Jump to content

Sulman

Members
  • Posts

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sulman

  1. I understand this, but it's a peril of historic missions. The better way round it is to allow the player to win by the criteria of the campaign, which can easily reflect history. You can always state that "nevertheless despite these successes the offensive subsequently stalled" and so on. Having an ostensibly impossible final mission just leaves a sour taste. One thing that makes this hard in combat mission are the lack of strategic soft factors. YouTube CM2 gamer Usually Hapless refers to this effect as the 'Paper Panther'. Your units are always perfectly battle ready and reliable. There's no tanks stopped waiting for a transmission that will never arrive, that sort of thing. All your units are always ready at the start line in perfect fighting order.
  2. I think they are correct and the way you played them is exactly how they're supposed to be used, but it's a very 'blunt instrument' style that's a bit tiresome mission after mission. A lot of the campaign issues are down to the artificial factors you mentioned, including the style of buildings and the insistence on giving the defenders a numerical advantage irrespective of whether this is correct or realistic. I was also disappointed that there's no German armour whatsoever after the first scenario. It's difficult to read about the Ardennes Offensive without seeing pictures of tanks in the snow. The recent engine changes also make this style of operation much harder, as units will not move from buildings until they're destroyed. I saw a number of squads continuing to have combat power after the buildings they're in completely collapse. This is a realistic abstraction (people will fight in rubble) but maybe the scenario designers should revisit and redesign it, particularly the number of defenders they use. I think if the player has to rely almost totally on artillery, it's not much of a campaign. The last mission is inexcusable. I understand why they did it, they wanted a suitably challenging finale but it's like Courage & Fortitude's 'puzzle' scenario style (terrain reminded me of 'School of Hard Knocks', the force disposition & fields of fire reminded me of 'Razorback Ridge') in that you have to replay it a few of times to work out how to do it. Unlike C&F It doesn't teach you much though, you just learn how to beat the scenario, not develop your tactical tools or knowledge of unit capability. The only thing I really took away from it is some knowledge of how to approach MOUT with these units, also thanks to your videos. I'll try the Peiper campaign, I keep reading good things about it. I've stuck with the US forces so far because that's where my experience is, plus the setting is very interesting.
  3. @Erwin They're all basically the same thing. I made it to the last mission, and it would not be out of place in Courage and Fortitude. Once again, the briefing and scenario appear to have been made by different people....It's a constant in the campaign. A nice historical story that bears no resemblance to the disposition on the maps. I did not find HE conservation an issue, and I'm fairly liberal with it (I use target briefly for 30s a lot to limit fire. There's plenty for the last mission, and again you have abundant artillery. @Ts4EVERI found your video very useful, particulary the rolling artillery > assault phasing.
  4. A Flak 88 engages targets during the defense of Assenois, December 1944.
  5. @Erwin I actually persisted with C&F because of what you wrote in another thread, and I think that campaign is meticulously designed but framed very poorly. I think it's actually worth its own addendum to the manual. It is not for new players, or even players new to the WW2 setting. At least two of the scenarios need very serious study. Courage Conquers has a pretty honest format, there's no 'tricks' like C&F but it is filled with the kind of operations I struggle with (MOUT, limited tactical options, and tight time limits) the most. Nevertheless I've persisted because like C&F you always learn something. I do take your point about the bonused-based nature of scoring. It's caused me to become fixated on getting that tank or that emplacement because I know it's point worth. I flipped the mission I complained about above by a heavy arty strike on the church (because I knew ENY forces were concentrated in it). I come from the immersive school of playing, rather than the grog side, so I dislike having to 'game' scenarios and try not to, but when the scoring demands it...
  6. I should clarify that a lot of these scenarios play just fine, they're just scored weirdly. I've kept going with the campaign because I have enjoyed the actual process, but in contrast to CMSF2 and CMBS the tactical framing and scoring seem very inconsistent. In the example up-thread, I can't really see a justification for such a large points variation. It's such a numerical anomaly I wonder if it's a mistake, but I suspect it is not. Some designers I see the name on the notes and I know it's going to be good (George and Dorosh spring to mind). I complain about this not because the CM2 games are bad, but because they're great.
