PEB14
-
Posts
744 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by PEB14
-
-
8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Because the intent is only to dismount, if dismount was an option any other unit could crew the tank. Sometimes you dismount (bail out) to recon over the ridge. Not all situations are modelled. The TC can't be split also crews can't crew other tanks even in the same formation. I tried to crew an elite crew of a tank which had a green crew.
I agree and disagree at the same time…
Agreed: Sometimes you dismount (bail out) to recon over the ridge. That was regularly done in WW2, but in ALL cases I am aware of, only the tank commander dismounted to recon over the ridge or the street's corner. Which makes sense, by the way…
Disagreed: any other unit could crew the tank. You don't man a tank without at least basic training…
-
12 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:
@PEB14 I don't mind being wrong. That's how we learn things. But, I can only go by what is on the page in front of me. It would be nice to give @Paper Tiger a definitive answer, although I think his reworking of the campaign will be great whether we are up against Stugs or Marders. Perhaps BFC could pay for us all to go on a Jolly Boy's outing to Koblenz. Spend our days in the Bundesarchiv, and our evenings in a pub, or two.
You're correct, we cannot do but with what we have at hand…
Unfortunately, information regarding German forces on the Cotentin peninsula are sketchy, mostly because they were destroyed in a matter of days and weeks — with most of their archives gone with them.
I consider Dutch historian Niels Henkemans as the main authority regarding German OOB on the Cotentin peninsula. Please find a link to a long post of his, mentioning information regarding StuG and the offensive on Ste-Mère-Eglise:
Here's the part of the post dealing with Stugs:
QuoteCotentin Marder I and StuG III
It might seem strange to address these two vehicle types together but in order to identify them this is the most convenient way. As you will see the history of these vehicles and their units on the Cotentin can shed more light on them, and those histories are highly connected, either direct or indirect.
While Sturmgeschütze were widely used in the German army, very few were available in the Utah sector on D-Day. In fact the only unit to be equipped with such vehicles on D-day on was the 243rd Infantry division. Her Panzerjäger Abteilung was located in near Saint-Jacques-de-Néhou. While the 243 Division was positioned along the western coast of the peninsula, it didnt take long before elements went into action against the American forces.
On June 7th the Germans renewed their attempts to seize Sainte-Mere-Eglise. Several units were committed in this attack in southerly direction. Supported by the 456th and 457th Artillery Battalions, the 1st and 2nd battalion from 1058 attacked along the Cherbourg-Ste.-Mere-Eglise road, while further to the east Sturmabteilung AOK 7 also marched towards the town with support of the Panzerjäger Abteilung from 709ID. The 243ID was involved in the fighting with Kampfgruppe Müller. This improvised unit consisted of III/922, I/920 as well as the 243th Engineer Battalion and was supported by the guns of 456th and 457th Artillery regiment. During the day III/922 attacked most to the east in the direction of Saint-Marcouf but was eventually pushed back north.
In these series of attack the German forces were supported by some armoured elements. Looking at the available literature, the only armoured formation mentioned is Panzerjägerabteilung 709. Apart from towed anti-tank guns this unit was also equipped with 14 self-propelled Pak40 75mm antitank guns. Official documents do not specify the exact type, but as Zetterlings research shows, apparently no deliveries were made after May 43. This might indicate these vehicles were in fact based on French chassis. The images of StuGs destroyed in the fighting around Ste-Mere-Eglise show early Gs. While this vehicle type was produced from December 1942 onwards its highly unlikely the vehicles in the area were send to the division before May 1943. The reason for this is simple. The vehicles around the town are equipped with Zimmerit paste, a practice not used by the Germans until later in 1943. Except for a field application of the stuff, what seems unlikely in my eyes, these vehicles cant have been produced before August 1943. (And I suspect experts will see more details that can identify the production dates) For this reason, Zetterlings argues, some kind of French-German conversion is the most likely to have equipped Panzerjägerabteilung 709. Considering the production numbers and available images the most likely vehicle is probably the Marder I based on the Lorraine chassis.
