You know what bothers me a bit?

[Peregrine]

SPOILERS

I have been playing the battles in order of ascending size and am the road at the moment so I can't say which one I am up to but after playing seven or so this is by far the hardest. I was under the impression this was a meeting engagement and the resistance is very spread out and very little is entrenched except for one of the clearly marked objectives.

This is very much an armour map and if you mess up with your armour you will lose. One thing that works well is not engaging at long ranges and you shouldn't have to. The second is to attack with everything.

I used the scout tanks to go quickly and when I thought I hit a line of resistance everything stops, line up all 11 tanks (is that correct 3x3 tank platoons, 1 Cpy tank, 1 Rgt tank, 3 more tanks are reinforcements later one). Then all tanks "move" at once from where they are to either a sheltered place past the enemy (to protect from flank attacks) or two approximately 200 directly in front of the enemy. I am starting to give up on using hunt with groups of T34/85 because I hate them stopping prematurely and they seem to able to shoot fairly well on the move. Doing this should see you trade 3:2 tanks in some scenarios and 1:1 in others.

You will lose tanks but you should be able to make the end of the map. I am finding hunting and sniping against panthers doesn't work very well unless you have already flanked them.

I didn't try and kill every German on the map. Once I committed to a side I stuck with it. The side doesn't matter as I have travelled down both.

Right side for a loss: time limit, 5 more minutes would probably have been enough, my force was is good order as I was too careful.

Left side for a win: different AI plan?. It played out for me to launch my attack down the left. Because I had previously lost I decided I would push hard so my tank force was ruined at the end. 1 immobilized (TAC AI decided to drive through marsh), 1 running on the objective, 1 damaged mid map. Still a big win according to the scoring. Getting to the map end is pretty much the be all and end all.

[Peregrine]

I think it is poor form telling people to get busy in the editor. People should be able to purchase a game and be allowed to be critical of it without having to spend an incredible amount of time in the editor actually attempting to design a scenario.

The scenario designer did lay out why the tanks were picked though.

I personally think this scenario is a good one but the time limit may be a little low. It is hard to get there without being fairly aggressive and take what "most" people (those that have played a lot of CMBN) would feel are reasonable casualties.

PS JasonC has made scenarios in the past I think. His Kharkov CMBB campaign was one of my favourite. He put tigers in it, 4 from memory.

[ASL Veteran]

I think the game came with something like 18 scenarios? An effort is made to provide the player with scenarios from all the different size categories and a decent mix of scenarios with different tactical situations as well as different equipment mixes. Some scenarios are historical in nature and some aren't. There are plenty of scenarios provided that should meet JasonC's and Oddball's needs.

No individual scenario can be all things to all players. Some players want to play with Panthers and others don't want to play with Panthers. It's an obvious impossibility for a single scenario to meet the desires of both of those players simultaneously. The best that can be done is to provide a decent mix of different types of scenarios that hopefully most players will appreciate. Within that mix it is almost a certainty that each individual player will enjoy a few more than they enjoy some of the others. To have an expectation that every single scenario you play will blow your socks off is probably unreasonable, although we certainly make an honest effort to reach that goal.

[benpark]

I think it is poor form telling people to get busy in the editor. People should be able to purchase a game and be allowed to be critical of it without having to spend an incredible amount of time in the editor actually attempting to design a scenario.

I was pointing out that people can make changes to the existing scenario if they like. I didn't intend it as a directive!

That said, for some of us, the Editor is at least half of the game. It's really worth trying. For those of you that don't want to- there are indeed 18 scenarios there, and more coming in here and there. QB's are also improved now, so there's plenty for everyone.

[PanzerMike]

I have made 2 scenarios, both without much German armor to speak of (certainly no Tigers or Panthers, only Stug III). Hardly a German Armor Fanboi, despite my name being PanzerMike .

