You know what bothers me a bit?

[niall78]

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.

You are equating strategic production numbers over the entire war with numbers of units in use during a tactical engagement over a tiny area that lasts an hour or so. I don't see the connection to be honest.

All scenarios are a tiny snapshot off time. They could be represented by any force mix and size for either force and still be historically correct as at the micro level we play at nearly any combination of things did happen.

[ASL Veteran]

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.

I believe Pete made a nice little scenario titled "Red Hordes" so you might want to take a look at that one.

[Oddball_E8]

You are equating strategic production numbers over the entire war with numbers of units in use during a tactical engagement over a tiny area that lasts an hour or so. I don't see the connection to be honest.

All scenarios are a tiny snapshot off time. They could be represented by any force mix and size for either force and still be historically correct as at the micro level we play at nearly any combination of things did happen.

Of course, but I'm not talking about a single scenario.

I'm talking about the overall feeling of the game (so far).

And I know those are strategic production numbers over the entire war, but they still paint a picture of what to expect.

With a country that produced massively more tanks than the germans, you'd expect more of them to show up.

Actually, come to think of it, I feel that the CMBN scenarios often had more shermans-per-panzer than CMRT has t-34's-per-panzer. And that strikes me as odd.

Anyway, It's pointless to argue. There are obviously some that feel that the overall feel of the game is historically correct and that most skirmishes were pretty even, and there's nothing I can say that will change their view on that.

[Oddball_E8]

I believe Pete made a nice little scenario titled "Red Hordes" so you might want to take a look at that one.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to that one

I'll be playing as the german of course

[Michael Emrys]

You are equating strategic production numbers over the entire war with numbers of units in use during a tactical engagement over a tiny area that lasts an hour or so.

Almost irrelevant. At this stage of the war, over the whole eastern front the Soviets had about a 3:2 numerical advantage, but that's not too relevant either. Due to skillful masking of troop deployments, at the critical points (as I posted earlier) they frequently enjoyed a 9:1 advantage. So most of the time over the whole Bagration operation I would expect to see significant force advantages in the Soviets' favor. Not usually 9:1 perhaps, but easily 2:1 or 3:1.

In such battles, a moral victory for the Germans might consist of delaying the Reds some specified length of time while extricating a minimum percentage of his force intact off the map.

Michael

[sburke]

Of course, but I'm not talking about a single scenario.

I'm talking about the overall feeling of the game (so far).

....

Anyway, It's pointless to argue. There are obviously some that feel that the overall feel of the game is historically correct and that most skirmishes were pretty even, and there's nothing I can say that will change their view on that.

Well you need to separate the scenarios from the game engine. From an engine perspective (modeling of units/ ToEs etc) I think most would agree. From a scenario perspective it is a whole other thing. If the scenarios were done "historically" we'd have thousands upon thousands of scenarios where the Germans would simply be overwhelmed. Many of those scenarios would be the German player sitting under a huge artillery barrage and then trying to repel Russian armor with nail clippers.

BF would be crucified for being stupidly (not calling you stupid, just an expression) tied to some bizarre concept where you were required to experience the sheer agony of Army Group Center as it died. The scenarios are there to entertain. Some are attempts to recreate portions of the offensive that are interesting and not ridiculously one sided. Many are completely fictional to provide fun and interesting tactical challenges. If I am understanding you correctly you feel that the overall impression of a massive defeat for the German army does not come through in the scenarios. Yeah I think I'd probably agree with that. As others noted BF does try to increase the playability of scenarios by at least trying to make them function for either side or HTH. The type of battle I think you may be looking for is more likely going to come from the user community.

On a side note while Broadsword and I were doing the St Lo campaign we actually did kind of the same thing as BF. We cherry picked battles that looked interesting for both of us. After all it isn't much fun to play a scenario where you 1. Do not have a snowball's chance in hell and 2. can't even pretend to come up with a plan.

[womble]

...I would expect to see significant force advantages in the Soviets' favor. Not usually 9:1 perhaps, but easily 2:1 or 3:1.

In such battles, a moral victory for the Germans might consist of delaying the Reds some specified length of time while extricating a minimum percentage of his force intact off the map.

Such a shame there are no time-limited VCs other than "by the end of the game". I think the rationalisations people have offered to explain why RT isn't showing the general numerical superiority of the Soviets at this period of the war are mostly valid; there wouldn't be much point in assigning VPs to objectives if the demographic in general weren't interested in their end score. I know many of us aren't always playing to "win", but many, probably a large majority, are, and getting asymmetric VCs right is tricky.

Another way numerical disadvantages can be balanced out is by "spending" the notional points the designer has in their head for a "see saw" battle on fortifications for the defender. Many assaults by numerically superior Russians into the teeth of prepared defenses? There's at least one been reported on this forum, and that would be "representative" of some engagements of the period, I think.