While Hotchkiss based Marders were also used in France and FCM based vehicles were also build, these do not appear to have been used on the Peninsula. Only some 20 Hotchkiss based (75mm PAK) vehicles were build, with most, if not all, serving with 21PD. Of the 100 FCMs build by the French, the Germans converted 96 into tank-destroyers, but none appear to have been used in Normandy. On the other hand, of the 170 converted Lorraine tractors, many showed up in Normandy, both in the OoBs and on pictures.That's the most up-to-date research I'm aware of regarding this topic. But I may be wrong!
-
11 hours ago, RMM said:
The arguement that this simulates the crew abandoning the ordinance in an orderly fashion (ie. having the presence of mind to destroy it while under fire of a level that is forcing them away from it in the first place) doesn't really make sense; it's at odds with what's actually happening - in the game, that act of 'abandonment' is one of the crew breaking and, essentially running away, being driven off by enemy fire. So, it doesn't stand to reason to then ascribe a willful and calculated action as their last act before completely breaking and running away! Abandonment is a deliberate act, but that's not what's happening in the game, so @Silentkilarz is right. This one of the rare, truly dumb facets of the current engine that takes away from reality and leaves the game wanting.
I also don't get the point why, an AFV can be recrewed and a gun cannot. Honestly, based on my (WW2) readings, the opposite would make more sense: while I have seen occasions on which an abandoned AT gun was recrewed and manned by the same crew (seeking temporary cover during an artillery bombing, by example), or even by other (friendly) troops, I have never seen any report of a tank being abandoned under enemy fire and then recrewed within the timeframe covered by a CM battle…
My humble opinion is, a tank crew abandoning its vehicle should be broken and stay so until the end of the game. That would avoid the temptation to use these highly trained specialist soldiers as cannon fodder…
-
6 hours ago, Dynaman216 said:
Or reread the 2023 (and 2022) bones. Has anything from 2023 seen the light of day besides the Steam releases?
You're very negative in your statement.
2023 has still 10 days to go…
-
19 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:
Yes, very well known picture.
Except that, as indicated from my post above, latest research tend to indicate that this vehicle did in fact belong to 2./Pz.Jg.Abt.243.
According to my archives, Pz.Jg.Abt.709 had no StuG in its OOB:
- 1.Kp: 9x Marder I (Lorraine)
- 2.Kp: 12x motorized Pak40
- 3.Kp: 9x 3,7cm Flak (at least some self-propelled)
-
14 hours ago, Mr.X said:
@PEB14: Of course, you are right
I actually just wanted to say that Sturm-Battalions didn‘t have their own armored vehicles…Regards
Mr.X
I obviously agree with you, but honestly I understood the opposite from your post…
By the way, I don't think Pz.Jg.Abteilung 709 was attached to Sturm-Bataillon AOK 7 either. I think to remember that both the Sturm-Bataillon AOK 7 and (at least part of) Pz.Jg.Abteilung 243 (not 709) were attached to the Grenadier-Regiment 1058 for the counterattack towards Sainte-Mère-Eglise.
To be more specific, It appears that attacks from the North towards Ste-Mère-Eglise on D-Day were performed by the G.R. 1058 with some support (Stugs) of 2./Pz.Jg.Abt.243 (a.k.a. Stu.Gesch.Abt.1243) ; because of the disastrous results achieved, G.R. 1058 was reinforced on D-Day+1 by Sturm-Bataillon AOK 7 and heavy artillery (I think it was schwere Heeres-Artillerie-Abteilung (mot.) 456 with its eight 15,2cm KH 433(r) and four 12,2cm K (r) - captured russian guns). The reinforcement by Sturm-Bataillon AOK 7 proved nearly decisive as on June 7th the Germans reached Ste-Mère-Eglise. US accounts are quite confused and it's not clear how far into the city the Germans entered.
Anyway, to answer the initial question, based on my own research, the StuG which attacked Turnbull belonged to 2./Pz.Jg.Abt.243.