Only in my next scenario which will come out soon (CMRT Firebrigade von Saucken) will Big Cats make their appearance (505 Schwere Panzer). Could not resist. Doh, perhaps I do have a German uber armor fetish after all

[MikeyD]

Though in general terms the Russians did have tremendous armor superiority, when you get down to individual cases it becomes more iffy. I understand the Russians held back the bulk of their tank forces for exploitation after the initial infantry/artillery-heavy breakthrough. What exactly would be 'typical' in Bagration? Russian infantry battalions assaulting trenches through barbed wire? Dozens of Russian tanks on the rampage while scattered German infantry units desperately try to flee? Close-in knife fights? Long range duels with 88s? 'Typical' seems to be something of a moving target. On the smallest scale if you're a Russian infantryman and stumble on a SPW 223 when you round a corner, at that moment in that spot the Germans possess 'armor superiority'.

[JonS]

That's a bit of a cavalier remark!

Oh, well played sir.

[Oddball_E8]

Cut it out, there is no time for well reasoned logic when the Giant Radioactive Ego that ate Phoenix (GREtaP) is in the room.

I for one am glad he had the bravery to speak up. All I have seen on this forum is thread after thread complaining where are all the StuGs?, that is what the community lives for. They are tired of Panthers, they cry out for turretless armor to take on T34 85s and JS IIs. BF! they cry, why why why do you make us fight battles with Panthers and King Tigers when all we really wanted was some StuGs and maybe once in a while a Pz IV. Heck we don't even want armor, where is the scenario where we sit under a punishing 3 hour artillery barrage?

It is time the designers were called on their German uber armor fetish. Me I gave up on them long ago and I only play scenarios designed by the GREtaP. Thank goodness the repository is just overflowing with them.

George I hated Studienka and I swear I will stop playing it just after I finish one more try. Damn Panthers.

Well, that escalated quickly...

[Oddball_E8]

SPOILERS

I have been playing the battles in order of ascending size and am the road at the moment so I can't say which one I am up to but after playing seven or so this is by far the hardest. I was under the impression this was a meeting engagement and the resistance is very spread out and very little is entrenched except for one of the clearly marked objectives.

This is very much an armour map and if you mess up with your armour you will lose. One thing that works well is not engaging at long ranges and you shouldn't have to. The second is to attack with everything.

I used the scout tanks to go quickly and when I thought I hit a line of resistance everything stops, line up all 11 tanks (is that correct 3x3 tank platoons, 1 Cpy tank, 1 Rgt tank, 3 more tanks are reinforcements later one). Then all tanks "move" at once from where they are to either a sheltered place past the enemy (to protect from flank attacks) or two approximately 200 directly in front of the enemy. I am starting to give up on using hunt with groups of T34/85 because I hate them stopping prematurely and they seem to able to shoot fairly well on the move. Doing this should see you trade 3:2 tanks in some scenarios and 1:1 in others.

You will lose tanks but you should be able to make the end of the map. I am finding hunting and sniping against panthers doesn't work very well unless you have already flanked them.

I didn't try and kill every German on the map. Once I committed to a side I stuck with it. The side doesn't matter as I have travelled down both.

Right side for a loss: time limit, 5 more minutes would probably have been enough, my force was is good order as I was too careful.

Left side for a win: different AI plan?. It played out for me to launch my attack down the left. Because I had previously lost I decided I would push hard so my tank force was ruined at the end. 1 immobilized (TAC AI decided to drive through marsh), 1 running on the objective, 1 damaged mid map. Still a big win according to the scoring. Getting to the map end is pretty much the be all and end all.

You know what I find somewhat amusing with this post?

You say it's all a matter of comitting to one side or the other.

But if you read the briefing and consider it the way it is written (germans on the run, a few spread out stragglers that might try to form a defense, but mostly a mopping up action), why on earth would anyone pick any strategy other than going straight down the middle?

