Let's talk about the Road to Nijmegen

[phil stanbridge]

Please note this thread will contain *SPOILERS*.

Okay, just got my backside handed to me, in a total defeat and booted out after a dismal effort - I hadn't even finished the campaign, got nowhere near. It's the hardest campaign to date in my opinion. Just not enough support elements for the majority of missions. Infantry centric missions and very difficult. I play WEGO in Warrior mode. By the end of play I had over 600 casualties all told.

A tough nut to crack!

How have you guys got on?

[Pak40]

I might as well ask this here since it will contain spoilers as well...

Is anyone having issues of scenario length time set at 3 hours? I'm on the Mook mission now. Both the Mook mission and the one before it are set to 3 hours length despite the briefings saying otherwise (25 minutes for the Mook mission and 45 for the other). At first I though this was just an oversight by the campaign designer but since discovering that the subsequent mission is also 3 hours long I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a deeper problem.

Phil, in any case, yes this is a very tough campaign. I've technically only lost one of 5 battles so far but I'm taking huge losses, especially with the Brits.

[mjkerner]

Pak, I think it's in the notes, but you will get the longer times if you don't achieve certain levels of victory in a battle. The exploded campaign has something like 70 battles, but most are (apparently) just the "normal" ones with time added.

[Myles Keogh]

I might as well ask this here since it will contain spoilers as well...

Is anyone having issues of scenario length time set at 3 hours? I'm on the Mook mission now. Both the Mook mission and the one before it are set to 3 hours length despite the briefings saying otherwise (25 minutes for the Mook mission and 45 for the other). At first I though this was just an oversight by the campaign designer but since discovering that the subsequent mission is also 3 hours long I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a deeper problem.

Phil, in any case, yes this is a very tough campaign. I've technically only lost one of 5 battles so far but I'm taking huge losses, especially with the Brits.

You lost or got a draw for two battles in a row. Once you suffer those two consecutive defeats/draws then all the following offensive missions will be timed for three hours. (Defensive missions keep the initial time allotment.) It's Paper Tiger's solution to people complaining about his time limits being too restrictive. Rather than being booted out the campaign, players who suffer consecutive defeats or draws will now continue with these three hour "consolation" missions rather than the intended time limited ones.

I look at trying to avoid them as a challenge. If I suffer a defeat or draw in one mission then I feel extremely motivated to try to pull out a victory in next the mission to avoid those "You suck!" three hours ones. (I even went back two battles once to avoid them. I lost the 3rd mission and found the 4th impossible to get anything better than a draw due to even more restrictive time limit that results from losing the 3rd mission. So, I went back and refought the 3rd mission to ensure that the 5th wouldn't be the start of the 3 hour ones.)

[Tim1966]

I've just hit my first 3 hour mission. I have been cheating at times and going back and replaying some battles - often because I've really enjoyed them and just want to replay (no really, honestly...). Its a tough nut but very enjoyable and I don't expect to win the campaign but its one I will play again I think. I tend to run short of infantry too. Some of my Irish Guards platoons are down to 1 man...

I really enjoyed the mission where your Paratroops have to escape from hoards for Germans. A nice race against time.

I'm tending towards WW1 tactics at the moment - get my FO up front and bomb the %*£! out of anything that moves. Those flak guns rip into my boys something terrible - shredding armoured cars and spooking tanks.

[phil stanbridge]

I'm replaying through Badlands at the moment, with 3 hours. I tell you something, 3 hour missions are a good idea. Gives you plenty of time to plan a strategy plus you can ceasefire at any time without consequence providing you hit the targets. I like it.

I was winning about 50% of the missions until I got to Bloody Aalst. Great mission but has anybody managed a win yet? You have to fight for every inch. It's crazy and costly. Just wondering if this one is winnable - will have to ask PT.

[Paper Tiger]

I was winning about 50% of the missions until I got to Bloody Aalst. Great mission but has anybody managed a win yet? You have to fight for every inch. It's crazy and costly. Just wondering if this one is winnable - will have to ask PT.

When testing I made a short compilation of all four Guards missions and one of the testers won all four missions on his first playthrough so I guess it is winnable on the first run through. I could give you a hint if you want. When I play it, I use lots of smoke and am very aggressive with my artillery, particularly at the start.

[Paper Tiger]

I've just hit my first 3 hour mission. I have been cheating at times and going back and replaying some battles - often because I've really enjoyed them and just want to replay (no really, honestly...). Its a tough nut but very enjoyable and I don't expect to win the campaign but its one I will play again I think. I tend to run short of infantry too. Some of my Irish Guards platoons are down to 1 man...