-
6 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:
So that's my OB for this mission. I have approximately two companies of German infantry with two StuGs on the attack so I've made the infantry Green and Low morale so that they're not too much for the defender. You'll need to keep them suppressed so that they don't overwhelm you with machine gun fire. Now it's the mortars which will kill you which is how it went down that day.
Historically, it sounds good. The 1058. Grenadier Regiment performed pretty badly during its attacks on June 6th and 7th. Not only was it battle untested, but it looks like it was poorly led as well, from the top of the regiment down to company level…
That's for History. Now it has to come out as a good scenario. That's were it gets difficult for a young designer like myself… but you're an old grognard so we all trust in you!
-
1 hour ago, Mr.X said:
It‘s the Sturm-Bataillon AOK 7 (Assault-Battalion AOK7). Every German Army had an own motorized Infantry-Batallion, so did the 7th German Army. These battalions usually consisted of combat experienced soldiers and were used as a kind of reserve units for critical situations. They had no own armored sub units. During these battles, Stugs and captured French tanks of Pz.Jg.Abteilung 709 and Pz.Aus.u.Ers.Abteilung 100 were attached/subordinated to the Sturm-Battalion AOK 7.
Regards
Mr.X
Hi @Mr.X,
I made some thorough researches for my own campaign and, for sure, Pz.Ers.u.Aus.Abteilung 100 was NOT subordinated to Sturm-Bataillon AOK 7. It was subordinated to the 91. Infanterie Division, HQ Picauville, while IIRC correctly Sturm-Bataillon AOK 7 was in position close to Cherbourg.
Pz.Ers.u.Aus.Abteilung 100 tanks (a couple of Panzer III and a mix of Hotchkiss and Renault 1940 vintage French tanks) never reached Sainte-Mère-Eglise; they were stopped on the La Fière causeway. But that's the matter of another campaign ( @WimO's Mission Boston).
-
On 12/13/2023 at 1:33 PM, Paper Tiger said:
I mean if I reduce the forces imported in the unit's starting mission to 80% strength rather than having the core units in the core unit file at 80% strength and importing them that way which is how I did the Scottish Corridor. I'm pretty sure that's how I managed the PIR 'losses' on D-Day in Montebourg but since I lost the original core unit file, I can't remember exactly how it was done. I don't think this is a behaviour that was changed by a patch - it's probably just carelessness on my part.
I get your point.
Unfortunately, IIRC it doesn't work either. I did a test a few months ago, and I found somewhere on this forum a post from a guy that already had done the very same tests: I believe it's just impossible to have core units start a campaign with less than 100% manpower strength, whatever the way you try to achieve it. Sounds very much like a bug, perhaps one introduced by a relatively recent patch.
-
10 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:
I could do it in the opening missions I suppose as the game will remember their strength at the end of the mission.
Not sure to understand what you suggest here?
-
9 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:
Mission 10 - that's the Going to Church mission, right? That was a historical loss and there is a good account of it. I was again insanely proud of the mission too because the enemy force is very small but effectively placed.
Yeah!
I understood that losing the mission was part of the campaign basic plan when I discovered that the outcome did branch the campaign beyond Green/Insane rating. That's fine with me!
9 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:Mission 12 has to be the Chateau mission, right?
That's definitely going to get a look at. I wanted it to be a fun mission so I'll try and focus on the fun part there. But it may just be that you got an AI plan that really stuffed up your chances. I'm definitely going to replay that one a few times.
IMHO there are several issues with Chateau. The first one is, given the briefing and time schedule, there is only one reasonable tactical approach to the Chateau itself - the one UH and DV followed (and so did I obviously). This is not really an issue, but it becomes one when combined with the very tight time allowance: you get no margin: no possibility to modify your approach by example, no time to rely on anything else but blind mortar bombing, no possibility to redirect the air support... After that approach phase, the scenario seems to turn into a very technical assault on the building complex (ses the escellent DV AAR) that might be fun - but I'll never know because of the second issue.
I tried to analyse what went differently in my game compared with UH's and DV's. It looks like I got the less frequent AI plan, AND that within this AI plan the German 75mm IG got deployed in the right place (from the AI point of view, obviously
) to cover the main route of approach (the only reasonable one...) towards the Chateau. Combined with the above (no time for alternative approach/redirection of air attack/correct mortar barrage), it ruined my game.