I mean, sure, we all know that there's bound to be troops hidden in the woods and flanks, but to a commander that was given that briefing, I doubt any of them would say "ok, let's not drive our tanks down the open areas to make quick progress, instead we'll move our tanks through the woods and avoid all the open areas when we chase down the fleeing enemy with all haste."

Does that sound right to you?

[Mr.X]

I have played this Baranovichi-battle, too. And I agree with you Oddball - the briefing leads you into the death But the main problem IMO is: the map is to narrow. There are no other options than 1)attack straight forward or 2) attack carefully running down the centre of the map. For tank battles (everything with more than 5 tanks on each side) size of maps must be huger - and that´s a huge amount of work to create...

Regards

Frank

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think that after 14 years of playing Combat Mission games it is safe to conclude that if a mission briefing makes it sound like the scenario will be a cakewalk, it won't really be a cakewalk. Because BFC just doesn't put scenarios like that in their games, at least not deliberately. In fact, while testing for CMRT I found out that BFC requires all scenarios to be playable from both sides. Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean that both sides will be equally balanced for a human player, but it does mean you will rarely see a scenario where one side has an overwhelming material advantage.

[benpark]

I did create five 6k by 4k maps for the Soviet campaign- making big maps isn't something outside my wheelhouse (as well as 3-4 master maps for CMMG).

This map is intentionally narrow- but there is enough room to maneuver. Keep in mind that this width of map isn't incredibly small by initial CMBN scenario release standards. We are getting used to very large maps now.

Also- Barreling ahead without some reconnaissance is ill advised in the best of situations in previously enemy held territory. Pressure from higher-ups (ie. THE BRIEFING) is to be balanced with this need. The need for speed vs. the need to not bleed. If the player uses some discretion, shifting from one area to another will help them control the pace of the battle.

Again, this situation was interesting to me- some of you, not so much. I have had positive feedback on other scenarios that I did for CMFI and CMMG- maybe you may like the 3rd scenario in the RT campaign I did. Maybe you will avoid everything I do from here on out. That's cool. Sorry a few of you didn't like it, but I did work like a devil on it. That's life.

My advice in the future- play something you like! Life is too short to not enjoy it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

As foe Baranovichi...

*SPOILERS*

After reading that briefing, I was so convinced that I was being led into an ambush that I ended up advancing too cautiously and ran out of time. In retrospect, I would have been better off doing exactly what the briefing suggested: advancing as quickly as possible until contact was made.

[JasonC]

Well Oddball remains sensible. As for the suggestion to roll my own and share, how about yes on one and no on two? You all are such swell people, I would love working to make scenarios for you - oh right, no, you aren't.

[PanzerMike]

Lighten up people. CMRT is a great game and the scenario designers made a good effort to make that clear in this first incarnation. I have been on the inside now for the first time and the dedication to make this game shine is commendable. Without the small army of volunteers this game would not even be possible.

I am glad we have this game at all. So much better than pushing counters around and consulting rulebooks like I did in the 80ties. Is it perfect? No. Are the scenarios perfect? No. But I am enjoying this game immensely none the less.

Everybody has a right to voice their opinion on the game and the scenarios. But calling things ridiculous or accusing designers to suffer from German Armor Fetish is not really a constructive of way of voicing an opinion.

If you feel briefings could be better, no problem, you may be right. Perhaps even provide an alternative version of a briefing text showing what you think would be better? We all learn every day.

[Peregrine]

You know what I find somewhat amusing with this post?

You say it's all a matter of comitting to one side or the other.

SPOILERS

I didn't write a turn by turn run down of the scenario. The first time I could look straight down the main road I spotted a panther at the far end. Very long range but for me this immediately rules out driving down there. Regardless of what the briefing says.

Then I probed each side after I ruled going any further down the main road. After doing this for a little while I then committed to a side.

I totally understand your criticism of the briefing. I can't comment too much on that though because I can't reread it right now. I mainly wrote the description because it is a very hard scenario and playing like I would have in CMBN doesn't even come close to working with this scenario. No where near enough time.

