The Force Preservation Campaign

[Childress]

OK, we, the Huns*, are striving to throw the Amis back into the Mediterranean sea in Conrath's Counterattack.

SPOILERS

SCN 1- A kind of insidious setup. Our assignment: advance an armor heavy KG between two hills offering AT flank shot opportunities on our well stocked MK3s and 4s. Nevertheless our ubermenschen carry off a Total Victory ; 19 casualties vs 80.

SCN 2- Resisting the temptation to charge uphill in the center our two pronged assault yields another Total Victory: 19 casualties (again) + two tanks versus 120 casualties.

We've arrived at the 3rd battle. We're doing well, right? Nope, not at all. Our force is seriously depleted, no reinforcements have been received and none are, apparently, due. Most of our tank commanders are AWOL because our rash and heedless CO insisted on imposing a group Unbutton on their rides. (Wait, that's me...) This campaign is less about winning than avoiding the most minimal erosion of one's forces. The cumulative effect feels punitive. Or is the required goal 'Crushing Victories'?

*No offense to our valued and indisputably civilized German co-posters.

[Tank Hunter]

Yeah, the campaign is pretty unforgivable and difficult. I gave up eventually since my forces were totally beaten up, by the end I just had couple of tanks and a few men.

One thing that made me wonder is that at one point you have to make a choice on how to deal with the rest of the campaign by moving your forces to a certain place on a map. My problem was however that I had no forces to move! The map was completely empty, not a single soldier even though I still had few men and couple of tanks. Don't know if this is a bug or not.

[Childress]

Yeah, the campaign is pretty unforgivable and difficult. I gave up eventually since my forces were totally beaten up, by the end I just had couple of tanks and a few men.

I hear you. I should mention that my victory in the first battle was on the second attempt. The scoring system did provide a 100pt bonus for keeping one's losses under 10%, perhaps a clue. Possible of overly optimistic? I didn't play deep enough into the campaign to meet your missing OOB bug; the writing was on the wall. I think the Engel Campaign in CMBN was more interesting and plausible despite the barbed wire issue.

My tactics caused a basket full of commander casualties. One thing I did notice was how rapidly the (Regular) crews shrugged off the loss of a member and plunged back into the fray. Maybe the downtime due to such a traumatic event should last longer than a single turn?

[Erwin]

Am glad you're having as much difficulty as I had... I thought it was either me... or CM2 had finally gotten impossible to play. I'll try it again now. But, it's a bit naff when you have to replay scenarios in a campaign to have a chance of getting through it.

[Placebo]

I guess the problem is historical - the Germans and itailans had a disasterous start to operation Husky, so to have campaigns for them strolling down to the beach and kicking the americans into the sea would also not feel right.

I do agree with you that they are really difficult (I have white flags waving on both campaign fronts at the moment). Perhaps it would be better to have a smaller scope to the historically defeated armies battles so you can get local successes. From what I have read some units did fight long and hard holding up the americans while others could not wait to surrender (in the case of the italians) or were so disorganised that they were totally ineffective (germans).

[WriterJWA]

I got as far as the "decision scenario" bug. The third scenario started out really well, but got a little rough after tanking the first objective. It seems these scenarios really emphasize the need for recon and pinpoint artillery fire on fixed AT positions in lieu of advancing.

[Childress]

I guess the problem is historical - the Germans and itailans had a disasterous start to operation Husky, so to have campaigns for them strolling down to the beach and kicking the americans into the sea would also not feel right.

I seem to recall from Atkinson's book that the s**t hit the fan when the Axis forces closed to within range of the Allied naval guns. Not before.

We did finally arrive at the 'decision' screen following the 3rd battle; CMFI crashed to desktop. Which came as a relief after this finicky exercise in frustration.

[Erwin]

One issue is that most CMBN and CMFI scenarios are frontal assaults. There is very little opportunity for maneuver, going round flanks etc. Ironically, the bocage in CMBN altho' claustrophobic did mean you could break a flank and move unseen/protected around your enemy's flank and rear.

I don't know if it's realistic that Sicily/Italy were all assault battles, but it's more playable and fun imo when one can maneuver and be given the choice of multiple options rather than always assault, assault, assault... Especially when playing campaigns vs the AI.

[sburke]

One issue is that most CMBN and CMFI scenarios are frontal assaults. There is very little opportunity for maneuver, going round flanks etc. Ironically, the bocage in CMBN altho' claustrophobic did mean you could break a flank and move unseen/protected around your enemy's flank and rear.

I don't know if it's realistic that Sicily/Italy were all assault battles, but it's more playable and fun imo when one can maneuver and be given the choice of multiple options rather than always assault, assault, assault... Especially when playing campaigns vs the AI.

I think at least part of the issue there is the more flexibility you have in your options, the more difficult it is to create a credible AI response.

We all have access to the same editor to try and create something different. It isn't something I have done yet, but I expect before too much longer to try my hand at that. Whether that means I'll create anything for public consumption is another issue. Bad enough I publicly display my gaming mistakes.