If I had got 20 more minutes, things may have turned completely differently: I wouldn't have called a (useless...) preplanned mortar barrage on some irrelevant hedgerow, I would have have stopped my attack until my aircraft was redirected towards the IG, etc...
9 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:I'm glad you enjoyed the Mondraineville mission (5) as it was meant to be fun - lots of light forces on both sides. Hapless had a bad experience there - I'll have to re-watch his videos of missions 4 and 5 because I recall he went to the Green branch after losing mission 5 which must have hurt a bit. IIRC, he didn't USE Company B very effectively in mission 4 because exiting it off the map was important but I used it as a fighting force and took some casualties but won it handily. As I said, I watched these videos earlier this year (around April) and may be misrecalling. I just remember feeling sorry that he didn't get a win and that was my fault as I was really enjoying the series. I think there is a psychology that comes into play when you use these types of victory conditions, similar to what we observe when you set a Preserve Order in CMSF - players treat it as a DON'T DESTROY' condition when all it does is reduce the overall total number of points earned at the end - as long as your casualties are low enough, you still win big and the enemy gets no VPs for you failing to earn the points. That's my thinking anyway. I have some time this evening so I'll watch those two videos again.
Yes, lot of unusual and varied forces in Mondrainville. Plus it's a meeting engagement, which adds to the fun. I remember that one of those AT gun and supporting HMG caused me pain til the very end. I didn't achieve a Total Victory but it was very funny to play. IMHO AI plans were among the best of the campaign, leading to a challenging yet realistic battle.
IIRCUH screwed up Mission 4 because he failed to get from the briefing the importance of exiting that Commpany (was it B Co?). I was surprised because the briefing was very clear to me.
I agree with you that having to exit one company refrains the player from using it offensively. Finally, I felt Mission 4 bloody as usual (f***g mines!) but not overly difficult in the end. I think I was lucky though, when I disabled that IG gun without even noticing...
9 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:Now, consequences. That's definitely possible to do with a rework because I've spilt the campaign into two smaller ones and so it will be easier to keep track of the variations that would be required. The 'consequence' was that you went to the Green branch if you lost but you still followed the same line as if you won it. It was a cool idea back then which addressed the complaint that people expected to be able to complete the campaigns on the disk that they paid for. Since this is a free rework and playing it is entirely voluntary, I have no such qualms. Of course, extensive reworks of missions to have real consequences beyond going Green will take quite a bit of time to do but why not?
I perfectly understand why you designed the campaign as you did: basically it helps weaker player and adds chellenge to the better ones. Fine and sound.
My approach to a campaign is more along the "actions and consequences" line: if you fail a critical mission, either you lose the campaign, or you shall pay a price in later missions of the campaigns. (Or the other way round, obviously.) That's how I've built the campaign I'm presenty working on.
Both approaches have pros and cons:
- Green/Insane branches pros: campaign is suitable for players of any level; players can withstand bad luck or poor choices at the wrong time and still go on.
- Green/Insane branches cons: players are not encouraged to win missions (as they will get penalties if they win and no bad consequence if they lose). So it encourages procrastination and force preservation, with is ALREADY the basic premise of a campaign... Also, campaign consistency may be so-so (the forces you failed to exit on time in Mission X appear at the right place at the right moment during Mission X+1...).
- Actions and consequences pros: campaign consistency is good, and players are encouraged to win mission. Force preservation comes at a cost... More realistic campaign overall.
- Actions and consequences cons: players can be ousted out of the campaign fairly quickly; players will pay mistakes and bad luck potentially til the campaign's end; also, designer shall be able to provide coherent branching, including ahistorical paths, and shall manage the rewards/penalties associated with the successive missions' results.
Regarding the Scottish Corridor: you somehow mixed both approaches. The general design is undoubtely along the Green/Insane branches way, but the outcome of "Going to Church" clearly belongs to the Actions and consequences approach.
