m0317624

Yes he does, at least if he wants to purchase further content developed for the CMBN series in the future, wishes to play multiplayer against someone who has purchased it or even wishes to benefit from future bug fixes and patches for the product he has already purchased. The idea that this "upgrade" is fully optional, as so many on these forums like to claim, is absurd and a lot of the criticism leveled against this form of what is essentially nickle-and-diming is quite justified.

I think the main problem many customers have with this paid engine upgrade system is threefold. First there is no other company in the industry who does it this way. Engine upgrades are either free patches, part of expansion packs/DLC or in the form of re-releases with reduced price for existing customers. No company outside BF actually charges for them separately. Being different, whether good or bad, attracts complaints by itself. Secondly, this is beginning to become a problem due to the many different main lines BF is releasing. A customer who bought every CM family line now has to spend $20 upgrading the two older titles. When Black Sea will be released, he will likely have to spend $30 upgrading the three older titles. And so on. These upgrades are not optional, all newly developed content for said titles depends on them. A better solution would be to either have one free main engine with loads of paid interdependent modules (such as modern flight simulators do) and occasional paid engine upgrades, or to give the customer one single price to update all of his family lines instead of charging extra for each additional game family. The third problem is that, right now, this upgrade isn't really worth $10 except for hardcore fans or those with a lot of disposable income. It's a few graphics upgrades, some gameplay changes (AAA fire, spotters, ROF) which might produce balance problems with existing scenarios, three UI tweaks and a bunch of support for future content. Of the three main game changers, AAA fire, tank riders and flame weapons, two are not implemented yet and one will be very rarely seen in existing content. Until BF releases content for the older titles that utilizes half the features of this upgrade, I see little use in buying it. And then I can likely buy it half-price as part of a bundle.

I was one of those who beat it first try. I still think it was a badly designed scenario in an even worse campaign, though it's saving grace is that at least it is not as godawful as Razorback Ridge. And these scenarios are badly designed because in School of Hard Knocks, as in Razorback Ridge, it does not matter how excellent the player's tactical skills are. The way the maps are constructed and the starting forces arrayed forces the player into heavy losses that quite simply would not have happened if he was allowed to do the setup himself on a map that extended further to his rear. Both scenarios simply start the player's units in crappy positions in full sight of entrenched German lines with loads of support weapons and artillery, and this in a campaign that offers unrealistically few reinforcements and supplies to achieve the requested objectives without tons of luck. You can't even realistically avoid Razorback Ridge, as the mission that leads up to it and should offer the choice to avoid it is incredibly bugged. Both scenarios are essentially nothing but a few die throws. In Hard Knocks, if the player's opening artillery bombardment kills the German FO, he can advance his infantry with few losses. If the three AT guns don't kill a tank in the turn they open fire, they'll have died without achieving anything and the tanks will easily kill the forward defensive line. If you succeed all 4 die rolls, the scenario is a cakewalk, if you fail more than two it's an exercise in frustration. The same for Razorback Ridge: if the infiltrating platoon is strong and well-supplied, you easily take out the German rear. If your spotters immediately spot the support positions on both map edges, they'll get shelled to oblivion without doing anything. Again, if you succeed these three die rolls the scenario is a cakewalk but if you fail more than one it's naught but frustration. The failure of C&F is not that it featured strong defense in depth that was hard to overcome. It features no such defenses, as it takes place on maps far too small and there is usually only one or two lines of troops clumped together as easy artillery targets, and in fact the most powerful part of the defenses in these scenarios is the limited map space the player is allowed to use. It's failure is that the only difficulty was absolutely unrealistic and artificial, forced purely by limitations which emphasized this is a game. I've faced much better in depth defensive positions in CM scenarios and still enjoyed myself immensely. And if this has somehow "poisoned the atmosphere" then it seems some scenario designers have been drawing completely wrong lessons out of C&F by putting the flaws with the players instead of the designer. C&F was part of a product we paid for, not some favor towards the community, hence it deserves all the criticism it got for its absolutely sub-par quality. The same goes for criticism about any other campaign or scenario bundled with these games. As for the use of the term "begging to do work for you", you seem to have a very misplaced idea about the role and importance of community scenario designers. Maybe look at yourself first before attacking others for "bad form". A scenario should be shared because one wants others to enjoy themselves, not because it is some sort of gracious favor toward the lesser people. And if the vast majority of people don't enjoy a scenario, the designer needs to accept that the flaw lies with the scenario, not the players, and simply learn from his past mistakes.

