A little setup help please

[lowflyer]

Howdy fellow Grognards. Been a long time player of the old CM versions. Just installed this later iteration. Looks good so far but the learning curve is much steeper.

Have been setting up QBs to learn with. Encountered a curious situation in one which left me a bit stumped. I was to defend a small village with German forces. No infantry, all AT guns, A few Panzerschrecks, and an unarmored carrier....and a bunch of barbed wire units. Two problems occurred:

The terrain allowed me to setup pretty much anywhere on the map??? I presumed this meant that the enemy could appear from any direction (unlike maps I am accustomed to, which have the typical two-zone setup areas). Is this the case?

I was also frustrated when trying to place the barbed wire. I could determine no method for orienting the wire's direction when placing it. No amount of manual searching turned up any clues. Help appreciated, thanks.

[ASL Veteran]

Barbed Wire is oriented by placing another barbed wire section adjacent to it.

[womble]

Since you're just learning the game, open up the QB map in the editor and have a look at the two deployment zones. It would be an unusual QB map that started with the defender surrounded, but it's not impossible.

It's also worth noting that the AI autopicker can select some... idiosyncratic force mixes. It's better than it was, but as you have experienced, it doesn't always make much sense. Partly that seems to be because it picks a 'core' formation and if that's of high value units, it doesn't pick another, but even with lots of points to play with, it can get fixated on the first formation it picks. At least that's how I interpret the results I see.

[lowflyer]

Thanks about the barbed wire. That's one piece of logic I didn't explore, the analogy is akin to placing a magnet next to a nail. I'll play with it next time.

My problem with unit placement in that scenario mostly had to do with the fact that all the colors used on the map grounds, except for grasses, were in a color spectrum using reds and yellows, not the blue/gray or whatever the setup area colors usually seem to be, which usually gives an indication of play flow direction. Adding to the confusion (and the suggestion that enemy could come from any angle)was the fact that certain units seemed to be restricted to a central locale and could not be moved around the map. They would only display a future move-to line when I tried to re-deploy them to the small map's perimeter.

I also thought it odd that no infantry elements were included in the computer's mix. It was, essentially, all AT guns, with no capability for defense at close range. It seemed as though the AI generated a scenario that wanted me to set up so that anything coming at me would have to be taken out as it approached from the map edges early on. If I failed to successfully cover every avenue of approach with at least one gun, the attackers would soon be on me and I would have only the small weapons of the loaders and the HQ units for up-close defense. I suppose that could provide for an interesting challenge, but it did seem like an odd (and unrealistic) mix for the computer to come up with.

Of course, this could all be mostly due to my unfamiliarity and "noobness" with this generation of CM.

[Redwolf]

I don't think that putting random units on a random map is the right way to learn this thing.

That is guaranteed to give you nonsensical setup zones and all kinds of other problems with battle directionality, instructions and foo.

[lowflyer]

These QBs only serving as learning and familiarization tools at this point. I am not really playing them through with any commitment. I have been playing the early generation series of games since they first appeared, so the concepts and format are not really new to me. It's just the interface and the details I have to learn anew. I did watch the six-part series by Jeffrey Paulding of Armchair General magazine. Great ops info

[ASL Veteran]

Scenarios will generally come with text and graphic briefings that will help to orient you as to the situation. With a quick battle there is no briefing, but generally speaking an enemy force will not be coming from all sides. You may want to take a look at one of the smaller scenarios to get a feel for how things are set up and then try messing around with QBs to get a feel for the game itself.

[Michael Emrys]

I have been playing the early generation series of games since they first appeared, so the concepts and format are not really new to me.

I would humbly submit that there may be more new to the concepts and format than you realize yet. That is one reason why the learning curve is so steep. A big part of it involves forgetting what you learned in playing CMx1. They are that different. True, what they have in common is that real world tactics are generally the most successful in both games, but what that means in detail can be very, very different.

Michael

[c3k]

As others have suggested, and I'd like to reinforce, is that you should not let the computer autopick if you are trying to learn the game.

Try the first scenario (the smallest tutorial: The Farm?). Play it again and again. Don't worry about the outcome. Focus on how to command and control your forces. It's a great little battle on a very nice map. Work it to death.

If you THEN want to try some little quickbattles, pick the forces yourself. Frequently the autopicks give oddities with small units. Larger point pools allow more spread, so the computer can pick a more balanced force. But, it is programmed to give a wide spread of possible picks. You can get weird allotments.

But, the important thing is to get past the learning curve. The first battle is there for that reason.

Ken

[lowflyer]

After a few more hours of play I've developed some impressions:

Kudos to the designers for the immersive graphics. The CMx1 graphics were crude, even for their day, and a sense of immersion was hard to find.

Less enthusiastic about the control functions and the game mechanics. I halted attempts to use the QB function, as suggested, as it seemed incapable of generating a reasonable equipment and play balance, unlike the CMx1 series which has entertained me for years with this mode.

