campaign unballance with v2.01?

[evo6tme]

After resuming my rerun through the American campaign the road to montebourg something struck me,now that machine guns are far more accurate and realistic this greatly favors the defender making things as they stand very unbalanced ,especially for new players. If i was to buy the game now i might find the learning curve to steep to bother,no one likes loosing all the time ! Should the force balance be tweaked to make things easier .

Games need to continue to recruit new players to survive and most people will start with the campaigns . Too new players this would feel like throwing yourself into the meet grinder!!!

Just a thought??

[$Pec5]

I certainly see your point. The Germans have the superior machinegun, and now that machineguns are more realistic in their ROF, accuracy, and surpression missions such as the first American mission played where you march troops across open terrain against two machinegun pillboxes and a trench line, the level of difficulty is increased. This is especially true because the scenarios were designed based upon the game's old characteristics and not the 2.01 characteristics.

I however think that the tweaks in 2.01 make the game much more realistic and interesting. The reason why the battle of Normandy lasted as long as it did was because it was not easy being an Allied soldier and attacking through bocage country. The 2.01 changes make it harder to attack and more realistic. This may draw people to the game instead of force them away.

[evo6tme]

the first American mission played where you march troops across open terrain against two machinegun pillboxes and a trench line, the level of difficulty is increased. This is especially true because the scenarios were designed based upon the game's old characteristics and not the 2.01 characteristics.

.

Sort of explains what i was thinking . Will you have enough men left to complete the campaign after 16 missions ? especially if you are not overly familiar with the game !

[TrailApe]

Perhaps a few tweaks to increase artillery resources?

In RL Normandy was dominated by artillery and the German defenders often speak of it's intensity.

[Sublime]

I havent played Montebourg in 2.01 but I have played through it, and done many of the missions H2H as well. I think it'll come through ok after the patch, the US forces usually are more than ample for the job, as long as you stick to historical tactics and use your time and smoke well.

[Sgt Joch]

I had played the first few missions of the "Road" campaign in CMBN v.1.00 when most U.S. troops were "regulars". While testing 2.01, I played through the first 3 missions of the updated campaign where most U.S. troops were "Green". In 2.01, I won all 3 missions with light casualties.

If you play with proper tactics, you wont notice much of a difference. "If" is the key, since we may all have become sloppy in our tactics. When I first played the beach mission in v. 1.00, I was able to quick move almost all my troops to the gully in the middle of the map with very light casualties. In 2.01, my scouts were shot down and pinned as soon as they left the beach...:mad:

The learning curve may be a bit steeper than before, but isnt that why we love this game...

[Rake]

I had played the first few missions of the "Road" campaign in CMBN v.1.00 when most U.S. troops were "regulars". While testing 2.01, I played through the first 3 missions of the updated campaign where most U.S. troops were "Green". In 2.01, I won all 3 missions with light casualties.

It's not Road to Montebourg that concerns me so much... it's C&F . I didn't play it the first time around after reading the horror stories some forumites were reporting.

I just loaded up "Over Hill, Down Dale" for the first time this evening and started looking around. I know there's got to be an MG42 lined up down the road the on the U.S. right... I just hope there's not a Pak 40 backing him up! :eek: Guess I'll lead with my worst M5 and find out...

[orgit]

Hi EVO6TME,

Partly I agree with you.I think that before was reached a good balance.The only thing I hope is that with all this realism we are not going to kill the game

[Apocal]

Hi EVO6TME,

in part I agree with you.I think that before was reached a good balance.The only thing I hope is that with all this realism we are not going to kill the game

It isn't out of the question to slightly tweak balance in some scenarios or the campaigns themselves. That being said, the game definitely now leans more towards the effective use of smoke to screen infantry movement.

[Chainsaw]

Try the Scottish Corridor in 2.01 with the weak firepowering brits. Have fun...

With the MG42s (mostly) being more brutal it affects the way you play. And as the time limit was short pre 2.01 its hard as hell to sharpen up and use correct tactic as it takes more time. Which you has none of...

I'm like halfway through The Scottish Corridor playing on 2.01 and I have been ending up with scenarios where I either have terrible casualtys because time is short or I end up with "draws" and "minor victorys" because times runs out if I try to preserve casualtys.

So if there is one campaign that needs re-justing after 2.01 its Scottish corrider. Either with more time on hand or more support at hand.

