Brit Campaign (possible spoilers)

[7thGalaxy]

Hello Chaps

Anyone else having trouble with the German mortars in this one? Do they have TRPs everywhere or something? They seem to be able to land one or two rounds wherever my men are, even after I killed their FO team, which seems a bit unlikely!

Also found a bug - brit 2 inch mortars with WP shells don't seem to like to stop firing. One of them just unloaded his entire armoury of WP shells AFTER I cancelled the smoke mission.

Good mission! Hard!

Thanks

[raz_atoth]

I'm writing an AAR about this campaign. You can read it here:

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

And yes,in the first mission the german mortars do seem to be able to hit pretty much any area on the map

[7thGalaxy]

I can't keep my men in one place for more than a min, or suddenly BOOM and a few more dead

I've actually started it again, as I got to the point where two of my platoons had been so whittled away by sniper and mortar fire that I felt I'd have had troubles later in the game.

The snipers have a nasty habit of decapitating my Churchill commanders too - good job on the tac AI really.

[dpabrams]

I hate to whine but my Brit markman seem no match for their German counterparts.

[thejetset]

*spoilers*

I lost my Churchhills in the first couple of minutes! ... and I kept both of them far to the right and behind that first line of hedgerows. ... but I am pressing forward without armor support.

Also, that German sniper on the right really caused some damage! I had him suppressed most of the time while advancing scout units with SMG's .... but he managed to score 5 kills with his PISTOL at close range.

Finally, I noticed that the 2" mortars are not nearly as accurate as the US 60mm mortars at ranges over 200m (at any range really, but you really notice the increased dispersion at >200m) ... I think the 2" team is designed to be much more integrated with the platoon compared to the US counterpart.

[wokelly]

First mission I guessed the enemy would be in that bush line on the right and nailed it with about a quarter of my arty rounds. Pushed two companies up that route (churchills and Bren teams kept the enemy pinned) who happened upon an ATG and dispatched it. My men saw the enemy bunker so I moved my 95mm churchill up the main road (luckily missed the mines somehow) until the trees lined up such that he could see the bunker through the forest, nailed it. Moved my third company up the road and to the berm line near the KOed bunker, moved my churchills up. Shifted my 3rd company left to the other side of the main road to push in from that direction. Kept my infantry in front of my Churchills and cleared the village with about 30 casualties in the end.

In regards to the mortars, was like playing musical chairs until I pushed up to the village. Probably most of my losses were to mortars. Churchills were the big killers for me, both racked up about half of the enemy casualties I inflicted.

[Paper Tiger]

The Germans have two TRPs in this mission and they are cunningly placed. Please note however that there are two AI plans in this mission and the placement of almost everything changes - TRPs, Bunkers, the single mine, the lot

In Operation Epsom, the Germans had had plenty of time to fortify their positions and register their artillery on all the avenues of approach to their positions. It was hell and anything less than hell in this mission would be an injustice. But it's not all like this

[Erwin]

The problem I found is the 2nd mission if you lose the use of the tanks and have beat up inf. I had one Churchill left that had a damaged MG and no HE shells. So was effectively useless. A bit surprised that the game system even gives one a tank like that.

Also was disappointed to be thwarted by the game system. At one point I was certain there was a gap in a hedge to get to a building from a covered direction. But, instead my 7-8 guys ran around the house and of course all KIA (natch). Even if one knows what to do tactically, this trying to figure out if there is a gap or not in hedges is not entertaining and serves no purpose other than frustration.

Also, it seems that 2 beat up platoons of inf are no match for a few SS troops. Lost 4-5 guys from snipers I never even saw in the first few turns. Now, I LOVE that finally we have snipers that are good. But, just feels like the Brits/Scots really do not have enuff to carry on, unless one can complete Mission 1 with both tanks intact and HE and MG's functioning, and/or minimal inf casualties.

Even though I won Mission 1, I really don't feel like replaying it just to get an even better result. Life's too short. Hope the German campaign is a bit more fun.