  7. Yes it's the CMFB Allies campaign.CMBN's C&F has some well know foibles, but at least it's scored reasonably consistently...
  8. Played scenario #4 from the 'Courage Conquers' campaign, and I'm starting to think there might be some curse about campaigns with 'Courage' in the name. This is exactly the kind of VP shafting I am trying to describe: A 2000!! point bonus for the Axis for force preservation. I made all the objectives, did what I thought was a good job on yet another so/so scenario and get annihiliated on the points, with all the ramifications for the campaign. In short, the scenario is unwinnable unless you get enough kills, oh, and you're outnumbered about 2:1. It's really quite annoying. What's the point in asking the player to pursue nuggets of cheese if what they're really supposed to do is kill all the mice... I don't get it. I should add, something that's bugged me about this campaign - and I love the setting, I really do is the inconsistency from the briefings and the feel of the scenarios. This one, for example, is meant to be a cakewalk. It's after an air-raid and it's meant to be a simple round robin. But you're actually totally outnumbered by endless Axis split squads in mutually supported strongpoints. In other words, the very toughest combat CM2 has to offer, and this is the third mission on the trot that is pretty much more of the same.
  9. That's interesting, in CMBN I had the opposite problem; I had a squad standing right outside the one of those wooden bunkers (not uncommon in Bocageland, you can walk right up to them from the flanks) and they couldn't kill it. I had to bring up a PIAT guy to knock it out. You should really be able to send infantry into them but they're locked down tighter than a duck's arse.
  10. Old thread I know but I just went through this one. I'm on the fourth mission of this campaign and this one (#2) is the only one I gave up trying to win. I settled for a minor defeat in the end. Unfortunately this scenario is emblematic of the frustrating nature of this campaign so far: Endless building assaults, multiple capture zones and iffy balance. The maps are great, that's about the most positive I can be. There's clearly been considerable historical research but I had laugh at Mission #3 (Occupy & exit map) which noted the real event took two hours. But you get 55 minutes...again these contradictions seem characteristic of some curious design decisions. There is an obvious bit of key terrain on the left hand far side of the map. It overlooks most of the town. Get some tanks up there and you can hit pretty much anything. The problem is getting your infantry close enough to spot without them getting shredded by the numerous defenders. Crossfire is the biggest danger on these maps, because the defenders are everywhere. One strategy I did not try was simply leveling the objectives with artillery. You've enough shells to give it a try. Theres something unusual with the way the forces are allocated. You're usually facing - at the minimum - 1:1 force ratios, and you're weak with infantry but have loads of armour. This is like having lots of currency in a country you can't spend it in. Artillery and armour are at their weakest (in game) in building fights. With Arty the only option is to level buildings as merely shelling them doesn't do much to the occupants but make them mad, and in this scenario the buildings are stuffed with infantry.
  11. Ah yes, good spot! I think that was from the earlier engagement with the first M5. At least one penetrated as far as I remember, but it did not stop it...
  12. The third stug? Yes, at least one Penetrating hit but plenty bounced off. The other two weren't as robust, but they were the un-skirted earlier types. The M5 that got the first two took a hit to the turret; The gunner and driver bailed. My fault really, I got greedy. The M5 seems particulary well suited to short range Bocage fights and the canister round is great against infantry
  13. The remnants of the sole German armor effort which counterattacked my infantry. I had two Sherman 75s on overwatch and they made fast work of both Stug IIIs, plus the Captured M4 seen on the left. The stugs started farther right, which afforded them defiladed approach and so they actually got pretty close to my truppen in the woods to the right. They did get my FO's jeep, the bastids!