But it's still a good campaign

/Thompa

[Vinnart]

I am playing "Road to Montebourg" now, and find me being a bit more cautious as I am still feeling the MG's out. I never thought I would say this, but kind of want to run into a MG42 to see how it is now. I want to play more before I form the opinion of being too deadly effecting game play as artillery was when the game first came out. Sometimes realism will not play out well in gameplay due to other limitation of the game. This was the case with the artillery originaly . One round was killing entire squads. Not saying this couldn’t be possible in reality, but doesn’t make for good game play. This was because the men bunch up more in the game than in reality. In this case BF toned the artillery down, and it is a much more playable game. As for the MG's playing for some time is the only way to see if the changes work within the limitations of the game environment, or not. No doubt the force will revolve more around MG’s. There will always be cons with the pros no matter what. Example: faster ROF means running through ammo quicker.

[Wodin]

Try the Scottish Corridor in 2.01 with the weak firepowering brits. Have fun...

With the MG42s (mostly) being more brutal it affects the way you play. And as the time limit was short pre 2.01 its hard as hell to sharpen up and use correct tactic as it takes more time. Which you has none of...

I'm like halfway through The Scottish Corridor playing on 2.01 and I have been ending up with scenarios where I either have terrible casualtys because time is short or I end up with "draws" and "minor victorys" because times runs out if I try to preserve casualtys.

So if there is one campaign that needs re-justing after 2.01 its Scottish corrider. Either with more time on hand or more support at hand.

But it's still a good campaign

/Thompa

If your still getting draws and minor victories it doesn't sound like it needs tweaking. Only if you where getting wiped out with no chance should it really be looked at.

[hollister21]

Just finished the first mission of Road to Montebourg (the beach). Total allied victory with 6 KIA, 6 WIA. Certainly much trickier getting off the beach, but I moved slowly using heavy suppression fire with my MGs and bounding teams up to covered areas.

[TheDude107]

I just got the game(Combined and 2.0, loved the gameplay I've seen and went all in.) I don't think the game is too hard for new players to learn. Haven't gotten into the real campaigns yet, only the first two training "campaigns".

I am getting destroyed in most medium sized or larger quick battles(lots of troops to manage) but I can tell its from trying to learn the WeGo and lack of knowledge. Also this game really shows your mistakes(Whole platoons route if you march them straight into "Fog of War" type situations. Scouting actually matters!!!)

This is one of the harder strategy games I've played but its alot of fun. The machine guns are powerful but I never get the impression they are overpowered. I get the impression that my troops just walked in front of a MG nest and that the game models the situation well. Multiple people get taken out if they are walking around instead of hunting/slow, and the squad usually panics.

[Boche]

ive only played a mission or two, but you can deffinatelly feel the difference between MG and Infantry exchanges, feels much more natural and fluid now.

[womble]

If your still getting draws and minor victories it doesn't sound like it needs tweaking. Only if you where getting wiped out with no chance should it really be looked at.

True from the pure viewpoint of someone who's already into the game and has an idea what they're supposed to be doing. The point was made earlier that many people will start with the campaigns, because that's what they've been conditioned to do by the industry as a whole, right or wrong (and it's at least partially right, since people do like their campaigns). Jumping straight into a campaign for most people was difficult prior to the MG upgrade, now, it sounds like it might, at the very least, raise the barrier of entry.

And, like it or not, new blood is important to a game, even one as niche as CM.

[evo6tme]

I just got the game(Combined and 2.0, loved the gameplay I've seen and went all in.) I don't think the game is too hard for new players to learn. Haven't gotten into the real campaigns yet, only the first two training "campaigns".

We are talking about V2.01,where the MG effectiveness has been improved over V2.0. If you have not installed the patch yet try it . Best to learn new mg tactics from the beginning!

[Sgt Schultz]

The new short-long-short bursts and increased number of bursts per minute does a much more credible job of doing what an HMG should do. Deny and suppress with area fire, or flat out vaporize troops caught in plain sight.

Now an area fire down a long street with buildings on both sides doesn't leave large time gaps to allow crossing. You take a step out into the street and scamper right back.

It is all about my favorite tool in the box ... smoke.

Wind conditions just became a vastly more important factor in each battle.

[TheDude107]

We are talking about V2.01,where the MG effectiveness has been improved over V2.0. If you have not installed the patch yet try it . Best to learn new mg tactics from the beginning!

