German Campaign.....Slaughterhouse!

[Volltreffer]

Due to a very busy schedule I have only recently had a chance to fire up the Market Garden module...

Starting with the German Campaign I am currently on the third battle where I have Kriegsmarine conscripts attempting to bash through the lightly defended American LZ perimeter.

How the heck can you break through when your squads break and run and run as soon as one of them gets a grazed elbow?

I understand historical realism in the sense that they are GREEN troops, however I am wondering if anyone has made any progress in this engagement.......OR...... is it designed to be a butt-kicking until reinforcements come in a later battle?

[bisu]

I did not get through this mission either, despite several attempts..

[ZPB II]

I managed a Total Victory on my first try. Careful approach, spreading the men so they are not in easily frightened stacks and then expending liberal amounts of ammo area firing any known and suspected enemy position.

Lost 31 KIA 46 WIA.

[womble]

Green doesn't mean they run. It's low motivation (and leadership factors) that makes them intestinally fragile. Green "just" means they don't shoot so straight, spot so well or hide so well, or make the right decision when "self preservation" kicks in. Amongst other factors that mean that the "grazed elbow" happens more often to Green troops than ones with greater experience/training, which does exacerbate their fragile morale if they have such.

I mention this as a didactic point, rather than to suggest that the troops involved should be made of sterner stuff.

Splitting squads (if possible) tends, IMO, to mitigate "morale damage", since each element is addressed separately to some extent, whereas keeping the squads en bloc mean they get pinned more (if one team is pinned the whole squad is) and react more broadly to casualties sustained (losing a man from a squad might drop the whole squad to "Rattled", whereas if the teams were split, the team that lost the man would be "Rattled", but the other team(s) would only drop to "Cautious" or "Nervous".

[Pandur]

yea this mission is nasty, i split all squads, sneaked last 2 or 3 action spots to contact, used the 2 MG´s a lot(they make up a lot of your total firepower in this mission) and used excessive area fire, yet i took horrible casualties and didnt took all objectives on first try. only mission in this campaign i played that i didnt won with total victory so far.

but its doable, like in school of hard knocks you need to push through hvy casualties to make it work, accept the casualties and go on and suddenly the map opens up as the hardest part for me was to get into the houses, they kept sweeping my guys through the underbrush and woods a long time and till i got into the houses.

i consider myself a pretty expirienced CMx2 player and i consider this mission not to hard, but for anyone that is remotely new to the game this missions, like this one or school of hard knocks, are too hard i think. i mean its good you want to challenge vetreran players also but to put this mission in the beginning or midle of a campain is just to frustrating for new guys i think. i wouldnt do it if id design a campaign at least.

whatever, this mission should be called "Blood, Sweat and Tears"

[Erwin]

When you give AAR's please let us know if you played RT or WEGO as it makes a big difference.

[womble]

...to put this mission in the beginning or midle of a campain is just to frustrating for new guys i think. i wouldnt do it if id design a campaign at least...

I think, rather, that it should be made clear whether a campaign is meant for newbies or veterans. There's an expectation in the gaming world that campaigns are the way a game introduces you to the game's elements, ramping up in difficulty as they progress. That simply isn't the case in CM, beyond the very basic "basic training" missions.

[Pandur]

I think, rather, that it should be made clear whether a campaign is meant for newbies or veterans.

well it isnt like all the mission are only winnable for veteran players. all the mission up to this one where a walk in the park compared to No.3 and should be also winnable for beginners. i would not lable a campaign "veteran" just cause there is one mission in it thats extremely hard.

There's an expectation in the gaming world that campaigns are the way a game introduces you to the game's elements, ramping up in difficulty as they progress. That simply isn't the case in CM, beyond the very basic "basic training" missions.

right, question is, is it a good thing CM games dont give much about expectations in this particular area of the game. well i dont care but for the sake of starters the campaigns could be me progressive in difficulty.

EDIT:

as example, if you look through comments on the big 2h+ tutorial video on youtube, the one made by game pusher, there are plenty of people that drop the game not cause they dont like it but they "dont get it", and a school of hard knocks as campaign mission 2 does not help there i think.

[womble]

well it isnt like all the mission are only winnable for veteran players. all the mission up to this one where a walk in the park compared to No.3 and should be also winnable for beginners. i would not lable a campaign "veteran" just cause there is one mission in it thats extremely hard.