My only real clue is, you probably got too tolerant regarding defeats. I mean, there are some critical battles that you just can't afford to lose...
By the way, this reminds me of an inconsistency regarding the campaign briefing. IIRC the campaign briefing states that you cannot afford to lose any of the Granville missions, otherwise the campaign would end. This is clearly not true. You might check that.
-
On 12/11/2023 at 8:04 AM, Paper Tiger said:
Although it was made prior to the 16 AI groups patch, I'm quite happy with the AI as it stands so don't expect any significant changes here. However, the most important change will be that the core units will not start at 80% strength but rather at full strength.
It may have worked in the past but I've found out that this option is broken down in present day CMBN patch. You simply CANNOT have core units start at less than 100% strength.
When I started the Scottish Corridor this summer, all my squads were indeed at full strength - whatever parameters you did set.
-
11 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:
That was helpful, thanks. Perhaps I'm not phrasing it properly but my concern is mostly about the 'fun' aspect of the campaign - it's hard and (IMO anyway) mostly fair but it's not always fun. I'm not sure how much 'fun' I can create from such a campaign as the weather was appalling at the start and when it cleared, they ran into a tidal wave of SS counterattacks as we see at Grainville. I intend to leave the difficulty as is though. Defensive missions are the hardest to do well because the AI just follows orders blindly regardless of what is obviously happening around them.
I tried to vary the Grainville missions so that they're all distinctly different, attacks coming from different directions, new areas of the map exposed, but you're right, it does get a bit repetitive.
I see your point.
I enjoyed missions 1, 3, 5, 9 and bonus a lot. Great fun.
Missions 7 and 8 were slightly below, but still very enjoyable to me.
I played badly Mission 2 but that was 100% on me.
i was lucky on Mission 4 and achieved a good result, but that was certainly not the funniest of them all.
Mission 6 was VERY frustrating. The briefing called for a cakewalk but I ended pinned down and decimated by well sited HMG and mortars (those cooks are definitively well armed...
). Frustration was enhanced by the fact that I only achieved a draw for one casualty... Damn thresholds... And add to it the fact that, whether you exit troops or not, your situation is the same at the beginning of the next mission...
Mission 10 was also very frustrating. Just look at Double Vision and Usually Hapless AAR's and you'll get the point. You can play it the cheesy and lucky way (UH) - and score a win, or deploy treasures of imagination and lose in the end (DV). This is the only mission is ceasefired - and considering the tactical situation I never regretted. I was pleased to see that the following mission was highly influenced by this decision, though: good point IMHO.
Missions 11, 13, 14: you said everything: variations around a theme. Repetitive, but it taught me to defend with tanks. I fell in love with those Churchill VII...
Mission 12: as I said, I don't believe it offers much in terms of tactical options. By far the least interesting mission of the campaign. I remmeber that Double Vision played it very skillfully though.
11 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:IIRC, watching Hapless' videos of the two opening missions, he didn't use smoke very much at all. The Brits have the ability to generate a lot of smoke on the battlefield which allows them to infiltrate enemy positions and I used it ALL THE TIME when playing as the Brits. It's like their superpower.
I suspect if you use smoke more frequently, it's not so hard to get good results when you're on the attack.
You're perfectly correct. In Mission 1, I chose a different approach from DV and UH, leading a two-front attack. The one on the right was heavily supported with smoke (artillery and light moratrs); it achieved excellent results. I missed Total Victory only because I screwed up a couple of attacks on the left front. My bad.
By the way, there is an issue with this Mission 1: the balance of German forces is so that you can have the whole German force surrender without even attacking the left flank objective. That's something you could enhance.
11 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:If anyone has noticed anything weird, let me know. I tried reading one of the longer, old threads on the campaign here but most of the 'feedback' in its 10+ pages is just embarrassing to read now. I am more than open to adding a little extra time to certain missions for starters - perhaps the first two ASH missions need a bit more time? Let me know what you think.
Nearly all offensive missions (including the bonus one) could do with some more time! You're really harsh with time allowance.
Weird issues? AI offensive attacks may lead to some weird behaviours, but I think it's unavoidable.