I really enjoyed the mission where your Paratroops have to escape from hoards for Germans. A nice race against time.

I'm tending towards WW1 tactics at the moment - get my FO up front and bomb the %*£! out of anything that moves. Those flak guns rip into my boys something terrible - shredding armoured cars and spooking tanks.

Thanks for that. I wanted it to be fun to play even if it was a bit challenging at times. I design my campaigns to be hugely replayable (lots of AI plans almost every mission) because I tend to replay my own stuff quite a lot. I've played Road to Montebourg about four times now. I hope to replay this one a few times as well.

I wish BFC would change the way the campaign system works so that units that have taken very heavy casualties get replaced. Say if a unit is below 50% strength, then the script will build it back up to 50% strength between missions rather than the current 50% chance that a unit will receive 100% replacements.

[ZPB II]

I was winning about 50% of the missions until I got to Bloody Aalst. Great mission but has anybody managed a win yet? You have to fight for every inch. It's crazy and costly. Just wondering if this one is winnable - will have to ask PT.

It is winnable. But it is a hard and bloody grind, hence the name. Don't feel bad if you don't win it.

[Paper Tiger]

It is winnable. But it is a hard and bloody grind, hence the name. Don't feel bad if you don't win it.

It's important to note that the Guards didn't win this mission in real life. When I'm designing historical missions I will try to ensure that battles that were lost by the playable side are very challenging in the campaign too.:cool:

Although the Guards were able to clear and secure the village, the Germans prevented anyone from 'exiting the north board edge' within good time in the real battle and so exiting should be very tough for the player. However, I did script this mission so that a DRAW would suffice and scored it so that the Guards could draw if they cleared the village of Aalst but failed to exit a single unit. Exiting anything will bump up your level of victory.

[phil stanbridge]

Interesting PT. I managed to exit a single under-strength squad (about 5 men lol) but failed to get any armour up that road. I used smoke to cover my tracks against those damned 88's BUT I completely ignored the fact that any enemy units might be laying in wait on the other side.. Inevitably I got hit by a lone AT squad. I tried several different tactics (reloading every turn) to try and get a single tank up that road, and each time it would be hit by that AT rocket. Every single time, no matter what I did with smoke and such like. I ran out of time in the end believe it or not.. All 3 hours used up with about 80 KIA. The Germans suffered higher losses with 300+ KIA and quite a few injured but they still occupied the village. I lost the battle although I believe it was a close call.

I had fun playing that mission but it was extremely difficult. I learnt a few things too. The Sherman V's can knock out the JpIV's but not easily. Sometimes it would take many shots even on the flanks (unless desperately close) before the enemy tank reversed into safety. I would constantly see ricochets. But the Firefly is deadly. I could knock out the JpIV in one or two hits full frontal. So I would keep them out of harms way until required. Great tanks them.

Those Crusader AA vehicles are stupendous, with their 1000+ rounds. Probably my favourite armour in the game. I would keep them well back, but in LOS of a lot of the trouble. Using target briefly they would squeeze about 3 or 4 bursts out before the turn ended, and the infantry would bugger off promptly. It is a great way to save ammunition too. I found I was using target briefly a LOT in game, not just with these units.

I really want to replay this mission, (which I can do as I saved it at the setup phase) but I want to try and progress through the campaign once before I come back to it.

At the start of the mission it was apparent I had suffered quite a lot of casualties in previous missions even though I had played through slowly and purposely. I had whole squads missing unfortunately, which didn't help my cause.

[warrenpeace]

Currently stuck on Hueman Locke bridge. I have three hours, but still having problems. I was able to take the first two objectives, but suffered too many casualties to get a win. Ammo is a serious issue.

[Holien]

Please note this thread will contain *SPOILERS*.

Okay, just got my backside handed to me, in a total defeat and booted out after a dismal effort - I hadn't even finished the campaign, got nowhere near. It's the hardest campaign to date in my opinion. Just not enough support elements for the majority of missions. Infantry centric missions and very difficult. I play WEGO in Warrior mode. By the end of play I had over 600 casualties all told.

A tough nut to crack!

How have you guys got on?

Just starting last mission of day one...

So far the worst mission was the lock (last one) as I only got a minor victory...

All others Major's or Total's from memory (would need to check )...

Crossing the lock I got lazy and whacked and when I thought I had broken them they surprised me and whacked at close range my assault squads... Very painful, but hopefully not too bad...

The Guards are up now and with reduced Inf Squads and loss of quite a few tanks I am not sure how the Bridge mission will go...

Hoping I get more tanks and men on Day 2...

Very different style of play needed from bocage hell...