I started to play through the Battles. Spent several hours on the farm scenario. Didn't allow myself to examine landscape details around the objective, so as not to ruin FOW. However, an annoying limitation of the map mechanics soon became apparent. The Bocage is, in essence, a series of walls that are too obviously used to funnel game flow. In some cases, units seem able to fire through the Bocage, but in most segments the Bocage apppears impenetrable (is that realistic? The only Bocage I have seen was from a fast moving train).

Other than a laborious process of moving to the Bocage and attempting to target through it, there is no way to determine where units can fire through, other than the few obvious larger holes. It would have made play less tedious if the designers had, say, used differing color values to indicate

a level of possible penetration for each segment.

Because some units seemed to be able to fire through, I was lead to advance through the Bocage rows on the map right, thinking supporting fire would make a stepped advance possible. I soon discovered that most of my units were unable to fire through, though that didn't seem to be the case for the enemy. I also sometimes found it impossible to align my units up so they

would be able to fire directly through the obvious openings. I was now swept up in the tedium of running all my units around the row ends or through the few breaks provided. Of course, without covering fire it was most often suicidal.

The designers cleverly draw you in by offering the multiple rows of Bocage as an alternative to advancing across endless open fields in the face of enemy fire on the left. There is also the implication, in the scenario notes, that the farm is a secondary objective, so I would guess that many, like myself, would plan to take the crossroad first. Going straight down the center road is

obviously not an option, due to the faultless and devastating marksmanship of the AT gun, which seems to be set imperviously at the far end. It is virtually impossible to find cover for a mortar or observer on that road, that allows for targeting the gun long enough to take it out.

After continuing to slog my way successfully through the Bocage rows, and feeling rather good about myself, I pop out into the last empty row before the crossroads only to find that I am enfiladed from the left, with no place to escape to, and all my units are mowed down. It is at this point that the map revealed itself. It had been designed so that every critical point was perfectly hemmed in by obstacles and set within a deadly crossfire. I understand that finding these sorts of situations to set up in as a defender is part of the challenge and part of the fun, but this was too perfectly "constructed." A cheap trick that was so obvious it ruined the gameplay for me. OK I got it. The scenario cannot be won by rolling up the right side. At least I got an education about the Bocage characteristics.

In other battle scenarios I discovered the difficulty of trying to make units move around or through the Bocage in a controlled manner. I would try to initiate a flow in one direction. The AI would decide I couldn't get through in that direction, and I would have units running wildly all over the map as they tried to reach a destination, oftentimes straight into the path of the enemy.

I also again discovered the problem of the game hexes not matching up with the graphic constructs. Trying to place units precisely into exact positions was often impossible. As often as not units intended to be utilizing cover would end up in the open instead.

I also got a taste of what one reviewer described as feeling like he was battling a bunch of "question marks." One battle was fought for the most part against these question marks. Even when they were adjacent to my units they still were only represented as question marks. Clicking on one would sometimes reveal it, but as soon as I clicked away it returned to a question mark (a bug perhaps?).

The well known targeting issues are bothersome. Yes, I do understand the reasons for them, but they were not so apparent in CMx1, and more time spent on map development might have lessened the perceived effect. And I agree with those who find the interface to be cumbersome and unintuitive, unless one takes the time to remap keys to more easily remembered letters. I

ended up using the mouse, which was tedious.

At this early stage I must confess I find this generation not to be the worthy upgrade I was hoping for, for many reasons. In essence I find the entertaining graphic improvements do not make up for the kludgy game mechanics and artificial feeling map terrain. The Bocage becomes a very obvious artifice for funneling play flow. They might as well have used brick walls. Perhaps later add-ons avoid this feeling. Will it entertain me for years, as the CMx1 series has? I am not optimistic, but am willing to invest more time to be sure.

[sburke]

At this early stage I must confess I find this generation not to be the worthy upgrade I was hoping for, for many reasons. In essence I find the entertaining graphic improvements do not make up for the kludgy game mechanics and artificial feeling map terrain. The Bocage becomes a very obvious artifice for funneling play flow. They might as well have used brick walls. Perhaps later add-ons avoid this feeling. Will it entertain me for years, as the CMx1 series has? I am not optimistic, but am willing to invest more time to be sure.

If you decided that after a few hours, you haven't played enough. There are quite a few scenarios and Normandy bocage ones have their own particular feel. The sense of frustration you are feeling is probably a combination of two things.

1. Early map design- yep we are all learning even the really really good scenario designers are always learning what makes a good map and scenario. I can remember playing some early CM battles and getting bit frustrated with flat maps, bocage that had no openings whatsoever etc.The designers though keep getting better over time and there is a lot of phenomenal stuff out there now. Don't let one or two samples form your whole opinion

2. The Normandy Bocage in real life was exhausting, frustrating, deadly and ideal defensive terrain. Unfortunately CM does portray that rather well, but there is hope! There are more scenarios that don't take place in the bocage!!

I am well into years of entertainment with this CM engine (especially if you include CMSF) and I foresee many many more to come.

[Lt Belenko]

I played very few bocage battles. I didn't like it either.

Satchel charges blast holes in Bocage. There are also some Rhino tanks for plowing thru.