As already mentioned, some missions scoring is sometimes weird IMHO.
And the lack of consequences for some missions failure lead to weird situations sometimes... But that's a matter of general campaign design, not of the single missions.
Thanks for taking the time to listen to feedback!
-
12 hours ago, Erwin said:
When folks post their results it would be helpful to specify the experience level (eg: Elite or...?) and that it was either WEGO or Real Time. Can make a big difference. But, thanks for the interesting post. It's great that PT is reworking many of his xnt campaigns.
Elite (I only play at that level) and WEGO.
And thanks for the kind word!
-
Your energy is unbelievable… While I struggle to scrap three missions together into a campaign, you manage to build whole mods, showing BFC what they could achieve… Don't you consider to push a tender offer over BFC?
More seriously, this sounds a realistic project. CMFI as a base. Blue vs. Blue scenarios with the Indians or the Brits as the Arabs and the the US, Brits or South Africans as the Israelis. I don't remember that either side ever used postwar tanks in the 1948 ar so everything shall be available in CMFI…
-
7 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:
I've been considering splitting this one up into two, shorter campaigns- one for the 9th Cameronians and the other for the 2nd ASH. There's no real overlap for these two stories. No promises but I would like to drop the difficulty down a notch. I watched Hapless' video series on this campaign and it did make me reconsider the difficulty. After all, not many of us are lucky enough to get out work played like this and I would like to encourage it rather than 'embarrass' the good folks who do. It was meant to be a HARD campaign, after all, it was a very hard operation but I think the last two Grainville missions need to be toned down and that JgPzIV in mission 2 subbed for something a little less intimidating.
Since the post you've quoted, I've finished the campaign, achieving a Tactical Victory. This was my first "serious" campaign so I'm pretty satisfied with the result. Therefore I'm a little surprised to have the campaign rated as "too difficult"! I suffered only two defeats and one draw as a newbie… (And the scoring leading to the draw is highly debatable!
). Isn't a campaign too difficult when it's simply hard to achieve a final victory?
Regarding the JgPzIV in mission 2: I personnally met a StuG, which probably means that the JgPzIV is only for the "elite" mission path… I also achieved Total Victories in the last two Grainville missions, so I don't feel you need to tone them done — except perhaps those from the "elite" mission path… but isn't it supposed to be challenging?
On the other hand I agree with you that splitting the campaign in two (Cameronians/ASH) would have made it more enjoyable to me, as both focus and overall stakes would be clearer.
I enjoyed the first half of the campaign very much. Fun missions of very different kinds with different tools at hand. But the whole Grainville affair sounded too repetitive to me.
More generally, while defensive missions lead to some epic stories to tell, I feel there are too much of them in the Scottish Corridor. Whatever the author's gifts, I think the AI scripting is too basic to produce varied and convincing attacks; assaults generally turn into bloodbaths, during which a brainless AI attacker tries to submerge the human side with hordes of infantry and tanks (and artillery). Enjoyable once but not in the long run…
The amount of work you needed to manage campaign's branching must simply be astonishing. The choice to have different levels of missions obviously helps the weakest players while providing more challenge for the better ones; but it also leads to some frustrating results, as it significantly lessens the impact of successes and defeats. You can fail to take a key position, or to exit troops as requested: you will progress to the next mission anyway, and the tactical situation at the beginning of the next mission will generally be the same whenever you won or lost the previous one. So the message delivered from this design might be understood as: forget the mission and spare your men, wether you achieve your assigned objectives or not, the results will be the same in the long run.
I was also frustrated by scoring sometimes. By example, in mission 2: I achieved all assigned objectives, except my own force preservation ratio. Our friend Usually Hapless deliberately stopped his effort to spare his forces for the next missions: doing so he scored better than I did !
