Jump to content

The Scottish Corridor Thread


Recommended Posts

**Obviously Spoilers Ahead**

First mission, I was suprised by the the lack of armour although plenty of infantry was on hand.

I had to reload after a few turns as both of my Churchills got nailed by unseen guns when they just creeped up to the first line of hedgerows.

In the next attempt one of my Churchills still got drilled by an unseen AT gun early while sitting back on the right flank in the wheat field, yet I continued on.

My approach was very cautious after the early loss so it was a slow process to silence those pillbox MGs and the frontline defenders. The 25pdrs did a good job but I was probably too careful and found I was soon stretched for time to take the objectives.

I ended up having to rush forward a bit too fast at the end and those SS were fanatical in there resistance, it was really hard to make progress as the SS would fight to death and take alot of Brits with them.

I was able to take 'Tatties' but not 'Neeps' as there was a FO still there that my boys didn't see. Anyway ended up with a draw.

Hope things go a bit better next mission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I get a bit concerned when I see campaigns that resupply 100% or close between missions. Ammo conservation should be a critical element, and I think there is a tendency to create campaigns using the

+1    Having to learn the "trick" to winning is the worst. The only reasons to replay a scenario is 1) if you are playtesting it, or 2) If it's a learning opportunity to hone one's skills. S

I was playing a scenario in a notoriously difficult campaign recently and going left got cover, going right meant moving a great distance in the open. So obviously I went left. But me being

The basic premise of this is flawed - most the Germans are Veterans and Fanatic, almost all the Brits are classed as Green. That isn't the case. The German SS were refitting after Russia and most of their troops were no better than Regular, albeit highly-motivated. The British had not been sitting on their thumbs for four years and were at least the same. If you want to give the Germans an edge, then make their officers Elite - that's the cadre round which the divisions were rebuilt.

Coupled with the irritating time constraints I have mentioned earlier, it means that you do have to rush the attacks, which causes mayhem and screaming and a high body count. Nice if you want a movie. Not remotedly nice if you want a serious game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I reloaded and saved one Churchill as it seems the next mission you don't get reinforced and I've still got one to help out, although now it's bogged and imobilised as the road was blocked with obstacles and it tried to go through a field.

My weakend platoons from the first mission are battling on bravely but I can see another heavy casualty toll coming.

From what I've seen so far I agree with Blow56 the time limits are unrealistic and irritating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gentlemen,in case you are interested,i'm writing an AAR on theblitz.org based on this campaign.

You can see it here:

http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=61275

Please excuse the possible spelling errors,i'm not a native English speaker. I guess you'll find it entertaining none the less.

Raz.

You did well to knock out the AT gun without a tank loss. You got more KIA than me but I lost a tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to think scenario designers egos are getting in the way of gaming enjoyment. What happened to this being a fun hobby?

I just lost the second scenario with a tactical defeat, I was trying to be conservative with my weak force but the defenders held on despite massive mortar strikes. I didn't loose too many troops but couldn't control the objective against the fanatics when the time ran out.

Think I'll give up and start again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm starting to think scenario designers egos are getting in the way of gaming enjoyment. What happened to this being a fun hobby?

I just lost the second scenario with a tactical defeat, I was trying to be conservative with my weak force but the defenders held on despite massive mortar strikes. I didn't loose too many troops but couldn't control the objective against the fanatics when the time ran out.

Think I'll give up and start again.

Well,i managed to get a tactical victory out of this one,too.But,agreed,it was a though nut to crack ,especially the stug.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The basic premise of this is flawed - most the Germans are Veterans and Fanatic, almost all the Brits are classed as Green. That isn't the case. The German SS were refitting after Russia and most of their troops were no better than Regular, albeit highly-motivated. The British had not been sitting on their thumbs for four years and were at least the same. If you want to give the Germans an edge, then make their officers Elite - that's the cadre round which the divisions were rebuilt.

Wow! Twilight Zone. I'm not sure which campaign you were playing there as the German forces in mission 1 of the Scottish Corridor campaign are mainly Green with Extreme morale. One or two of the weapons teams are Veterans but otherwise are Regular or Green. There is one team that has Fanatic morale. That seems reasonable to me. The German Zug leaders are Veterans with Extreme morale as well. Plus, the Cameronians are Regulars with Normal or High morale. They entered Operation Epsom with no combat experience at all. I think that's more or less what you were recommending, right?;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gentlemen,in case you are interested,i'm writing an AAR on theblitz.org based on this campaign.

You can see it here:

http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=61275

Please excuse the possible spelling errors,i'm not a native English speaker. I guess you'll find it entertaining none the less.

Raz.