I disagree. The overall difficulty of a campaign is set by its hardest missions. If the designer has allowed for an "easy" (but lower-scoring) alternative, perhaps, then you could assign it a range of intended player skills. But if it's A-B-C-D-E and you have to complete D, which is a tricky one, it ought to be labelled "hard".

right, question is, is it a good thing CM games dont give much about expectations in this particular area of the game. well i dont care but for the sake of starters the campaigns could be me progressive in difficulty.

Far easier to manage expectations that to rewrite all the campaigns (or one campaign per family).

...there are plenty of people that drop the game not cause they dont like it but they "dont get it", and a school of hard knocks as campaign mission 2 does not help there i think.

I couldn't agree more. Newcomers to the franchise bring expectations to the game. Now, there are a bunch of those expectations that just need to get punctured early on, but where they can be managed away, you'll grow your player base more healthily.

[Erwin]

The ideal solution is what some of the better designers do - if you lose a mission in a scenario it bumps you to an easier mission next rather than forcing you to (horror of horrors) replay the lost mission until one "gets it right". More work for the designer of course, but that's the way to do it.

A probably insurmountable challenge is that missions and campaigns are so varied in style. Sometimes one can spend most of a mission playing very realistically as if one's own life were on the line, only to find that you could have initially run your men a couple hundred meters in complete safety, and now you have insufficient time to complete the mission successfully.

The other extreme is where you think that on average you can run the first 25 meters to get to cover, and instead you get ambushed as soon as your men have moved a few meters.

It's an issue of intel. From what I read, it was rare to have no knowledge of where the enemy positions were when assaulting. That's what a recon mission is for, not an assault mission.

[Volltreffer]

Thankyou all for the replies... Nice to know I wasn't the only one having a tough time of it.

I have played CM games since the very start, although I have tended to have big breaks in between revisiting.

I like that they have made the lethality of MG's more realistic, although it definitely makes for a more challenging game.

I think I will try it again with split squads as others have suggested and see how I go.

I play Real Time only...although I pause a lot to issue orders and take time out to survey the situation, or in this case, the debacle.

[JonS]

I think, rather, that it should be made clear whether a campaign is meant for newbies or veterans.

Why does it have to be one or the other? :confused: As I understand it, this campaign was meant for players, regardless of their level of experience.

The overall difficulty of a campaign is set by its hardest missions.

No, the overall difficulty largely a perception of the player. If you're a good player, you'll find any campaign or scenario easy. If you aren't, you won't.

But if it's A-B-C-D-E and you have to complete D, which is a tricky one, it ought to be labelled "hard".

and

The ideal solution is what some of the better designers do - if you lose a mission in a scenario it bumps you to an easier mission next rather than forcing you to (horror of horrors) replay the lost mission until one "gets it right".

I don't really see what the problem with re-fighting a battle is, but it's probably worth quoting from the campaign briefing here:

The defence of the Reich rests in your hands. Although you may not be successful everywhere, winning battles - and winning them well - will unhinge the Allied timetable and could bring victory to Germany's beleaguered forces. Each battle is an independent action - forces do not carry over between battles - and it is the the cumulative results which will determine the overall outcome of this campaign.

"You may not be successful everywhere." You don't have to win every battle - that's just some weird self-imposed constraint. There is no requirement to win every - or any - battle to proceed to the next ones in this campaign. However, your overall result does depend on how you do, which is the way it should be. If you are a good player and play well, you will get a good result. If you aren't a good player then either accept that, or get better. Don't demand that designers hold you by the hand and give you easy missions so you can feel better about yourself.

[Volltreffer]

Ok, I gave it another go and still seem to be struggling to get a foothold on the first set of building just as you come out of the woods...

I have piled on intense suppressing fire and yet they still seem to turn back my assault squads with heavy losses. Even when I do manage to evict the defenders from a building I immediately get smashed from fire coming from building further behind the line (Green or not, what idiot stands up in full view in a window) building should offer better cover to small arms fire.

How the heck can I get accurate mortar fire onto the buildings to properly suppress them? Do I need to get their CO into a position that see's the target first?

For sure I am rusty after not having played the game for some time, although I fail to see how others have had an easy time of it as there seems to be fire coming from all directions at times, far too much to even think of suppressing all of it.