My preferred mission? The bonus one. You've got pretty much all toys available to do the job: Churchill of all brands, SP guns, tank destroyers, engineers, artillery (from mortars to heavy howitzers), planes). And those Tiger II… How enjoyable to knock them out…
The one I disliked the most ? Grainville Château. You don't have many tactical choices (only one, obvious one…), the time allowance is ridiculously short (a general issue with most of your Scottish Corridor scenarios IMHO)… and in the version I played, the German IG gun was in position to cover diagonally the British approach to the Château's southernmost border hedges: I was butchered. (Interestingly, none of the players who published AAR on Youtube faced this German deployment). Terrible and not funny at all, as you can do nothing against it (no time!).
All in all I learned a lot thanks to this campaign; I'm certainly a better player after playing it, so I MUST thank you for designing it !
-
17 hours ago, benpark said:
It's two scenarios. No branching, as the operational situation is a foregone conclusion - The breakout was an impossibility, beyond very tiny groups. Playable from either side.
I didn't change anything to create a "Draw" in the file, but you could potentially change the language to a certain point in the campaign file.
OK I see the point. Thank you.
-
-
On 12/6/2023 at 6:11 PM, ehbuh said:
Just completed the axis side of the Night at the Opera campaign. Ended up with a campaign draw after getting a close draw on the 1st mission and a total victory on the 2nd.
A campaign draw??? How possible? I thought it was only possible to end a campaign with all degrees of victory or defeat, but not a draw!
I mean, there is a text for a win or a loss in the header, but nothing for a dra?!
/* Campaign Header */
[PLAYER FORCE] Blue
[HUMAN OPPONENT ALLOWED] no
[BLUE VICTORY TEXT] Victory
[BLUE DEFEAT TEXT] Sadness
[RED VICTORY TEXT] unknown
[RED DEFEAT TEXT] unknownAnd in the last battle, you can certainly put a "_draw" instead of "_total victory" or "-tactical defeat" as below, but does it work?
/* Battle #3 */
[BATTLE NAME] ACRDV3
[WIN THRESHOLD] minor victory
[NEXT BATTLE IF WIN] _total victory
[NEXT BATTLE IF LOSE] _tactical defeat
[BLUE REFIT %] 0
[BLUE REPAIR VEHICLE %] 0
[BLUE RESUPPLY %] 0
[BLUE REST %] 0
[RED REFIT %] 0
[RED REPAIR VEHICLE %] 0
[RED RESUPPLY %] 0
[RED REST %] 0 -
7 hours ago, Brille said:
Well I have a bad take on those heavy kitties but thats about my own luck I suppose.
Usually when my opponents field them they are those invincible and frightening killing machines, hard to knock down.
When I field them they are like "whoopsie seems like I lost my tracks on that 10m journey."
or
"You know usually I would totally bounce that shot...but not this time,sorry."
I still remember my first experience with the Tiger in CMAK. First enemy contact with a Vallentine( 57mm gun). Two shots of his, one partial penetration aaaand the gun of the Tiger was gone.
Thats why I usually go with Panthers, Panzer IV and other stuff.
I definitively need to play PBEM against you as the German player!
-
-
10 hours ago, MeatEtr said:
Dont give up on MP, its by far the best way to play CM.
IMHO @Centurian52 is right: it's so difficult to play reliably against humans in PBEM...
I'm engaged into three PBEM games at the moment: one of my opponent struggles but manages to throw 4-5 turns a week; another one dropped from 1 turn a day to one turn a week. And the last one disappeared without a word with only 5-10 game turns remaining.
We all have RL issues that are obviously than CM games, but such slow games make it very difficult to keep focus and enjoy the game for its real value...
-
Hmmm… Criticism was not directed towards lack of marketing, It was against the lack of COMMUNICATION towards the fanbase…
Getting announcement only once a… YEAR, it's really not much…
-
In my CMFI install, the Z folder is in the data folder as for all other games. You can put your mods safely into data\z, it will work nicely.
That's definitely going to get a look at. I wanted it to be a fun mission so I'll try and focus on the fun part there. But it may just be that you got an AI plan that really stuffed up your chances. I'm definitely going to replay that one a few times.
Engine 5 Wishlist
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
Well, not really… I've never seen any (WW2) report of a WHOLE crew disembarking to scout. That makes no sense to completely abandon a tank just to have a look at the corner…