[Erwin]

I'll look forward to your design. I enjoyed making maps for CM1. The new CM2 engine/system has me completely intimidated with regards to the time commitment designers seem to have to make.

[Childress]

One issue is that most CMBN and CMFI scenarios are frontal assaults. There is very little opportunity for maneuver, going round flanks etc. Ironically, the bocage in CMBN altho' claustrophobic did mean you could break a flank and move unseen/protected around your enemy's flank and rear.

I think you're right. You're naked in full sight of the enemy. Also, the open terrain appears to demote the infantry to a supporting role; tanks, forward observers and craftily placed AT guns rule in CMFI. Additionally the apparent resilience (imo) displayed by AFVs in sloughing off crew casualties multiplies their effectiveness.

BTW, I rage quit in the first battle because (SPOILER) I was determined to sneak our FO team onto the bare crag overlooking the left hill without getting ripped to tatters. The second time was the charm but extreme care and patience were required.

[womble]

One issue is that most CMBN and CMFI scenarios are frontal assaults. There is very little opportunity for maneuver, going round flanks etc.

It's really difficult to design a scenario that allows you to gain that sort of advantage that isn't just a cakewalk for the attacker. If the defending force is enough to handily repulse the frontal attack, it's usually enough to extend to cover vulnerable flanks, and if it's not, it should be withdrawing to more defensible terrain, not standing and fighting just to get cut off, surrounded and wiped out.

In a historical context, when you have "front lines", there aren't that many opportunities to outflank and outmaneuver; even nipping off a salient is going to require a frontal assault on the neck of the excrescence.

...the choice of multiple options rather than always assault, assault, assault... Especially when playing campaigns vs the AI.

That's the challenge of writing a good scenario: putting in choices. Do you go left first, then right, or the other way round? Is there one obvious "key terrain" that it makes no sense not to take as an absolute priority, or are there several you can take in various orders depending on what force elements you want to suffer attrition first?

[Michael Emrys]

Flanking maneuvers should be possible in CM if you assume small defender setup areas on large maps, especially if there is any kind of covering terrain that the attacker can exploit, even if it is only dead ground. One kind of battle where that might occur is encountering a roadblock, for instance, being defended by a small force, say no bigger than a platoon. The attacking force could be the lead company of a division.

Michael

[Erwin]

Some of my favorite scenarios/campaigns were on longer maps where one had to overcome a series of obstacles. The challenge was to overcome each with minimal casualties so you could carry on to the end.

Some of the scenarios in CMBN (I haven't played enuff CMFI yet) seemed more hard work than fun.

In the interests of full disclosure, I play for fun and relaxation, and am far less interested in whether it's a "realistic miserable bloodbath slog" as I would characterize some scenarios. And btw I DID enjoy and win the infamous COURAGE AND FORTITUDE campaign. But, I'd prefer if that experience was more of a 10% of scenarios experience rather than to 50%+ they seem to be.

[black_prince]

Personally, I feel that the type of hard work Erwin is referring to is fun. I think of a well defended position as a very tight knot: you need to grab the loosest strand hard with the sharp points of your nails and pull until the whole thing comes to pieces-and I enjoy doing just that. So far in CMFI I've found that there are usually a number of possible ways to approach and capture an objective-although one particular method usually makes a lot more sense than the alternatives.

Personally, I love the fact that each CM2 game has its own characteristic terrain and tactical challenges. CMSF was mostly urban warfare. CMA gave you mountains and walled villages. CMBN is mostly boccage fighting (although the CW model gives a bit more variety). CMFI reminds me of CMA at times with the hilly terrain but the TO&Es are very different so tactics have to change accordingly. In the more open terrain encountered in CMFI it makes sense that tanks and artillery are going to take on more importance-that's as it should be and it is a very reffreshing experience after CMBN (although I enjoyed CMBN thoroughly as well).

At the moment I am on the 3rd scenario of this campaign and I'm not doing too badly with total victories for the first 2 scenarios and relatively light casualties. The only thing thst irks me a little is that the scenario I'm currently playing and the previous one both seem to follow the format of 'locate the enemy AT assets and destroy them with artillery then have a free hand to shell the hell out of the enemies' remaining units with your tanks'.

[Childress]

At the moment I am on the 3rd scenario of this campaign and I'm not doing too badly with total victories for the first 2 scenarios and relatively light casualties.

Same here. Probably your last scenario given the bug.

When I opened the 3rd scenario the briefing mentioned our force consisted of 7 MK3s and 5 MK4s. We got a total of five tanks, mixed. We had lost '2' in the first two battles.

[Brindlewolf]

Maybe it's me but isn't the Decisions scenario,where you take the two choices given,scenario five.You can either split your forces or drive on to the beachhead.No bug for me either but didn't play the last scenario,my infantry were totally depleted.I'd been using them CMBN style rather than the recon,arty on AT guns,bring the tanks up and lastly,bring up the infantry for mopping up.