Hi Raz

I had a look at your AAR. I will keep going back to see how you are getting on. Good luck.:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I must say that I've found the campaign most enjoyable and finely balanced. Playing on elite I've completed the two first missions, both times with about five dead and ten gravely wounded. From my limited experience it seems as if the key to success is to base everything around your tanks (both of my churchills expended 4k besa-rounds each in about an hour and a half which it took to complete the missions), given the lacking firepower of the section and the lack of heavy MGs at the coy level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any tips on surviving the 13th mission? Slight spoiler below:

I can't see any possibilities for tactics in this one besides surviving. Beyond the initial placements there isn't a lot I can do, and even then you I'm under barrage by the entire force of the artillery on the western front.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was one of PT's testers for this campaign and also for "The Road to Montebourg". I have had many of the same complaints regarding difficulty and time constraints. But playing PT's stuff has made me a much better player. I have learned to waste less time and to have a definite plan before beginning. My natural tendency is to scout and use tactics as I go, but now I formulate a plan and execute it, adjusting as necessary. His missions will force you to move out and get it done. I am a better player because of PT.

That said, all if the missions are winnable, but he made some more difficult to stay closer to historically accurate. World war 2 was a real bitch to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but if only the best players, beta testers and designers can play these scenarios satisfactorily, where does that leave us regular folks looking for some light entertainment after a hard day's slog.

AFAIK this is still supposed to be primarily an entertainment product not a training sim (and while I could understand that motivation for CMSF, it doesn't seem that relevant for a WW2 game)..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also helped playtest this campaign and I got thrashed more than once, which only persuaded me to go back and try again. PT doesn't give the player an easy time, it's true. What he does is give you a real challenge, and (usually) the forces to make beating that challenge a realistic possibility.

Misuse the forces at your disposal and you will likely suffer the consequences. Assume the AI is a dumbo and you'll get the same. But hey, if a player expects to win every time and is going to complain if he doesn't, I can't help but think he's missing the point. This is a wargame/simulation with a strong emphasis on realism. It isn't meant to be particularly easy.

And before anyone complains that the betatesters are ganging up here, no, we're not. I, and other testers, let PT know when we believed a scenario didn't work, for whatever reason. We didn't always agree. PT took our feedback and made adjustments accordingly. And it often happened (as you will probably discover) that the forces that were giving me such a tough time were surprisingly small in comparison to mine, which to me is a measure of how well the scenario is designed and how effective the game AI is overall.

And really, does losing a battle make that battle unenjoyable? I'm currently getting my butt kicked in a PBEM. I'd much prefer it was the other way round, but I'm not complaining. I'm having fun, and learning that some players may have tactics that are more effective than mine. Same goes at times against the AI.

By any standards CMN and CW is a great wargame, and this campaign is a very finely crafted one. It's not unbalanced (with possible exceptions where the designer wanted to stick as closely as possible to historical fact) and, win or lose, provides helluva good entertainment. I can only recommend that anyone who's getting a thumping rethinks their tactics and goes back in and tries again.

It's winnable. You just have to find the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"with a strong emphasis on realism."

Exactly what we are saying... Artificially short time limits just to create a more difficult challenge is not the same as having the time to use tactics in a realistic manner.

Scenarios should be winnable first time through by using good tactics.

"You just have to find the way." Some of these scenarios remind me of CALL OF DUTY type games where you have to play em once or twice to learn their "tricks".

Link to post
Share on other sites

But what if the Allies actually lost the battle that you're playing? Why should you be able to win it first time through by using good tactics? There are quite a few missions in this campaign (and a couple in 'Montebourg') that were Allied losses, or at least draws.

I wonder how many of us have been 'spoiled' by playing the Allied side in CMSF and are no longer willing to accept high casualty rates when we are playing a mission. You are going to take lots of casualties playing these missions but you will be refitted frequently as well. Operation Epsom was the last time the Brits were able to refit their units without having to resort to cannibalising existing formations to make up the casualties. Just take the casualties, accept the result and move on to the next mission. You don't get thrown out of the campaign for losing missions. You simply lose an 'experience level' and will play easier versions of the future missions, with longer time limits to boot, until you win big enough to move back up a level ;) Losing means you will have an easier time in the campaign. It is 14 missions long so if you lose the first two, the remaining 12 will be much easier.

And with regards to time limits. More time = much easier mission. The AI-controlled side has no ability whatsoever to react to your moves and that one fact alone makes the single play experience hugely unrealistic. You have enough time to do a quick recon, devise your plan and then go for your objectives. There's definitely not enough time for you to change plans midway through a mission and redeploy your forces from one side of the map to the other if your original plan isn't working out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...