Split squads had little effect, I attack from multiple directions at once so as to give the defenders too many targets to suppress and yet I still managed to get smashed.

I will keep going until I find a weak spot, that's if there is any... The Kriegsmarine clearly don't have their land legs in this engagement.

[womble]

I have piled on intense suppressing fire and yet they still seem to turn back my assault squads...

Do you really mean "squads"? You might get better results if you split them into teams.

Even when I do manage to evict the defenders from a building I immediately get smashed from fire coming from building further behind the line (Green or not, what idiot stands up in full view in a window) building should offer better cover to small arms fire.

Some buildings do. Barns might as well not be there. Larger stonebuilt buildings can make a team very difficult to kill. Again, make sure you split your squads so that you don't have too dense a target cross-section in each building.

You can minimise exposure by Slow-ing into the building, but do you even really need to enter?

How the heck can I get accurate mortar fire onto the buildings to properly suppress them? Do I need to get their CO into a position that see's the target first?

Mortars (mostly) aren't necessarily the best way to suppress a building. They aren't that pinpoint accurate, and their vertical trajectory generally means they don't have much effect on troops that aren't on the top floor, and even then the effect is reduced by the roof.

Using mortars, you have two modes: indirect, where you use the eyes of a HQ or FO unit to call them in using the "support" menu. The calling unit has to have privileges to do so, and the firing unit either has to be offmap or in radio contact (approximately; there are threads dealing with the nuances). Or direct lay, where the mortar crew themselves fire directly on the target. They can fire "just past" where other units can see. This mode can mean they are targets for enemy small arms (or other direct fire weapons) and while they're setting up and ranging in, they're not firing back.

For sure I am rusty after not having played the game for some time, although I fail to see how others have had an easy time of it as there seems to be fire coming from all directions at times, far too much to even think of suppressing all of it.

Can't comment on the particular scenario. These are just general points.

Split squads had little effect, I attack from multiple directions at once so as to give the defenders too many targets to suppress and yet I still managed to get smashed.

That's not how you use split squads. Attacking from multiple directions just presents more directions the enemy to shoot from, recruiting more of their elements to their side of the firepower balance. You have to find or create an axis of approach that only has a few elements firing at your many. You can sometimes use smoke to create the odds advantage, but most of the time there's one or more points where the terrain does it for you, but you have to allow the terrain to do so and not overload it: squeezing one more firing unit into the base of fire isn't worth it if that unit will be exposed to fire from enemy that you're not currently intent upon. Clear that one axis, and another is made. Take your time and dissect the position.

I will keep going until I find a weak spot, that's if there is any... The Kriegsmarine clearly don't have their land legs in this engagement.

Clearly there is a way to do it, as others have succeeded. So good luck in your hunt.

[Volltreffer]

Ok, so I moved on from the mission in question as it was getting to the point where I was going to throw the PC out the window...

I am onto the 'Bridge over troubled Water' mission.... and again to my dismay I have pathetic Kriegsmarine troops at my disposal...

Hopefully someone can clarify a few things for me.... what do I need the engineers to do on the bridge? Obviously the satchel charges do sweet FA, so is it a matter of just defending the bridge over the canal and that's it? I.E. no way to blow it!

I got down to the end of the clock and the US para's had rushed one end of the bridge and then the clock continued to tick on (although highlighted red)... what does this mean?

[womble]

Hopefully someone can clarify a few things for me....

Haven't played the scenario in question yet (and am not likely to for some time, struggling as I am with Mission 1), but I can confidently assist with:

...what do I need the engineers to do on the bridge? Obviously the satchel charges do sweet FA, so is it a matter of just defending the bridge over the canal and that's it? I.E. no way to blow it!

Nope. No way to blow it with just engineers. You can drop bridges with enough HE. My favourite way is to have a Sherman cook off, having been "Ronson"ed on the bridge. Hopefully this helps you determine what your options are.

And:

I got down to the end of the clock and the US para's had rushed one end of the bridge and then the clock continued to tick on (although highlighted red)... what does this mean?

A scenario designer can designate the scenario as having a variable end time. This means that an arbitrary number of extra minutes (up to a limit set by the designer, IIRC) will be added to the end of the scenario. In this case it works to your advantage, as you now have "some" time to dislodge those pesky "devils in baggy trousers" before the score is assessed. In general, the variable end time is intended to discourage such chancy "end game victory point grabs".