Updated version, with some further tweaks to the AI plans and the reinforcements, just in case anyone is interested.

I don't mind the first part of a scenario occasionally being a slow probe, but there is a difference between waiting while you scout/call in artillery strikes and waiting 30 minutes until the game bothers to give you sufficient units to actually do something. One is playing the game and requires thinking and input, the other is merely testing my patience. If the latter is the designer's intention, he should just start his scenario 30 minutes later. When playing the scenario from the Allied side, those Panthers died easily enough. They could survive a few hits (though one blew up first hit), but by that time in the scenario I had lost no AT guns or TDs, and had received an additional 4 Cromwells. Each turn those Panthers would pop up, get hammered by dozens of shells, one might blow up and the others would quickly retreat back behind the hill. Final count before they stopped coming: 4 dead Panthers vs 1 dead Hellcat. When you open the scenario in the editor, you'll notice those Panthers are labelled "3rd and 4th PzIVJ platoon" in the reinforcement tab. So I tried my first attempt at this game's editor, and rebalanced this scenario a bit to be less gamey and more conforming to the briefing and (what I would reckon to be) a real military force's behavior. It's not fully tested, but so far I find it a lot more fun from the German perspective and less of a cakewalk from the Allied one. You can find my version here, if anyone is interested in trying it. SPOILERS WARNING -------------------- Basically I've redone the Allied deployment to represent a unit on the march being surprised. The AT guns start the game still limbered to their transports, and the TDs are spread out over the road. The infantry has just noticed the dust from the German vehicles and has disembarked, but there is still some chaos. The Allied player should set up defensive positions ASAP if he is to hold out until reinforcements arrive. The Allied AI plan has the infantry pre-deployed next to the road, but all vehicles are still on the road. Within the first few minutes the TDs and AT guns will set up ad-hoc defensive positions to react to the threat, but unlike the original scenario they'll be a lot less hidden and prepared to ambush the Germans. The AI plan for the reinforcements now also assumes a German firebase at least partly along the railway line, whereas in the original the reinforcement halftracks would provide easy targets loaded with infantry. To compensate for this, the German Panther units are reduced to PzIVs. The reinforcement schedule already labels them as such, so this was probably the original intention. Not every German tank scenario should be focused on Tigers or Panthers anyway. There's also a few less tanks now, since moving up to the railway should be a lot less suicidal. You have the element of surprise, so if you want to win you need to hit hard and fast. The German AI plan is modified to represent this. It's primary goal is to quickly set up a very strong firebase along the railway at all cost, and then advance behind the tanks to close off that highway. I think these changes really alter the dynamics of the scenario. No longer a turkey shoot for the Allies until those Panthers showed up, this version sees the Allied player caught off guard, pressed hard and desperate for reinforcement. For the Germans, speed is of the essence. If they can get sufficient firepower on the highway quickly, they might easily overrun the Allied starting forces. But those Allied TDs can easily wreak havoc on the German halftracks. Neither side should hesitate to use a pre-planned artillery barrage on the railway or highway to slow down their enemy.

Which means that in a 60 minute battle, you'd have nothing happening at all for the first 35 minutes. I doubt that's the designer's intention, and even if it were, it's hardly fun. My briefing orders me to attack, not to exploit the fact that this is a videogame to cheese out a win. As I stated above, I know how to win the scenario as the Germans, I just don't know how to do so in an enjoyable way that doesn't take blatant advantage of the limitations of the game. Than you got incredibly lucky. My HQ units never survived long enough to even start spotting the artillery. Because the AI is programmed to only move towards those objectives in the last few minutes. Thanks, but not needed, that strategy is incredibly obvious to anyone who played the Allied side of the battle. My problem with this scenario is that literally sitting around doing nothing for over half the scenario length is not enjoyable, likely not the designer's intention and completely unintuitive to anyone who hasn't cheated by looking at the way the scenario is built in advance. The German orders are to attack at once to cut a vital enemy road, setting up a firebase along the railway in support, so the player naturally expects his starting force to be sufficient to at least establish said firebase. My initial post asked for advice on winning this scenario on the assumption that I don't already know the exact Allied deployment (so I don't know exactly where the blind spots are) and the fact that I get Panthers after 35 minutes (which the briefing never tells you).

