German Campaign - second Mission - ridiculus!!!

[MARS42]

As always, when buying a new combat mission game, i play the campaigns first. I begun with the german campaign:

The first mission was o.k., the second made me really angry, because in my opinion it is tactically engineered in no acceptable way by the scenario designer.

The first steps of my battle plan were:

The Panzer IV has absolutely no chance against a T34/85 at long ranges on this map. I new this before, so i decided to wait until the mass of my Panzers arrive (overwhelming fire-power) and the Kampfgruppe Baker is complete (with its battle-tanks) on the right flank. Until than, i wanted to clear some houses with the infantry, which were not in direct view by the T34s. The two T34s in the main streets of advance, i wanted to destroy by the 150mm Artillery, which arrives after 10 minutes (briefing).

Critics:

1. After ending the earnest playing frustrated, I clicked through until minute 48, so 32 minutes are theoretically played, ... no 150 mm artillery on the battlefield. Thank´s for the briefing!

2. Kampfgruppe Baker is the first Kampfgruppe i ever saw, who attacks enemy battle tanks without own battle tanks,... there are only SdKfz 251s on my right flank. 1x T34 can hold off the whole attack. An info in the briefing would have been helpful, by the way, it is not senseful to give them no battle-tanks.

3. As in mission 1, the T34 begin to retreat after some time, without loosing control of the situation, that makes no sense. Suddenly the unbreakable line of the russians lifts and the T34s show their backs to my Panzer IVs. What´s this? Without this behaviour i would have had much greater losses in Mission 1 and 2, and would have had some fun, because of realism in the campaign. Briefing says, the enemy retreats, when the situation becomes critical for him, .. i only saw an enemy, who gave up a powerful position on the battlefield.

4. Scenario-time: 1 hour 20 minutes may be o.k for a player, who knows the map and the enemy movements, it may be also o.k for players, who attack, hoping the battle-luck may be on their side, or even for players, who think, own losses are not important in a campaign.

For a player, who wants to move his units tactically, it is ridiculus.

In former Combat mission games we had the same time-table for maps not half the size of this and there were not a hundred of houses on the map.

5. First i was shocked by the mass of troops i had to manage on one map in this Campaign. The spirit of a campaign lies in my eyes in the fact, that the player has at maximum one company to play and has the chance to indentify himself with his troops. This would have been better in my oppinion and my suggestion for the future.

The click-fest in this campaingn is a new experience for me, but as i´m always open for new things, i would give it a new try after the next patch, ... in hope, that some things in the Campain will be changed.

Oooh, before the following (senseful) argument arises by the Battlefront-staff,... yes, i know i was Beta-tester in CMSF and Normandy, so by helping you guys, i could have changed some things before the release. Sorry... you are right!

Greets, MARS42

[womble]

As always, when buying a new combat mission game, i play the campaigns first.

Well that's a huge mistake. The campaigns aren't there to lead you through the new content, and you only get to play them for the first time once. So if there's something about the new game that you misunderstand, you could utterly shaft your campaign experience and be very disappointed.

[Rokko]

I took a look at the first scenario very shortly only and I think I won't be playing this campaign at all, I simply cannot comfortably play on maps with these extreme zigzag roads and fences, just can't get my head around it. which is very unfortunate, of course.

[Childress]

In a game with some stunning maps those crooked roads and RR tracks stick out like a mustache on the Mona Lisa. The designers strive for typographical exactitude. Maybe some mild fudging is in order.

[Oddball_E8]

I'd love to see a frontline commander report something like this to his Commanding Officers.

He'd be demoted in an instant

[LUCASWILLEN05]

In a military operaion at the level we play at or any other you get what you are given by your superiors to perform the task they want you o do. As a junior commander

Panzer IVs were probably near to the end of their useful life in 1944 although, of neccessity, the Wehrmacht used them until the very end of the war. I am sure we would all prefer to have the Tigers and Panthers when going up against T34/85s and JS tanks. The reality was that, with only enough Panthers for one of the Panzer Division's two Panzer battalions, at least one Kaampfgruppe commander would have to draw the short straw.

Then he just had to do the best he could relying on superior tactics to win battles. And, despite what we have often been led to believe, on the Russian Front it was often the Germans, not the Soviets who had the technically inferior tanks. IISS Panzer Korps in fact won a stunniing tactical success against 5th Gaurd Tank Army at Prokorovka on 12 July. And, despite what Soviet era sources tell us (based on a lie told by Rotmistrov to save his career and quite possibly his ilfe when called upon to explain his defea to Stalin) the SS were equipped with the inferior Panzer III and only had one company of Tigers in each Divsion. Despite this they eviscerated 5th Guards Tank Army as shown by the research of George Nipe (see Decisionin the Ukraine and Blood, Steel and Myth) Russian authors such as Valerit Zamulin now admit the truth of it.