I played four scenarios before the Decisons one came up,so if theres a bug it should be scenario five not four as i've heard some suggest.As is suggested at the start of the campaign,play this campaign differently to what your used to and there's plenty of time for recon.Just a tad too easy once the AT guns are down,fun though.

Edit.Nope give me a slap.The Decisions scenario is the fourth one-Doh!I am playing through this again with hindsight on the infantry.No bug though in my case.

[Erwin]

Black Prince, yes, a lot of folks do like that sort of detail. I was referring to the sameness of most of the assault scenarios. One can often do more or less the same thing every time, and it gets repetitive.

eg: "seem to follow the format of 'locate the enemy AT assets and destroy them with artillery then have a free hand to shell the hell out of the enemies' remaining units with your tanks'."

Exactly what happened re ATGM's in CMSF as well. Actually, I would say that when you are attacking with armor or combined forces, it's pretty much always exactly the same tactic: "Locate and kill the stuff that can kill the tanks, then romp over everything else with the armor."

For this reason it always seems like the inf has to do scouting in the first half, mortars/arty kill the ATG's, and the armor rarely does much till the 2nd half. Leastways, I can't recall EVER commanding a mobile attack led by armor in ANY version of CM.

[Brindlewolf]

To be fair CMFI has a mixed bunch of scenarios both in battles and campaigns,it's not all 'same old same old' recon AT guns,tanks,infantry.There are open hilltop battles,combined arms with AT guns and tanks,urban combat,mixed terrain-open,wooded battles.CMFI is quite refreshing and most importantly there is plenty of time to accomplish your tasks.My only complaint about the CW module was some of the time restraints,which meant smashing your forces against elite SS units in a limited time scale.Not the case this time around.

This particular campaign does make it clear in the beginning that it's a recon,mobile force heavy campaign and should be played differently and it's not all recon AT guns and the mop up,there are tanks to deal with too in some cases.

[JonS]

... exactly the same tactic: "Locate and kill the stuff that can kill the tanks, then romp over everything else with the armor."

Well ... yes? Combined arms wins battles. If you can unpack the enemy's ability to conduct combined arms you then get to present him with insoluble dilemas.

[Paper Tiger]

Exactly what happened re ATGM's in CMSF as well. Actually, I would say that when you are attacking with armor or combined forces, it's pretty much always exactly the same tactic: "Locate and kill the stuff that can kill the tanks, then romp over everything else with the armor."

For this reason it always seems like the inf has to do scouting in the first half, mortars/arty kill the ATG's, and the armor rarely does much till the 2nd half. Leastways, I can't recall EVER commanding a mobile attack led by armor in ANY version of CM.

Of course, if you tighten up the time limits in the missions, the player has less time to be so gamey and, as an inevitable result, turn each mission into a boring, samey 'hunt the AT assets with your infantry and artillery and then overrun the hapless suckers with your now invulnerable tanks.'

In the interests of full disclosure, I play for fun and relaxation, and am far less interested in whether it's a "realistic miserable bloodbath slog" as I would characterize some scenarios. And btw I DID enjoy and win the infamous COURAGE AND FORTITUDE campaign

ROFLMAO.

[Michael Emrys]

Actually, I would say that when you are attacking with armor or combined forces, it's pretty much always exactly the same tactic: "Locate and kill the stuff that can kill the tanks, then romp over everything else with the armor."

For this reason it always seems like the inf has to do scouting in the first half, mortars/arty kill the ATG's, and the armor rarely does much till the 2nd half. Leastways, I can't recall EVER commanding a mobile attack led by armor in ANY version of CM.

I think you can largely blame that on the period. To some extent after 1942 and to a greater extent after 1943, the increasing availability of anti-armor weaponry for the infantry meant that armor was no longer the unchallenged master of the battlefield. During the first two or three years of the war it might have been the case that massed armor could go anywhere it wanted to go, but that was no longer so true after the midpoint of the war.

Michael

[black_prince]

The 3rd mission is proving to be a bit more challenging than I first thought. Although, I think that's partly down to hubris on my part. It seems that knocking out the AT guns was just the beginning. Hopefully I'll beat it without too many casualties and won't encounter the decision mission crash bug.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Just to ease your paths, if you want to be able to make the decision keep at least one of your Headquarters Panzer IIIs alive.

-FMB

[GerryCMBB]

Did the CW forces not lead with tanks in some of those operations near Caen (Epsom maybe?)? It seemed crazy to me. It was a night attack I believe so they were covered somewhat. I thought the idea was that the tanks create the breakthrough and the infantry mop up?

Thanks,

Gerry

I think you can largely blame that on the period. To some extent after 1942 and to a greater extent after 1943, the increasing availability of anti-armor weaponry for the infantry meant that armor was no longer the unchallenged master of the battlefield. During the first two or three years of the war it might have been the case that massed armor could go anywhere it wanted to go, but that was no longer so true after the midpoint of the war.

Michael