[sburke]

Warning there are details here not spelled out in the briefing. If you want to limit your awareness of victory point info stop now.

Ok, so I moved on from the mission in question as it was getting to the point where I was going to throw the PC out the window...

I am onto the 'Bridge over troubled Water' mission.... and again to my dismay I have pathetic Kriegsmarine troops at my disposal...

Hopefully someone can clarify a few things for me.... what do I need the engineers to do on the bridge? Obviously the satchel charges do sweet FA, so is it a matter of just defending the bridge over the canal and that's it? I.E. no way to blow it!

I got down to the end of the clock and the US para's had rushed one end of the bridge and then the clock continued to tick on (although highlighted red)... what does this mean?

That would be my contribution to JonS' campaign. I understand you might want better troops, but the reality of MG is the Germans were making do with whatever they could throw together. It is to be expected you are going to have to do the same to some degree. JonS would have to speak to which units are used in which battles and how that may or may not reflect availability in different locations. In this instance JonS gave me a lot of assistance and guidance but left me a lot of room to develop the scenario. The end result for better or worse is mine. Also campaigns are really not the place to start if you are new and based on some of your questions I suspect you are either new to the game or are kind of like me- I start games without really looking through the manual first. Sometimes I just can't wait.

That being said, the historical situation this scenario was created from was the fighting for Honinghutje bridge (See September Hope by John McManus pg 172-174.). The reality was the Germans pinned the Americans down and then set off their demolitions. They thought they had blown both the bridges. They had not and as the Germans pulled out, the 82nd strolled in and took posssession of the remaining bridge.

The problem with scenario creation -or I guess problems- particularly historical ones

*they are difficult to recreate the feel, you simply know too much already

*the AI will only do so much so you can't really expect it to behave in a manner that would make the most of it's strengths. It won't use smoke at all for example.

* a too tightly scripted battle is boring for the player.

* you think this is hard, read up on the real battle. The airborne failed, but then the Germans failed worse by not doing a QA check on their work.

For this one in particular, there was no way I could replicate the bridge demolition. I might have been able to try something like a pretimed arty strike on the bridge, but that would be awfully iffy and prone to it's own issues. As a result I created a fictitious what if and had the Germans set up to complete the job. The role of the engineers is two fold and no it was not explicitly spelled out - if I did that all you gamey bastards would just run them into a corner and hide them. I did however give a hint in the briefing - you need to protect them - in other words, their deaths have value to the enemy. No engineers, no ability to set the demolitions. Makes sense?

Now in order to make that a harder choice, the engineers are frankly your best squads, so now the player needs to weigh involving them at potential cost. The AI itself has 5 plans, hopefully this would give you more interest at replay. Some are harder than others. Having run through this multiple times verifying the AI plans and seeing how the results panned out, the heavy weapons provided are your key. The mortars in particular can play havoc on the Paras if used well. I won't say correctly as there are probably a few options I haven't thought of as well as multiple plans to contend with.

Yes as noted by Womble, the designer can have a variable timing for the end. I prefer them to prevent gamey rushes on the last turn. You need to establish control over that bridge. If you are relying on a last minute rush you better hope you time it right because being ON that bridge is bad news. There isn't much cover (though surprisingly more than I expected).

In terms of difficulty level, I have no idea how to rate that. I can only create based on my own experience and the feedback from playtesters. Personally I like a scenario to be a challenge. If there is no challenge then replaying it is a waste of time. Winning should make me feel like I actually accomplished something. This particular senario I have played through and handily creamed the airborne and other times been slapped down to the mat. For me that represents value.

Incidentally, the scenario Out on a Limb was drawn partially from a description on page 127 about Easy Co of the 504th at Graves. It is not a direct recreation, but the concept of a unit being dropped much closer and now taking responsibility for an objective that was meant for a much larger force sounded interesting. Read the book if you haven't, you'll enjoy the game even more.