And the reason for the tactical German successes was often their tactical skill and maybe still a lingering advantage in training/eexperence. As the German player you have to find ways to outmanouver theSoviets and put them at a tactical disadvantage

You realise also that you can at any time, pause the game, step back and make, calm, considered and rational choices based on your assessment of the overall tactical situation. This is not cheating. The game designers expects his otherwise they would not have included the pause facility. That is the way to play CM, in particular when you play the large games when you step into the combat boots of a battalion/regimental/brigade battlegroup commander. I prefer to get a little experience with the smaller scenarios of a new CM release first before I atempt either one of the larger scenarios or the cammpaigns. Maybe you should consider following suit?

[MARS42]

Well that's a huge mistake. The campaigns aren't there to lead you through the new content, and you only get to play them for the first time once. So if there's something about the new game that you misunderstand, you could utterly shaft your campaign experience and be very disappointed.

Sorry, but i don´t undestand your comment, when you read my posting one more time, you will see, that i have no problem with the new game-features, but with the tactical-design of the scenario and the infos in the briefing.

I play combat mission since the very beginning, played all releases since that time, so i think, i know, how the game is working.

One thing i forgot to mention (last post here), i play WEGO.

GREETS, MARS42

[Mr.X]

I agree with you MARS, at some point I usually loose my concentration, when playing such huge battles. First of all, I usually loose the overview and then the motivation...

The problem with retreating tanks in this campaign is, that the designer is not able to let them drive backyards - they always show their backs, which is of course not realistic. This should be an improvement for the future: the order "retreat without turn around".

Regards

Frank

[agusto]

Isnt that exactly what the reverse command does Mr.X?

[Mr.X]

I would be glad, if it was the case. But until now, my tanks (I am testing some things for my next campaign) always turn around, if I want them to retreat with the help of a trigger-line Am I stupid and doing something wrong?

Regards

Frank

[Lethaface]

Still holed up in the first Soviet Campaign battle so can't comment on the German

But regarding tanks showing their backs, I saw the same in the Tank Desant scenario. The stugs kept showing their behind until they spoted my units and later showed their bottom again when retreating. Perhaps it's not possible to give AI orders to retreat in reverse?

[sburke]

I would be glad, if it was the case. But until now, my tanks (I am testing some things for my next campaign) always turn around, if I want them to retreat with the help of a trigger-line Am I stupid and doing something wrong?

Regards

Frank

I assume from your comment that you are referring to the AI tanks and you are absolutely correct. There is no option for movement for the AI other than go from point A to point B. You can't back up unfortunately. Would be a very cool addition to the designers tool kit to have. Another contributing factor is the inability to issue a "face" command.

[Frederico]

I found the campaign to be very challenging, but just what was expected from the briefings. Pz IVs are not able to stand as Panthers or Tigers would, but as everyone has pointed out in numerous other threads, you have to adjust your tactics. In the first mission I admit I did misjudge the time limit a bit (draw), but after that my IVs (and Panthers) were able to perform well with five straight victories. Again, the combination of size and sometimes inferior (maybe) equipment does make it challenging, but it is just what I would expect from the RF in 1944. Thanks to those who designed it!

[Mr.X]

Thanks Sburke,

I wondered, if I had missed something. Such a "face" command would be great.

Regards

Frank

[MARS42]

I love to fight with the Panzer IVs against superior tanks, i love to outmanouver or to overwhelm by numbers. I also liked the first szenario of the Campaign. What made me angry, was, that my tactics and my time-plan was totally sabotaged by a misleading briefing, which showed tanks on the map for KG Baker and Artillery, which did not arrive in the game.

[agusto]

I would be glad, if it was the case. But until now, my tanks (I am testing some things for my next campaign) always turn around, if I want them to retreat with the help of a trigger-line Am I stupid and doing something wrong?

Regards

Frank

I assume from your comment that you are referring to the AI tanks and you are absolutely correct. There is no option for movement for the AI other than go from point A to point B. You can't back up unfortunately. Would be a very cool addition to the designers tool kit to have. Another contributing factor is the inability to issue a "face" command.

Frank, sburke is incorrect i believe. Although i havent tried it myself yet, i think i remember from reading the CMSF editor manual that if you bake the scenario you are able to directly issue orders (waypoints, target etc) to AI units. The disadvantatge of using this technique though is that the AI units will always follow the very same movement path each time the scenario is played and that the baked scenario cant be edited anymore after baking (unless of course you made a back up of the un-baked scenario file). I think you can combine bakeing and conventional AI orders.