[pocketrocket]

We are not swell people merely because we may have different subjective tastes in the scenarios we like in a computer game.

The things you learn on the internet.

[Oddball_E8]

SPOILERS

I didn't write a turn by turn run down of the scenario. The first time I could look straight down the main road I spotted a panther at the far end. Very long range but for me this immediately rules out driving down there. Regardless of what the briefing says.

Then I probed each side after I ruled going any further down the main road. After doing this for a little while I then committed to a side.

I totally understand your criticism of the briefing. I can't comment too much on that though because I can't reread it right now. I mainly wrote the description because it is a very hard scenario and playing like I would have in CMBN doesn't even come close to working with this scenario. No where near enough time.

When I say "down the center" I don't mean along the main road (I rarely travel along the actual roads with anything other than trucks, and even then not very often).

I mean along the open area that snakes its way down the center.

[Oddball_E8]

I did create five 6k by 4k maps for the Soviet campaign- making big maps isn't something outside my wheelhouse (as well as 3-4 master maps for CMMG).

This map is intentionally narrow- but there is enough room to maneuver. Keep in mind that this width of map isn't incredibly small by initial CMBN scenario release standards. We are getting used to very large maps now.

Also- Barreling ahead without some reconnaissance is ill advised in the best of situations in previously enemy held territory. Pressure from higher-ups (ie. THE BRIEFING) is to be balanced with this need. The need for speed vs. the need to not bleed. If the player uses some discretion, shifting from one area to another will help them control the pace of the battle.

Again, this situation was interesting to me- some of you, not so much. I have had positive feedback on other scenarios that I did for CMFI and CMMG- maybe you may like the 3rd scenario in the RT campaign I did. Maybe you will avoid everything I do from here on out. That's cool. Sorry a few of you didn't like it, but I did work like a devil on it. That's life.

My advice in the future- play something you like! Life is too short to not enjoy it.

Oh I used recon... And they all died without seeing the enemy (except for one very lucky T-70 that I put up a video of in the screenshot thread).

Most of my recon infantry was mowed down before they could even see the enemy (while on hunt in the forests).

All of my recon tanks (which, after the loss of the 4 T-70's, consisted of T-34/85's) died without spotting the enemy before doing so.

The only time I had any success was when I actually tried to steamroll the enemy with all my available tanks at the time, and even then I have to call losing all my tanks but taking out most of theirs "success".

Honestly, I believe the main flaw with this scenario is that it is billed as a meeting engagement, but plays out as an attack.

So what we have here is a scenario where there is a clear defender and a clear attacker (which is not the case in meeting engagements), but the defender has almost the same strength of units as the attacker (some might even argue that he has more since the Panther vastly outperforms the T-34/85 at any distance over 600m).

Anyway, this thread has gone into specifics about one scenario.

I was talking about the overall feel of the scenarios in the game.

And I still feel like the scenario designers have tried to balance the fights too much. There is no sense of the "russian horde" in most scenarios.

It feels alot like CMBN but with different tanks...

I can't describe it very well, but it just doesn't feel like the ostfront most of the time.

I don't know if it's because the scenario designers felt that they had to be conservative so that the scenarios could be played H2H or what, but something is lackin.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

[JonS]

There is no sense of the "russian horde" in most scenarios.

But ... why should there be any sense of "the Russian horde"? :confused:

[PanzerMike]

The Red Hordes coming in as a human wave and overwhelming the Germans. That is an image many of us have of the fighting on the Eastern Front. But is that image still correct for 1944?

A human player can play the Soviets more or less the same way as the British or Americans. You can't force a player to just blunder into the German defences without much consideration for the well being of the Red pixeltruppen. So providing a player in a scenario with a boatload of potential cannonfodder does not guarantuee a Red Horde kinda battle. I too, still find my playing style with the Reds resembling the way I would play the Americans. I have trouble sending in my troops rucksichtlos into a withering fire. I am a real bleading heart...