Typo in the last post. I'm using the 2.01 patch. Last quick battle just a bit ago I tried throwing 4 HMG's in their own platoon with a FO. They had a spot on a hill overlooking the valley that surrounded the village. None of them produced a kill, they were firing from about 300-500m at suspected enemies that I knew were there from other units that were closer and actually had eyes on the target.

Am I firing from too far with my MG's(These were 42's)? Or was my aim just off. (Because I know the enemies mg's, and my regular inf. squads were accurate enough at similar ranges.)

Also, if a squad from say "Platoon 1" sights an enemy the squads in "Platoon 2" only know suspected enemy posistion reported by Platoon 1. Not actual locations like Platoon 1 can see.

I'm guessing this is just game mechanics because a unit has to be able to see an enemy to know the exact location, and that the radio communication just gives another unit general info even if the reporting unit knows the enmy squad on a first name basis.

[womble]

Typo in the last post. I'm using the 2.01 patch. Last quick battle just a bit ago I tried throwing 4 HMG's in their own platoon with a FO. They had a spot on a hill overlooking the valley that surrounded the village. None of them produced a kill, they were firing from about 300-500m at suspected enemies that I knew were there from other units that were closer and actually had eyes on the target.

I didn't get the impression that the MG changes would apply to Area Fire. Area Fire will still be spread out over the surrounding Action Spots (AS), and at that range, I don't imagine the boosted RoF effects have noticeably kicked in, if they even do with AF.

I'm guessing this is just game mechanics because a unit has to be able to see an enemy to know the exact location, and that the radio communication just gives another unit general info even if the reporting unit knows the enmy squad on a first name basis.

Which makes sense. If the MG can't see the target after several minutes of firing at it, there's probably no LOS. And if there's no LOS there's probably no way a bullet can get at the target either. Just because the MG can see the centre of the AS doesn't mean they can see the places the targets are actually hiding, necessarily. Assuming you were directing your fire onto the correct AS in the first place.

[wolf66]

Quick question, do the MGs still occasionally "jam" like in CMx1 ? That should level things out a bit as it did in CMx1 ......

[womble]

Quick question, do the MGs still occasionally "jam" like in CMx1 ? That should level things out a bit as it did in CMx1 ......

They didn't in v1 or 2.0, and nothing's been mentioned about adding in that 'feature' with 2.01. Personally I thought the frequency of jams in x1 was vastly overestimated. It always seemed to me like ammo capacity of MGs was irrelevant because by the end of a long scenario, they'd all have jammed before they ran out of bullets.

Considering that an entire battalion of british Vickers MGs fired continuously for hours on end in area-denial indirect fire mode with either zero or one (ISTR it depends how you count 'em) "unanticipated stoppage", jams for HMGs at least should be exceeding rare. Reported MTBF for things like BAR and MG42 is in the thousands of rounds too, so they shouldn't be at all common. I'm guessing this argument suggests that the effort in adding a jam-and-clear routine to the code simply isn't worth the effort for the infrequency with which it should be called upon to be 'historical'.

The MG42, for example, would commonly have a jam cleared by changing the barrel. Changing the barrel is part of SOP, and will be accounted for in the RoF settings for the MG team. While the swapped-in barrel was getting warm, the assistant gunner would clear the jammed cartridge from the "offline" barrel, ready for it to go back in when the spare got too hot to trot. So for a jam in an MG42 to make more than a fleeting interruption in fire, there would have to be two jams in quick succession (AIUI, the standard load only included one spare barrel; perhaps it would be more in prepared positions?). And the water-cooled "Maxim" type MMGs just didn't jam, from what's been said here on the forum.

[Vinnart]

I think it would be good if they brought "jamming" back especially as the MG's are more deadly now. In every movie I have ever seen they always say” wait till he reloads, then we move". Since that will only work RT with timing the "jam" would level things better for WEGO.

[JRMC1879]

Hi EVO6TME,

Partly I agree with you.I think that before was reached a good balance.The only thing I hope is that with all this realism we are not going to kill the game

Well no... lack of realism will be what kills the game. thankfully its not the direction we seem to be headed in.

[orgit]

Hi JRMC1879,

Well, from comments it seems that there have been a bit of changes, even in the let is says old campaigns (I think that is inevitable).Of course improvements are welcome, but I (in my opinion) would have preferred to have an AA unit fighting an on map plane than have has it is now.Less realism and more entirety.Well, to have both it would be the best:).