Wondering if the maps are based on the real thing? Need to check... If as wide and open as the scenarios it does not offer as many approaches and you do need to make use of arty and smoke...

Epic feel to it and hoping I can complete without rebooting anything...

Should be possible but will not be easy....

I have been able to complete PT's other epics without re-boots.

So far the British Campaign (Scottish Corridor) is my Fav and top of his tree for campaigns...

[phil stanbridge]

I *believe* I read that on Day 2 you are resupplied in full, but I'm not too sure about replacements. I hope you get both.

What mission number is the Lock one? I got to about mission 6 or 7. I restarted Badlands and have tried a different approach but the last VP is going to be a very hard fought over affair. Every mission has been a challenge in some shape or form.

Personally I prefer the epic, huge scenarios. You have more at your disposal. Just makes it more fun in my opinion. I believe the maps are reasonably accurate but I could be wrong.

Scottish Corridor is my favourite at the moment. This one could be a contested second. Although have you tried the Gustav Line campaign? That is quite good too.

[Seedorf81]

After reading this thread, I wondered if the campaign scenario's were as bad as they seemed to be. So I cheated if you like, and loaded the battles without playing them.

I will most probably offend a lot of people, but when I buy a game, I do expect it to be a little fun. Not a murderous, near impossible to win, slaughterhouse. How realistically or historically accurate that slaughterhouse may be.

I play a game to relax and to have fun. But this campaign seems to be, in my opinion, even more frustrating than the bocage struggles. And to be honest? I like to be able to win a game sometimes..

PanzerMike's scenario's for instance, give me the feeling that a win is possible, if only I make the right decisions or even if I get lucky. It's a fair game with him.

This campaign on the other hand gives me the creeps. Why should I even bother if I know that the odds are so very difficult?

I know, and nearly every hardcore forum member will tell me what an unhistorical, near hysterical, ungrateful f%#k I am, it was the way it was and if I don't like it, don't bother to buy the game, etc.. But come on, people, is it fun or a nice way to spent your free time with this level of frustrating, hardly-winnable, battles? I do not think so.

If I want to be very frustrated and have a daily dose of not getting what I would like to get, I might as well go back to my first girlfriend. (Be it that the BF game is still a whole lot cheaper, mind you! )

Battlefront has given me years of fun, but I wonder if the urge to reach a certain amount of (historical) accurate "feel" - which is an illusion until we can be shot at with real bullets or shrapnel sitting behind the computer - hasn't gone a little too far..

[Michael Emrys]

I know, and nearly every hardcore forum member will tell me what an unhistorical, near hysterical, ungrateful f%#k I am, it was the way it was and if I don't like it, don't bother to buy the game, etc.. But come on, people, is it fun or a nice way to spent your free time with this level of frustrating, hardly-winnable, battles? I do not think so.

Once again it comes down to a matter of taste and preference. Some guys like to test themselves against a really grueling environment, hence Iron Man competitions and climbs of Everest without oxygen. As it happens, I am in your camp. I have no objection to playing a game which is almost a sure win as long as I don't screw up in a really big way. From that point, the challenge is how big a victory, and I always go for Total with as few casualties as possible. But a lot of players would find that too predictable and boring. Like I said, a matter of taste.

Michael

[phil stanbridge]

I believe that it is based on historical or at least semi-historical data - but PT will correct me. We all know how contested the battle really was. It's a shocker and you really feel it. I'm not saying it isn't fun though because it is, it's just frustrating with it. But patience is a virtue. Play through the missions in a methodical way, with a strategy. If you fail at first, try again. Try something different.

[Michael Emrys]

But patience is a virtue. Play through the missions in a methodical way, with a strategy. If you fail at first, try again. Try something different.

That's the great thing about this being just a game: we can do that, over and over again if we choose. In real life, if you make a bad choice or are just unlucky, you may be dead or at least in a POW camp.

Michael

[Seedorf81]

Once again it comes down to a matter of taste and preference. Some guys like to test themselves against a really grueling environment, hence Iron Man competitions and climbs of Everest without oxygen. As it happens, I am in your camp. I have no objection to playing a game which is almost a sure win as long as I don't screw up in a really big way. From that point, the challenge is how big a victory, and I always go for Total with as few casualties as possible. But a lot of players would find that too predictable and boring. Like I said, a matter of taste.

Michael

I can understand that people have different preferences, but climbing Everest seems to be a challenge that has, with the proper preparations, at least a 50/50 change of survivability.

But I do not see those odds in the fore mentioned campaign, and shockingly as it may be, I would consider that "normal" people (if ever there are any, that is), play games with the same intent as I do: have some fun. Not being subjected at an involuntary sado-masochistic experience..