[Volltreffer]

That would be my contribution to JonS' campaign. I understand you might want better troops, but the reality of MG is the Germans were making do with whatever they could throw together. It is to be expected you are going to have to do the same to some degree. JonS would have to speak to which units are used in which battles and how that may or may not reflect availability in different locations. In this instance JonS gave me a lot of assistance and guidance but left me a lot of room to develop the scenario. The end result for better or worse is mine. Also campaigns are really not the place to start if you are new and based on some of your questions I suspect you are either new to the game or are kind of like me- I start games without really looking through the manual first. Sometimes I just can't wait.

sibility for an objective that was meant for a much larger force sounded interesting. QUOTE]

I have been playing CM since the beginning... although with rather big gaps in between game time as the 14 or so years have gone by...., so it is taking a little getting use to the improved lethality of MG's and other refinements within the game.

I am all for historical accuracy also, I was just having a whinge about having Kriegsmarine troops two scenario's in a row...

I guess one of the main issues I have is that all too often troops who are shaken will break and run more often than not into an even worse situation and expose themselves to even more enemy fire.

C'est la vie I guess.

This scenario was actually a walk in the park up until the last 10 mins or so when the larger force of para's appear on the map... from that point on they had far superior suppressing power and I could not bring my mortars down on them as they were out of the spotters field of vision.

I will have to keep plugging away I guess.

[Volltreffer]

UPDATE...

Gave it another run through (or two), and finally had a major victory on the canal.

The clock overrun is a little unnerving as I had at that point run out of mortar shells and was reliant on the surviving units on the right side of the canal to hold out... Thankfully a few MG bursts ended it and I achieved the elusive victory that I had been after for the last few evenings.

Now to see if my Fallschirmjäger can hold XXX Corps.

[sburke]

UPDATE...

Gave it another run through (or two), and finally had a major victory on the canal.

The clock overrun is a little unnerving as I had at that point run out of mortar shells and was reliant on the surviving units on the right side of the canal to hold out... Thankfully a few MG bursts ended it and I achieved the elusive victory that I had been after for the last few evenings.

Now to see if my Fallschirmjäger can hold XXX Corps.

well you held the 82nd Airborne with Kriegsmarine so I think you are headed in the right direction.

[Volltreffer]

I held XXX corps with relative ease... My Fallschirmjäger can hold their heads high....

Their halftracks rushing down the road towards the end was like shooting rats in a barrel...

I provided some heavy firepower of my own, I must confess....

[Erwin]

That's the future of interactive computer wargaming, right there!

Imagine donning a pair of 3D specs and seeing the CM world around you so you could interact with your pixeltruppen with voice commands, pick up a weapon, (or have an 'orrible NCO start screaming at you to "carry some ammo over there!").

[AlexUK]

I agree with the OP - third mission is too hard (Wego) I've given up trying to win after many attempts. I'd like to hear from someone who has managed it - IMO this one could do with more German forces.

[Volltreffer]

That's the future of interactive computer wargaming, right there!

Imagine donning a pair of 3D specs and seeing the CM world around you so you could interact with your pixeltruppen with voice commands, pick up a weapon, (or have an 'orrible NCO start screaming at you to "carry some ammo over there!").

That is the dream right there Erwin... I can't imagine it will be too far off being implemented. It may be cost prohibitive to start with, but as you say it is the future of gaming.

[Volltreffer]

I agree with the OP - third mission is too hard (Wego) I've given up trying to win after many attempts. I'd like to hear from someone who has managed it - IMO this one could do with more German forces.

I managed to get into the first group of houses, but pushing further just ate up more men and time needed to outmanoeuvre the enemy...

The lethality of enemy firepower (even from a lone individual in a building) was sufficient to send an assault squad reeling.

Just getting into positions to lay down suppressing fire was a hell of a task.

Once there they either had insufficient cover or the buildings offered little in the way of shelter and they themselves were in many cases suppressed and/or routed due to very poor morale and experience.

For me the amount of time I put into mission 3 I doubt I will revisit it as it just wasn't fun... I understand the whole 'give hardcore guys a challenge' but I fail to see how anyone could win this scenario without many, many restarts and even then that is a massive if.

I tried each and every avenue and minimised my exposure as best as could be, but the fact remained that in order to get into a position to lay suppressing fire, you are in turn able to be hit by return fire...

Given the poor quality of troops at hand, the US para's usually have a 90-10 advantage of counter-suppressing your fire given they are of a much higher quality...

I don't know if any patches have been released recently that vastly improved the effectiveness of certain weapons, maybe those that were able to win in this scenario had it on an easier setting...