn't think exactly the way we do, had fundamentally different beliefs about what was or was not acceptable and right, and looked at the world through an entirely different contextual lens. Read some contemporary thoughts on dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Not much debate on the rectitude, but rather regret that we only had two and couldn't have dropped them sooner. The polarization or dehumanization of "us" and "them" - allies and enemies - was very, very deep, and few people were prepared to shed tears for foreign civilians suffering the agonies of war. Take a look at historical newspaper cartoons to gain a quick appreciation. Times have changed, for good or ill, and we should remember it. We should also acknowledge that not everyone in the world today thinks as we do. My tours to Iraq and Afghanistan highlighted that stark reality to me very clearly. Never forget that there are people in the world who hate us - all of us lumped into the 'west,' and they remain fully prepared to die just to do us harm.

Yeah, I forgot about that piece. But conflagration is out for now.

Gents - happy to report that triggers work quite nicely in the defense, and have allowed me to program in a defense in depth with elements withdrawing by bounds to subsequent positions as successive phase lines are tripped by advancing enemy forces. You will like this feature a lot. The degree of creativity and complexity this allows is truly astounding when compared to the 'old way.' Although branches (A or would be nice, you can really manage quite a lot of previously impossible flexibility and variety in this way, especially when you combine triggers with larger and smaller time windows for order execution. Note: if the trigger is not tripped but the 'execute before' time is reached, the unit goes off and executes anyway, allowing you to 'backstop' your triggered events. Or set 'execute before' at end of scenario, and they will wait indefinitely.