Let's talk about the Road to Nijmegen

[John1966]

On 3/31/2014 at 7:25 PM, Lahm said:

The hotel gives you as much points as the two plasmolen objs and the windmill insures you a victory (200vps > 150vps)

I did that and got a tactical defeat (my best result in three attempts).

I'd won the first 4 missions (German surrender in all cases) but I've got completely stuck on this one. It might be (just) winnable but it says you'll need your forces to defend in a later mission.

As I assume your paratroopers are not going to get resupplied, they'll also be having to do it with hardly any ammunition too.

So I've decided the best way to handle this one is cease fire on the first turn resulting in a defeat but at least you'll have your force intact with a full loadout to deal with whichever mission they're next required in.

[zaybz]

I have just played the Heuman Lock Bridge scenario and can confirm that the bridge is still bugged / broken / impossible to cross. Likewise, the ditches do not provide any cover (in fact it was straightforward to attain enough suppression to cross the open ground on the far left of the map, so this wasn’t game-spoiling).

 

I have now reached Night Fight and am somewhat dumfounded that, having taken Riethorst Hotel and the Windmill objectives during For Those About To Die, I now have to retake them. I can’t fathom why this is. Is this a glitch or as intended but underexplained? Perhaps a glitch due to me ‘losing’ with a tactical defeat despite taking those two objectives during FThoseATDie??

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, zaybz said:

the bridge is still bugged

I gave it up as a bad joke too. Played Bridge number 7 and Nijmegen Road Bridge in the scenarios. Have the feeling I could have done it. 

[Warts 'n' all]

15 hours ago, zaybz said:

I have just played the Heuman Lock Bridge scenario and can confirm that the bridge is still bugged / broken / impossible to cross. Likewise, the ditches do not provide any cover (in fact it was straightforward to attain enough suppression to cross the open ground on the far left of the map, so this wasn’t game-spoiling).

 

I have now reached Night Fight and am somewhat dumfounded that, having taken Riethorst Hotel and the Windmill objectives during For Those About To Die, I now have to retake them. I can’t fathom why this is. Is this a glitch or as intended but underexplained? Perhaps a glitch due to me ‘losing’ with a tactical defeat despite taking those two objectives during FThoseATDie??

It isn't a glitch, it is how the campaign designer created it. It is a representation of the ebb and flow of the battle around Riethorst.

[zaybz]

9 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

It isn't a glitch, it is how the campaign designer created it. It is a representation of the ebb and flow of the battle around Riethorst.

Thanks for the reply.

I just completed Night Fight - I rushed my troops unopposed into the objectives I'd previously occupied, so in the end it didn't have too much effect on things. I then successfully defended them.

Now I've loaded up the next mission and, LOL, once again the hotel and windmill are out of my control! It does create quite a peculiar dynamic, and certainly for me it breaks immersion. 

(Sorry if this seems moany).

[Warts 'n' all]

3 hours ago, zaybz said:

(Sorry if this seems moany).

It's nothing to be sorry about, you're just asking questions. Having to fight over the same ground again and again can feel more like a chore, than fun. 

In 1944 the US Airborne faced a heavy counter-attack around Riethorst and the neighbouring villages. In fact the situation got so bad that the Guards Armoured Divsion had to send tanks from the Coldstreams to help force the Germans back. It would have nice if the scenario designer had worked that into at least one mission.

[zaybz]

18 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

It's nothing to be sorry about, you're just asking questions. Having to fight over the same ground again and again can feel more like a chore, than fun. 

In 1944 the US Airborne faced a heavy counter-attack around Riethorst and the neighbouring villages. In fact the situation got so bad that the Guards Armoured Divsion had to send tanks from the Coldstreams to help force the Germans back. It would have nice if the scenario designer had worked that into at least one mission.

I don't mind fighting over the same ground so much, it's more that either:

I) it needs to be explained why so in the campaign in a narratively convincing way, or preferably:

 ii) the missions should respond more flexibly to the objectives you take. I.e. if I took the windmill in the previous mission then my setup zone should include the windmill in the following mission.

Otherwise there is so much attention to detail from the designer - it seems to me kind of odd that these overarching points aren't implemented.

[Vacillator]

On 5/25/2021 at 8:19 PM, zaybz said:

ii) the missions should respond more flexibly to the objectives you take. I.e. if I took the windmill in the previous mission then my setup zone should include the windmill in the following mission.

I like this option, but it may not be that easy to set up in a campaign.