  14. Quite. He wasn't so lucky the next turn, though. The Stug disappeared from LOS momentarily and then reappeared to make a successful shot. I had worked two other M5s into a flank position though (figuring he didn't reorient himself) and crept them forward. It took a lot more AP this time. Many penetrating hits (over two turns) before the vehicle caught fire. It made no attempt to fight back this time. The late model Stug IIIG is a little tougher I guess. The points from getting all of them were vital for the victory though. Note the 37mm AP holes. He actually rotated 180 degrees trying to run to safety (I'm not actually sure, maybe trying to spot the shooter, or perhaps some crew were dead by this point) and there were a couple in the other side too. Tough old thing. Coming from CMSF2/BS, i am still surprised when penetrating hits don't do much. In the modern titles they're nearly always an 'emotional event'.
  15. Playing through 'Bumper Cars' in the Courage and Fortitude campaign I was getting quite despondent. The clock was running and my left flank platoon had bitten off more than it could chew and I couldn't get anything to support them, such is the maze-like nature of the map. My platoon HQ then spotted two Stugs. "Great", I thought as I have no medium or heavy tanks, just a handful of M8s and M5s. But I did manage to sneak a nearby m5 into a field with LOS to the two stugs. To my astonishment it nailed both of them, one with a single shot causing a catastrophic explosion, and the other other with a penetrating flank shot. The 2nd stug backed up and faced the little stuart and I thought 'Game over', but to my surprise the Stuart just kept up the fire, and to my astonishment scored several penetrating hits to the frontal armour, knocking out the Stug. A real lesson to me not to underestimate the light tank's 37mm gun. Then a third Stug emerged and the little Stuart drove it off with several shots, receiving no incoming fire the whole time. Despite turning to face the threat, I do not believe the Stugs ever got a spot on the Stuart. Cheered me right up, i can tell you. What a great little tank.
  16. I disagree only to the extent that points can determine whether you progress in a campaign, and as such they're pretty important. Outside of that, I'm all about the playing experience. I wouldn't have tried some of these maps a half-dozen times If I wasn't!
  17. Relevant to the point of the topic, consider the following: Axis side gets 500/650 possible points for the terrain at the very back of the map it already holds. This VP allocation might make sense for the allies as they are the hardest (I actually think almost impossible, i lost nearly a full company on the main hill and had to give up as fire from the back hill was slowly killing my remaining men, long since ran out of 60mm (seriously ) support and all spotters were dead). The hill itself is a deathtrap. I'm going to have to find another way.
  18. You're not wrong. I did that most recently. It's only four missions and I think I got Total Victory (Red surrender), Draw, Minor Victory (terrific Platoon sized fight), Draw for a campaign win. Missions 2 and 4 were like a bucket of cold water, but I can say that I had fun and the maps were works of art. That last one is a 3hr epic that needed some retries from me until I figured out the puzzle (some of the harder ones do take the form of a puzzle where one has to find a working strategy). I actually have similar challenges in CMBS as CMBN due to the preponderance of regular or green infantry - they are hesitant to fight unless conditions are ideal. I keep going back to it like a battered spouse Some of it is the realism of the simulation - mounted MG42s should be dangerous over open ground but where I notice a difference is the 'stickiness' of the defenders. You have to clobber them, and when defense-in-depth is modeled (and it usually is) I really struggle to take objectives. I miss that immediate organic support of an AFV you have in the modern games, especially for open-ground dashes. I did try the first mission of the 'Scottish Corridor' which was absolutely exhilarating to play. Those scenarios are what keep me coming back to CM2. Beautiful map and well balanced forces. I got a tactical defeat first time out (only took 1/2 of objectives) but had an absolute hoot.
  19. Long ago an ex-armour officer told me NATO were terrified in the early 60s of the sheer volume of pretty good tanks (T-55) the Soviets could field in the Fulda Gap, but this capability ('tank gap' with apologies to Dr. strangelove) was mitigated fairly quickly with qualitative measures on NATO's behalf like HESH and Chad Krupstahl's finest. Also the shine was taken off the T-series reputation fairly quickly in the middle east against numerically inferior opposition. Well trained crews in good equipment would be more than a match for the Soviet threat. Israel's contribution to modern tank doctrine is understated.