[raz_atoth]

I can't really see how the second battle can be won without having at least one Churchill supporting the infantry with it's HE shells. Simply put,a british squad can't deliver enough firepower to match the german one,especially if the germans are in good cover.And in this particular scenario they are.

In close combat,if you manage to get that close,you'll be cut to pieces by SMG/LMG fire. At distance,the mg42 lmg (+the snipers) will rule the field. The 81mm mortars aren't that useful if blindly fired against troops in buildings and you'll waste to much time if you wait to call the arty strikes.You have only 45 minutes to get the job done and a lot of ground to cover with only 2 depleted platoons.

All in one..if someone can win this scenario without armor support he must definitely must be a tactical genius I for one am not

[Erwin]

When you're up against sniper types, 45 mins is way too short for this scenario. One needs time to do recon and spot the enemy.

Instead, in both scenarios 1 and 2 one is forced to play almost like a wrist twitch game. Maybe this campaign is designed more for RT play? That's fine, but if one wants more of a simulation experience...

[benpark]

This campaign is very tough. A lot of the scenarios are fun due to this. The ones where I have to survive through endless artillery and still put up a fight less so, but that's the pain of defense. I'm always going to want more time, as all have noted. That's maybe my one gripe about 6 scenarios in.

I have been playing this real time thus far, but I think once I "beat this level" (I have to to advance or be cashiered) that I will go back to turn based as there is a lot going on. I am facing a large counterattack, and can't even think since there is so much going down in a short span of time. Mad minutes indeed.

Overall, the best thing about the campaign is the depiction of a lot of the UK front- a system of fortified villages that had to be stormed, and then held against counterattack. The maps are also fantastic, and really make the history live at ground level. Thanks for that.

[wokelly]

Also was disappointed to be thwarted by the game system. At one point I was certain there was a gap in a hedge to get to a building from a covered direction. But, instead my 7-8 guys ran around the house and of course all KIA (natch). Even if one knows what to do tactically, this trying to figure out if there is a gap or not in hedges is not entertaining and serves no purpose other than frustration.

I've encountered this a bunch of times, I am not sure what to make of it. At times there seems to be gaps but they are not actually gaps. Other times my men go through hedges that look solid until you get really close and see a very small gap. Gaps in some hedges are not well defined in this module at times.

Overall, the best thing about the campaign is the depiction of a lot of the UK front- a system of fortified villages that had to be stormed, and then held against counterattack. The maps are also fantastic, and really make the history live at ground level. Thanks for that.

Agreed, personally I am really enjoying this campaign more than the others I have played. The US campaign was endless bocage (which it was in reality but it makes for somewhat stale gameplay), and I found myself using mainly the same tactic again and again.

This one I find I have to vary my tactics. At times bocage tactics and other times wide open fields. I am about half way through the scottish corridor. I find it really enthralling balancing my increasingly depleted forces and overcoming the Germans but I feel I have a grasp of how to beat the Germans. They tend to have better firepower but I tend to outnumber them so it is about concentrating your firepower on the Germans piecemeal. The spare Bren per squad is pretty useful in this regard, need to keep him up front.

[Childress]

I've encountered this a bunch of times, I am not sure what to make of it. At times there seems to be gaps but they are not actually gaps. Other times my men go through hedges that look solid until you get really close and see a very small gap. Gaps in some hedges are not well defined in this module at times.

Geez, all the mapmaker needs to do is insert a mud or dirt tile under the gap. Et voila! No confusion. Steve posted to this effect months ago.

The designers appear not to have learned this simple lesson. (no offence!) What they have done in CW, responding to frustrated posts on the forum,is stud the bocage with innumerable gaps. Maybe a bit excessively. Especially the High Bocage variety. The hedges were, after all, a formidable barrier. But, in their defense, responding to user demands can prove to be a lose-lose proposition.

[bodkin]

The problem I found is the 2nd mission if you lose the use of the tanks and have beat up inf. I had one Churchill left that had a damaged MG and no HE shells. So was effectively useless. A bit surprised that the game system even gives one a tank like that.