[ASL Veteran]

I can't tell you to like the game, but if the bocage is getting frustrating then perhaps you might try the demo for Fortress Italy. There is no bocage in Italy so you wouldn't need to worry about that.

[lowflyer]

My post was not intended to trounce the game. Just giving early impressions in hopes that some might chime in, as you guys have, to point out how my opinions might change if I stick with it.

I have been a gamer since the C64 days of wire frame flight sims, and have spent the last few decades constantly rebuilding my hardware, usually to pump up my systems enough to play some new title I coveted. There were always budget restraints to add to the challenge. Thus I have been around the game block many times.

I tend to see titles in two phases. One is the initial experience...the freshness of surprise and exploration, which relies heavily on an effective immersion experience. One is also usually involved with learning the software at this stage, so petty complaints are generally reserved for later,especially if the designers have been able to capture my attention and hold it in these early stages.

The second phase for me usually involves having become very familiar with the software and it's flaws and limitations, and taking up the simple, but engaging challenge of trying to overcome the obvious and work with the game structure as it is to achieve success, even though the immersion factor may rarely be extant at that point. In other words, just finding ways to beat the system. I can get a lot of additional mileage out of that.

I didn't get very far into CMBN before the immersion began to fall away, largely because of the kludgy interface and the unexpected movement issues due to AI limitations on a hard-to-navigate map base. I harbor no illusions. No game is perfect. And It's doubly hard for an intelligent adult to stay engaged.

I always judge heavily by game play and not the eye candy. Games like Microprose's Red Storm Rising, from the C64 era are good examples. There really was no eye candy, just crude 2D depictions, cut scenes really, that showed a ship sinking or a sub taking a torpedo. The action took place on a simple flat screen marked with weapon tracks and color-coded ocean layer depictions. Yet, with only 64 kb available the designers built an experience that still holds up today if you can run the software.

Not giving up yet. There's too much meat on this bone to abandon it this soon. I guess being old and experienced doesn't allow something as simple as engaging graphics to hold my interest for long. there has to be something underneath.

[Baneman]

...

Not giving up yet. There's too much meat on this bone to abandon it this soon. I guess being old and experienced doesn't allow something as simple as engaging graphics to hold my interest for long. there has to be something underneath.

Then you wont be disappointed. There's lots underneath.

[Michael Emrys]

I didn't get very far into CMBN before the immersion began to fall away...

You may get some of that back if during replay (in WEGO mode) you get down in viewing level 1 or 2 and watch close up what your and the enemy's soldiers do during the turn. It can be quite amazing at times.

The interface gets better if you do remap the hotkeys, which is actually pretty easy to do.

Lastly the bocage. Yes. Learning to fight in it is a whole extra skill set, not one that all players are interested in acquiring. To learn the game, you'd be better off to tackle some of the more wide open scenarios. Or do as I do and play QBs almost entirely using the more open maps available. One thing to be noted about CM is that it is highly customizable to your interests if you are just willing to take the time.

Michael

[Erwin]

CM1 is a better "game" than CM2 which tries to be more of a simulation.

While I really enjoy CM2, I find it a LOT more work, and I burn out a lot quicker than I did with CM1. However, after a few weeks away (playing for example Grigsby's massive War in the Pacific or War in the East games), I always come back and enjoy CM2 again.

But, with any game, I think you either "get it" immediately, or you'll probably never like it. It's a game after all, and not supposed to be arduous to play.

[eniced73]

Stick with it, you will be fine. Hedgerow fighting is tough but not impossible. You do have to micromanage you troops very carefully to make sure they find the gaps that you want them to go through. If you slap down waypoints with long movements then you are asking them to find the quickest way not the smartest. So, issue short movements and get down to level one or two to find the gaps you want to hit.

You cannot target through HR's unless you are right up on them. You will also find that your men can shoot straight ahead of themselves but cannot target at certain angles. So if you are behind a HR and the enemy is advancing straight at you, you are fine. If he decides to take another route and come across the field at an angle then you troops may have a hard time targeting. The easiest trick is to place a movement waypoint at the HR where you would like your men and then click on that waypoint and issue a target order. The red line will come up and show you where you can target and where you cannot.

[costard]

Hi lowflyer, welcome to the game.

Look for your engineers and breach teams - guys with explosives packages to blast your way through bocage. Your task now is to identify the route you want to blast to end up where the defenders cannot catch you in the crossfire. You'll spend a bit of time learning how to blow gaps to get your vehicles through, and how to blow gaps without getting your blast team annihilated on the other side of the obstacle - set your blast movement parallel with the wall and see what result you get.

Let us know when the next frustration crops up - they seem to crop up with frightening regularity at this stage of the game. Courage and persistence.

[Pak40]

lowflyer,

Just out of curiosity, did you purchase just the CMBN base game? If so, make sure you have all the patches. Also, I advise you to purchase the 2.0 upgrade. Camera navigation, shadows and many other things have been improved. You can also purchase the 2.0 with bundles of the Market Garden and/or Commonwealth modules.