[Combatintman]

8 hours ago, Vacilllator said:

I like this option, but it may not be that easy to set up in a campaign.

It cannot be done and it is an immersion breaker - I played a red v red campaign in CMSF a few years back which showed promise until I busted my @$$ trying to capture a particular objective and pretty much flattened it in one mission only to see the building miraculously intact and back in enemy hands in the next mission.  To me Campaign Design 101 should be never to set missions on the same piece of ground more than once until such times as the game features persistent damage effects on maps.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

13 hours ago, Combatintman said:

...To me Campaign Design 101 should be never to set missions on the same piece of ground more than once until such times as the game features persistent damage effects on maps.

One of the few things I truly miss from CMx1.

[zaybz]

I see, so presumably the nature of the subsequent scenario is determined by whether the player achieves a win, draw or loss (tactical, total etc) and not by what objectives they control.

 

In which case (in case any future campaign designers are reading!) I think it's imperative that the win/draw/loss corresponds with particular objectives being won, so that the following scenario's setup zone or held objectives match those that the player won in the previous scenario.

 

Difficult or impossible as that may be!

 

Otherwise it's too peculiar to have to win back the same objective 4 times in a campaign.

[mjkerner]

"... impossible as that may be"

Yup, there's your problem right there.

[zaybz]

14 hours ago, mjkerner said:

"... impossible as that may be"

Yup, there's your problem right there.

Forgive my ignorance - what are the criteria for determining the next scenario, and how many different scenarios can there be?

Is it just a matter of Win / Loss branching off to different scenarios (in which case my suggestion is impossible - and it's just a matter of campaign designers working around this limitation in a better way), or is it possible to have more than two (in which case as far as I can see my idea might be possible)?

Thanks!

[mjkerner]

Sorry, I misled you. I was commenting in regard to Combatintman’s point regarding persistent damage effects being absent in the game. I believe a branching campaign design could be set to achieve what you are after… take the village and then you go on to the scenario that starts you in that village, instead of on the outskirts of town again, or whatever. But all the damage you caused in the first battle for the village will be repaired, which tends to wreck the immersion aspect.

Edited June 15, 2021 by mjkerner

[Erwin]

23 minutes ago, mjkerner said:

a branching campaign design could be set to achieve what you are after…

Don't forget that the designer cannot accurately predict what may be damaged.  So, one would still be faced with a map that will show different damage than one had in the previous scenario.

[zaybz]

11 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Don't forget that the designer cannot accurately predict what may be damaged.  So, one would still be faced with a map that will show different damage than one had in the previous scenario.

Hi Erwin - I'm not talking about damage to maps - see my past few posts above. I'm talking about scenarios setup zones reflecting what objectives you take, when playing on the same map across several scenarios in a campaign.

[zaybz]

37 minutes ago, mjkerner said:

Sorry, I misled you. 

No problem.

Would be great if it is possible - I need to do a bit more digging into how it all works under the hood. 

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, zaybz said:

I'm not talking about damage to maps - see my past few posts above.

Ok... However what I said also applies to set-up zones.  In CM1 one could do that in campaigns as one played on a map "window" that would move back and forth (covering areas of a much larger map) between missions depending on one's success/failure (advance/retreat) in the previous mission.  It was a great feature that unfortunately was nixed for CM2.  In CM2 it is unlikely that a designer could predict where/what objectives one's units may have reached/occupied so that it is reflected in the new set-up zone in the next mission.

[zaybz]

Ok, thanks for the info.

[Combatintman]

On 6/15/2021 at 1:06 PM, zaybz said:

Forgive my ignorance - what are the criteria for determining the next scenario, and how many different scenarios can there be?

Is it just a matter of Win / Loss branching off to different scenarios (in which case my suggestion is impossible - and it's just a matter of campaign designers working around this limitation in a better way), or is it possible to have more than two (in which case as far as I can see my idea might be possible)?

Thanks!

Win / Loss branching is determined by the campaign script which in turn is determined by the designer.  It might go something like this ...

Battle 1 result = Total Victory = go to Battle 2.

Battle 1 result  = Draw = go to Battle 2A.

Battle 1 result = Total Defeat = Campaign ends.

The designer can set any thresholds they choose so it could be that no matter what the result of Battle 1 is, the script says you go to Battle 2.

For more detail on this, have a look at the thread linked below:

 

[Warts 'n' all]

Things vary from one "campaign tree" to another. In the case of "Road to Nijmegen" I found Hampton Court Maze easier to traverse.