Even though I won Mission 1, I really don't feel like replaying it just to get an even better result. Life's too short. Hope the German campaign is a bit more fun.

I had to go back and reload mission 1 as I lost both tanks early and found it was going to be very hard to continue mission 2. I don't like to play like that, I hate having to go back and win a mission with hindsight and prefer to roll with the punches and continue on but my chewed up infantry were not going to get the job done in mission 2.

I don't understand the tight time limits in this campaign.

[Myles Keogh]

I've played through the first three missions.

First Mission: I ended up with a draw because I was just able to get troops onto the victory locations to deny them to the Germans. I got slowed down going through that orchard because I was firing at phantom snipers with multiple platoons. Wasted a lot of ammo and time.

Second Mission: Scored a major victory by making the Germans surrender. The key was the fact that I moved so slowly in the first scenario that I didn't chew up the platoons that were available for this mission. Plus, my 95mm Churchill with 6 rounds of HE was present to help break the German defenses. (I had lost the other Churchill to an AT mine that immobilized it in the first scenario.)

Third Mission: Scored a tactical victory with a German surrender with 24 turns remaining. I mishandled my limited AT assets and so German armor was able to inflict very heavy losses upon me. However, one of my sections was somehow able to destroy a Tiger with hand-grenades and with massive artillery support I was able to slaughter the German infantry. (However, I'm puzzled why all my platoons were back to full strength at scenario start. These were the same C Coy platoons that fought in the first mission. This would have been a tougher mission if my units were still depleted from their previous fight. Isn't that the point of a campaign: forcing the player to husband his forces so he can fight again another day?)

Anyway, I'm really enjoying this campaign.

[TheVulture]

Bah humbug - I've hamstrung myself for the second scenario. I kept two platoons in reserve in the first scenario and barely used them, letting my lead units take most of the punishment. One platoon got down to 11 men (a whole 2 men in each of the infantry sections). I was reasoning that I'd have fresh platoons that would bear the brunt of the action in the future, and the worn out platoons would be assigned light duties.

And so we come to mission #2, where I only have two platoons. And they are the two most heavily beaten up ones. My total headcount is slightly less than a single full strength platoon, I have no mortar ammo, and the one functional tank I had has been taken away from me because it only had 3 crew left.

I think I might just ceasefire the second mission and conserve my forces for #3 when I will hopefully get my healthy reserve back again. At least the campaign briefing tells em I can't lose the campaign by abandoning this mission...

[Paper Tiger]

No worries. You don't get thrown out of the campaign for losing missions until near the very end. Basically, if you lose one of the battles for Grainville after the 'Going to Church' mission, the campaign finishes as the Germans succeeded in recapturing the place. In the event of that happening, the Cameronians will be placed in Reserve and the responsiblility for taking/holding the village handed to another of the Brigade's battalions. Win the battle and you get to face a fresh assault until either you are defeated or the campaign ends.

[Erwin]

I love the scenarios and maps PT. The first 2 missions I played seem eminently winnable with good tactics and being careful. But, as I mentioned, it's the time constraints that are the primary challenge.

I hate replaying scenarios just to get through, so it's great that one doesn't have to. But, it's still frustrating to feel that one is being beaten by the clock rather than the enemy.

There is no sense of urgency in the briefings, so a sensible CO would go slow and careful since preserving men was a primary consideration for the Brits who were running out of inf reserves (having already been decimated by WW1).

I think the Brits need to be played like Allied forces in CMSF. The US was "famous" for being more profligate with casualties. The Brit scenarios should reflect that difference. I do not recall having a similar time crunch when playing the US in CMBN base. I think you may have the national "characteristics" the wrong way round.

Otherwise I really appreciate all your work, PT!

[GerryCMBB]

I realize the attacker has to go slow and therefore needs time. We have talked about this before but to seems to me that if the attacker has no real time constraints, then a competent attacker can always/mostly win.

Gerry

[Erwin]

"a competent attacker can always/mostly win" Ah, that where I have been going wrong...