I realize that I might hurt others people's feelings here by inadvertently stating that sado-masochism is slightly out of the ordinary. (If anyone's offended, sorry 'bout that.)

[Tim1966]

I don't think the campaign is unwinnable so far - but I'm only at Bloody Aalst. I've won a few battles quite easily especially with the paratroops. Its difficult but fun. I like the feel I'm aiming for something - Nijmegen and not just playing a linear line of battles.

My favourite over game was Close Combat A Bridge too Far. I guess I'm fascinated by battles that are in the balance and could go either way. Hence I find this one fun. Its not a massacre and not impossible but for me (a reasonably new player) its hard enough without being a Total War walk over.

I'm going to play the Scottish Corridor one next and can't wait.

It ain't climbing Everest - more like climbing Ben Nevis...

[phil stanbridge]

I don't think the campaign is unwinnable so far - but I'm only at Bloody Aalst. I've won a few battles quite easily especially with the paratroops. Its difficult but fun. I like the feel I'm aiming for something - Nijmegen and not just playing a linear line of battles.

My favourite over game was Close Combat A Bridge too Far. I guess I'm fascinated by battles that are in the balance and could go either way. Hence I find this one fun. Its not a massacre and not impossible but for me (a reasonably new player) its hard enough without being a Total War walk over.

I'm going to play the Scottish Corridor one next and can't wait.

It ain't climbing Everest - more like climbing Ben Nevis...

I have won roughly half so far - my problem is I really enjoy the larger scenarios and the smaller ones (which feature quite a lot so far) don't hold my interest for quite as long. But that's down to me. Close Combat ABTF was definitely what I grew up with. I absolutely adored the series too. I even loved the encyclopedia that came with ABTF if you recall - with all those lovely sound effects and the photos. Amazing stuff, they just don't produce software like that anymore.

Hey, I replayed badlands and won a total victory, now it has sent me back to Here we fight, which I believe I have already played. Only this time, I have about 12 men to defend with.

[Holien]

I *believe* I read that on Day 2 you are resupplied in full, but I'm not too sure about replacements. I hope you get both.

What mission number is the Lock one? I got to about mission 6 or 7. I restarted Badlands and have tried a different approach but the last VP is going to be a very hard fought over affair. Every mission has been a challenge in some shape or form.

Personally I prefer the epic, huge scenarios. You have more at your disposal. Just makes it more fun in my opinion. I believe the maps are reasonably accurate but I could be wrong.

Scottish Corridor is my favourite at the moment. This one could be a contested second. Although have you tried the Gustav Line campaign? That is quite good too.

The lock game is just before the last scenario of Day 1.

It is a pig because of the open ground but winnable.

Like Tim1966 I played CC a Bridge Too Far and have been eagerly awaiting this module to relive those days...

Just maps looked more interesting with CC and I seemed to remember they had based those on the Real Life areas but I could be wrong.

So loading up this campaign it seems different the sheer amount of open space...

Anyway for those saying it is unwinnable that is not true IMO and they offer great training for anyone ho wants to go H2H with humans.

The Scottish Corridor is a must play campaign the terrain and units and history being shown intertwine into an excellent campaign.

[George MC]

I can understand that people have different preferences, but climbing Everest seems to be a challenge that has, with the proper preparations, at least a 50/50 change of survivability.

Everest summiteers have a 1:10 chance of dying on their ascent. That's the same odds for anyone venturing to 8000m. Not to far off from going into action.

See John Keegan 'The Face of Battle' for his wee comparison of casualty rates for participants in alpinism vs combat where he compares death rates amongst climbers on hard alpine/Himalayan climbs and some well know battles he covers in his book.

[Ithikial_AU]

I wish BFC would change the way the campaign system works so that units that have taken very heavy casualties get replaced. Say if a unit is below 50% strength, then the script will build it back up to 50% strength between missions rather than the current 50% chance that a unit will receive 100% replacements.

Or allow it to 'reorganise' surviving troops at the platoon or company level between designated missions so some semblance of full squads still exist. Players can always break them down to teams themselves during the next battle if they wish.

At the moment it's a real problem the longer a campaign runs because you get two man squads running around after a few battles while their buddies next door are at full strength. Purely luck of the draw for the pixeltruppen.

[YankeeDog]

Just maps looked more interesting with CC and I seemed to remember they had based those on the Real Life areas but I could be wrong.

So loading up this campaign it seems different the sheer amount of open space...

The historical maps in the MG module were researched very carefully. Wherever possible, period maps and photographs were used. In some cases, even individual tree placement was keyed off of period sources. So in general I'd trust the CM maps over the old CCABTF maps.