Perhaps giving a large number of Conscripts only will result in a player resorting to a human wave kind of attack. Not sure if that kind of battles are really interesting though.

[Michael Emrys]

...while testing for CMRT I found out that BFC requires all scenarios to be playable from both sides.

Which is one of several reasons why I seldom play made up scenarios. Do not take this as a criticism of the practice and I don't mean to come off as some kind of snob. I get why people want to play balanced games and why it is important for BFC to cater to that desire. All is fine with that. It just isn't my particular cup of tea. For me, CM offers a stage or laboratory in which I can re-inact the kinds of small unit actions that typically occurred during the war. These were almost never balanced nor were they intended to be. Any time an attacker went into battle without a presumed preponderance of force, it was seen to be a desperate measure done for some overwhelming reason outside of usual operational requirements and considerations.

But I understand why most players want to engage in a head to head contest with another human player and that requires a somewhat near equal chance of winning by both players. While it is possible to give a weaker side an equal chance of winning by defining the victory conditions to make that possible and at the same time produce an interesting and challenging game for both players, this isn't how it is usually done. Most of the time equality of opportunity for victory is achieved by having roughly mirrored opposing forces. And if this is what players are spending their money for, I don't see anything wrong with that.

So why this post? Simple. I also know that there is some minority of players who at least part of the time share my inclinations and they need not be a silent minority. Like me, they may want to see what it is like to steamroller a helpless opponent...or alternately, to be steamrollered and see how much of the situation they can salvage from disaster. Think about it. If this is something you would like to dabble in now and then, you needn't feel ashamed or hide the fact.

Maybe we will even get some t-shirts printed up.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

The Red Hordes coming in as a human wave and overwhelming the Germans. That is an image many of us have of the fighting on the Eastern Front. But is that image still correct for 1944?

A human player can play the Soviets more or less the same way as the British or Americans. You can't force a player to just blunder into the German defences without much consideration for the well being of the Red pixeltruppen. So providing a player in a scenario with a boatload of potential cannonfodder does not guarantuee a Red Horde kinda battle. I too, still find my playing style with the Reds resembling the way I would play the Americans. I have trouble sending in my troops rucksichtlos into a withering fire. I am a real bleading heart...

Perhaps giving a large number of Conscripts only will result in a player resorting to a human wave kind of attack. Not sure if that kind of battles are really interesting though.

Somehow I doubt that Oddball is talking about human wave attacks. That's not how the Red Army was fighting in 1944 as they had figured out better ways to do things. But they did have a clear preponderance of force in Bagration, at time of 9:1 in key areas. So even if a scenario designer wants to avoid such lopsided force ratios (and there are legitimate historical reasons for so doing) he is still almost obliged to give the Soviets a 2:1 or even 3:1 advantage.

Michael

[womble]

Asymmetrical and varied-source victory conditions were invented to make a victorious score possible for the underdog. They're just a) difficult to get "right" and not what people expect. So they're perhaps not used as much/effectively as they could be.

[Oddball_E8]

I'm not talking about human waves or stuff like that, and I think most of you know that.

I'm talking about the obvious numerical superiority that the russians had.

If there was a near 10 to 1 ratio of troops on most fronts, why are most of the battles on a near 1 to 1 ratio of what it was in CMBN?

Let's take an armour example just for fun:

Total number of T-34's produced (all variants) during the war was around 84.000 units.

Total number of PzIII, PzIV, Panther, Tiger and Tiger 2 produced during the war was around 21.000 units combined.

Yes, I know that more T-34's were knocked out than panthers, tigers and whatnot, but still it points to a severe numerical advantage.

And let's not go into infantry numbers...

The point I'm trying to make here is that the russians severely outnumbered the germans in most situations and yet that doesn't shine through in most scenarios I've played so far.