Yeah, just finished it as the allies and it really was just a turkey shoot until the Panthers showed up, and by then the Germans had already lost so much men and vehicles the battle was already decided. The PzIVs didn't achieve more than killing a few infantry. The only difficulty was capturing the farmhouse, because the AI had 3 Panthers and 2 PzIVs clustered on top of it. I tried the flanking attack you suggest, and it just doesn't work. Not enough smoke, and those PzIVs don't stand a chance against the AT guns. I think this scenario would play a whole lot better if the 5 Panthers were the first set of tank reinforcements. This would give the German player the capability to actually exchange fire with the AT guns, buying sufficient time to set up a firebase on the rail line. Panthers can take a few hits from those guns but still aren't invulnerable enough to just brush them aside. Maybe reduce the platoon to 3 tanks instead of 5, just to make things difficult enough. The map is still far too small and open for it to ever become a great scenario though.

Yeah, I tried ten turns or so as the Allies, and for them it seems to be an incredibly easy and fun scenario. The Germans just spill over the railway and die en masse in a matter of minutes to the combined Allied firepower. The counterattack to get all objectives will likely be a challenge, but at least it looks doable. I'm playing the AI, so I went into the editor and the AI plan is literally: sit and shoot, then scoot up to the objectives in the last ten minutes. I could get a win by simply waiting the Allies out and then destroy any unit that comes for the objective in the last few minutes, but that's hardly a fun game. No matter how good I pick my hull down positions, the AT guns just pick them off easily. No surprise, given that the range is 300m at most. My artillery has 6 smoke shells, and I have no way to get a spotter with LOS to the other side of the railway, at least not without getting him killed before he can even request the mission. Already tried, not possible. Already tried this. Infantry that comes up to or crosses the railway just dies to a crossfire of machineguns and HE shells. There simply is no cover for the German side. Thanks for the help though. As much as it utterly annoys me to abandon a scenario I started, I think I'm just going to give up on this one or rework it a bit in the editor. I haven't had such an unrealistic, frustrating and utterly un-fun CM experience since I've tried the Courage and Fortitude campaign. BF should really get some better playtesting on the scenarios it ships.

Has anyone played the Lost Cats scenario from MG on the German side? I really need some help with it, as I find it pretty much impossible and incredibly un-fun. I'm a CM veteran, I just bought the MG expansion, it's the first scenario I try and it's pretty much sapping all my interest from the game. The entire map is basically open field with some sparse trees, with the Germans starting behind a small hill running the length of the map, with a rail line on top. The Allies have four anti-tank guns hidden in small copses of trees at the edges of the map with perfect lines of sight on the entire rail line, and a bunch of infantry in front of them, again with perfect line of sight. There's a also bunch of tanks and tank destroyers coming in from reserves. The German force is half-track infantry with a few light vehicles (AA guns, recon cars and gun half-tracks) in support, and PzIVs coming in from reserves. I've got no artillery support beyond two 120mm mortars, and as soon as I move any unit to the top of the hill, even slowly creeping, to get LOS on the Allies it gets routed or annihilated in seconds by all the infantry, AT guns and tanks. Even rushing my entire mechanized force at once only results in absolute slaughter with nothing to show for it. EDIT: The main problem is those AT guns. They're pretty much impossible to spot and will easily kill at least 2-3 tanks every turn. Even a shoot-and-scoot order for an entire 5 tank platoon area-firing on a known gun location ends with several dead tanks and no results whatsoever. Does anyone have any advice?

I posted about this same problem once, and got no response or solution. If I remember correctly I finally figured out it was caused by a missing or incorrectly installed patch. Try reinstalling all patches (the original game installations aren't required iirc), see if that fixes it.