[ASL Veteran]

Frank, sburke is incorrect i believe. Although i havent tried it myself yet, i think i remember from reading the CMSF editor manual that if you bake the scenario you are able to directly issue orders (waypoints, target etc) to AI units. The disadvantatge of using this technique though is that the AI units will always follow the very same movement path each time the scenario is played and that the baked scenario cant be edited anymore after baking (unless of course you made a back up of the un-baked scenario file). I think you can combine bakeing and conventional AI orders.

There is no scenario baking now. You have to eat all your scenarios raw these days.

[mjkerner]

Yes, I don't think the old baking system has never been in CMx2 WWII.

[Andrew H.]

My mother once came home to find a soviet tank battalion (in 1/285) baking in the oven, as I had read that painting your miniatures and then baking them on a wooden surface* in a 200 degree other would set the paint and make it more durable.

There was no more WWII baking at home after that, either.

*You weren't supposed to use a metal cookie sheet; I'm not sure why.

[Ithikial_AU]

I've noticed these issues crop up more and more with recent CM releases as it appears some scenarios and campaigns push you down one path to a successful goal rather than giving you a myriad of options on the battlefield. This is achieved either through the structure of the map (granted at times this needs to be controlled), the unit's provided (like the OP's post) or via severe time constraints. I haven't got around to the CMRT campaigns yet so can't speak to them directly but am referring to general trends.

With the improved capabilities of the engine, AI triggers and larger maps being designed I think it's becoming possible to break away from these types of ideas around scenario design but specifically campaign design. Now I know the old CMx1 'Operations' idea is dead, cremated, ashes buried 6 feet under, but one of the most enjoyable CM experiences I've ever had was the Carentan Operation in CMBO. Even after all these years it still sticks in my head as an awesome experience as I got to relive the struggle of the 101st Airborne's approach towards their objective in the first week of the Normandy Operation.

I had a lot of ground to cover, had an idea about my forces and a timetable to follow, but other than that I had to do it my way and be judged on my final success at the end of the allotted time period. During the operation I had to make decisions like - "Do I push on to the next village with my depleted forces or wait... but that means I'd have to go in at night!" You don't get that with the current campaign system. Don't get me wrong the current campaign system has it's benefits especially for following a specific unit through a series of linked battles, but at times makes it feel like I'm being led along on a leash rather than controlling my own tactical and operational situation.

Just 2 cents plus tax.

[Erwin]

Yes, I also enjoyed the CM1 Operations concept. I know some hated it for reasons I never quite understood. It was a lot of fun.

[zmoney]

I liked operations as well, thought they were a great idea. I wish we could have both.

Admittedly I'm on the first mission of the German campaign and I really don't get why people are complaining about German tanks/ equipment being so inferior (like it's Italian equipment). So far in tank duels I've lost two tanks while knocking out five commie tanks. At ranges of 1500+ meters and possibly 1200+ meters the PzIV is superior at least in my experience. You just have to use German equipment at more of a stand off range and utilize fire suppression. Two of the Russian tanks were KO'ed at close range which was hairy for a minute but the German crew was better so won the day and got both kills.

As far as briefings being misleading; this drives me nuts. Is it possible that you used all of your alloted ammo for the arty?

I am really enjoying this game and campaign. Good job guys!

[BletchleyGeek]

Regarding operations: with the bigger maps, as Ithikal says, the whole concept looks to me more workable. The big problem is how to handle the exponential growth in the number of possible situations as the operation progresses. It would boil down to enumerate all of them, changing setup zones and victory locations.

Doable by one person, if one is to model an attack operation, with time divided into two hour segments, up to a duration of four hours, and envisioning at most three simultaneous attacks preceding a big one recapitulating the outcomes of previous actions. Such an operation would entail making 11 scenarios, 8 of them accounting for the possible combinations of outcomes of the previous ones.

Bigger stuff would require the work of more than one person.

[Apocal]

5. First i was shocked by the mass of troops i had to manage on one map in this Campaign. The spirit of a campaign lies in my eyes in the fact, that the player has at maximum one company to play and has the chance to indentify himself with his troops. This would have been better in my oppinion and my suggestion for the future.

The click-fest in this campaingn is a new experience for me, but as i´m always open for new things, i would give it a new try after the next patch, ... in hope, that some things in the Campain will be changed.

Yeah, the campaign forces are somewhat huge for guys playing real time.

[Bulletpoint]

I think it's a valid point that the enemy tanks should not turn around in the middle of the battle simply because the scenario designer assumed that they would be reversing, not turning... it seems this detail slipped through scenario gameplay testing.