  20. With CMBS it depends on the scenario and campaign. The Russian campaign 'Across the Dnieper' is actually really good and spot-on difficulty wise. The Ukraninan campaign 'Shield of Kiev' starts easy and then the difficulty curve goes vertical, but it's doable (you don't need to win the final mission, hint hint) I've actually given up on CMBN for the 2nd time because I can't progress in 'Courage and Fortitude' and I've been trying for hours and hours, in the end I'd rather do something else. I also found CMFB extraordinarily difficult in the US campaign so that will probably go the same way. I'm obviously doing something wrong, but the the way I play in CMSF2 and CMBS just doesn't seem to work for me in the WW2 games. Something's changed in CMBN though, because i did way better when I first bought it. I strongly suspect it's the changes in defensive behaviour. Attacking is so, so hard now.
  21. I returned to an infamous community favourite - The School of Hard Knocks. I remember breaking the defensive screen the first time I tried it years ago. There are about sixteen strongpoints between the US troops and the base of the hill. I think the only reason I achieved this was because I got them to leave their strongpoints. This time I had to accept a draw; I had all my armour (I suppressed the AT guns after a platoon on Overwatch sighted them) but, I could not crack that line of Axis troops. What surprised me in the AAR review was just how many were still in fighting condition, about all but one. It's an incredibly hard scenario, but this board knows all about that. Suppresssion worked as it should, there were just too many of them. It was like whack-a-mole. It only takes one squad in a defensive position with good fields of fire and you're not getting anywhere over open ground.
  22. The thing is, I think the scenarios are amazing. Great atmosphere (Black Sea especially) and the WW2 games have these highly detailed historical contexts. They're a thrill to play, and it's a little sore when you give a good account of yourself and score poorly. There's definitely a difference between campaigns and the standalone battles, imho.
  23. This is a very important point. Black Sea is much more symmetrical than CMSF, for want of a better word. I think American Infantry have an edge, but the lightweight 'shock and awe' units have their work cut out against mechanized infantry, especially the BMP-3 and upgunned BTRs which can wreck your plans in a single turn. I absolutely loved CMSF. It grabbed me in a way CM1 never did, and I play little else but CM2 games now. I think CMSF was really well balanced in terms of scenarios, but it seemed that the modules introduced a slope in the difficulty curve, and CMBS subjectively feels like a continuation of that. I take the point about collateral damage, but there's some places where it's prohibitive. CMSF2's 'into the valley' is a perfect example. Good luck taking out the plethora of ATGM teams in buildings without damaging those buildings. And you have to take them out.
  24. I've noticed something as the series has progressed from CMSF1; the maps get better and better, the scenarios are thrilling, but the VP allocation is often punitive. Typically you'll get a tactically very challenging scenario made even harder by draconian parameters. Take the following example: My big issues here are the punitive penality for casualties and the relatively low occupy points. MOUT in CM2 is very hard. A single encounter can leave you with a badly depleted platoon. it is seldom bloodless. Having to take three objectives with 2/3rds of a Company (two platoons essentially, although you get the third much later) is almost impossible without giving up those 500 points. It's very difficult full stop. On top of this, you have to withstand an extremely rigorous counterattack, and endless artillery. 100 points only for inflicting casualties on the enemy seems pretty miserly to me. I don't want to turn it into a rant but it's something I've seen a lot the later down the timeline of the games you get. You have en enjoyable mission and do pretty well, but end up with a defeat because it's not a perfect run. If it's not casualties it's collateral damage. It feels a little bit like you can't win, in a scenario where already the odds are against you. I'm pretty sure some scenario designers would assess D-Day a minor defeat for the allies. The game is plenty hard without shafting the player on technicalities.
×
×
  • Create New...