[MikeyD]

A 'representative' battle against a fortified position would probably involve the location being bypassed then systematically reduced with artillery before being mopped up. That was the singular failure of Hitler's fortress scheme (You'd think he would have learned something from the Maginot line). It might be instructive as a tactical exercise but I'm not sure it would be fun to play. Despite the historical accuracy nobody has expressed much desire to begin a battle with a prolonged Katyusha bombardment on top of the Germans.

[niall78]

A 'representative' battle against a fortified position would probably involve the location being bypassed then systematically reduced with artillery before being mopped up. That was the singular failure of Hitler's fortress scheme (You'd think he would have learned something from the Maginot line). It might be instructive as a tactical exercise but I'm not sure it would be fun to play. Despite the historical accuracy nobody has expressed much desire to begin a battle with a prolonged Katyusha bombardment on top of the Germans.

That's what I don't get about this thread. I can see how a radically unbalanced scenario might be fun once or twice but why would anyone want the majority of campaigns or scenarios to be unbalanced in such a way? you'd have to be a masochist to enjoy them on a constant basis. It would do zero for sales either.

Would a dream campaign for those wanting such masochism involve the first battle being a German company with no AT and limited ammo facing off against fifty T-34s and a regiment of infantry following a six hour barrage by multiple artillery assets? Then seven or eight battles where Soviet heavy tanks pursue the shattered survivors? While historically accurate it makes for dull gaming. Any game without balance is dull as dish water.

While a few hold the Soviets up scenarios would be fun I certainly wouldn't like the focus of the game to be multiple battles in which my forces are expected to be little more than a speed bump.

This goes for any time period, in any era, in any game system - radically unbalanced battles are not fun. Used sparingly they have their place - a niche within a niche hobby.

[Vanir Ausf B]

If the scenarios were done "historically" we'd have thousands upon thousands of scenarios where the Germans would simply be overwhelmed. Many of those scenarios would be the German player sitting under a huge artillery barrage and then trying to repel Russian armor with nail clippers.

I seem to recall there was such a scenario tested that didn't make it into the final release. IIRC the general feeling towards it was that running for your life while getting beaten to a pulp by overwhelming firepower isn't fun. Hopefully it gets released at some point.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Anyway, It's pointless to argue. There are obviously some that feel that the overall feel of the game is historically correct and that most skirmishes were pretty even, and there's nothing I can say that will change their view on that.

Actually, I don't think anyone is suggesting that "pretty even" skirmishes were the norm historically, merely that is what most people enjoy wargaming.

[sburke]

I seem to recall there was such a scenario tested that didn't make it into the final release. IIRC the general feeling towards it was that running for your life while getting beaten to a pulp by overwhelming firepower isn't fun. Hopefully it gets released at some point.

LOL yeah I do recall that one. Damn it was brutal. I still have yet to finish it. I was too demoralized....hmmmm

[niall78]

Actually, I don't think anyone is suggesting that "pretty even" skirmishes were the norm historically, merely that is what most people enjoy wargaming.

Players enjoy balance. If a game system can't provide a fun balance within its battles it is finished. That's why realistic Zulu versus British tactical battle simulators are thin on the ground.

[MikeyD]

Actually, I'm a bit of a fan of 'demonstration scenarios', scenarios where you get to see just what overwhelming firepower can do. Whether you're capable of winning at such odds is beside the point. But that's mostly because I generally suck as commander and am going to lose anyway. So I might as well lose 'spectacularly'.

[Oddball_E8]

Well you need to separate the scenarios from the game engine. From an engine perspective (modeling of units/ ToEs etc) I think most would agree. From a scenario perspective it is a whole other thing. If the scenarios were done "historically" we'd have thousands upon thousands of scenarios where the Germans would simply be overwhelmed. Many of those scenarios would be the German player sitting under a huge artillery barrage and then trying to repel Russian armor with nail clippers.

BF would be crucified for being stupidly (not calling you stupid, just an expression) tied to some bizarre concept where you were required to experience the sheer agony of Army Group Center as it died. The scenarios are there to entertain. Some are attempts to recreate portions of the offensive that are interesting and not ridiculously one sided. Many are completely fictional to provide fun and interesting tactical challenges. If I am understanding you correctly you feel that the overall impression of a massive defeat for the German army does not come through in the scenarios. Yeah I think I'd probably agree with that. As others noted BF does try to increase the playability of scenarios by at least trying to make them function for either side or HTH. The type of battle I think you may be looking for is more likely going to come from the user community.

On a side note while Broadsword and I were doing the St Lo campaign we actually did kind of the same thing as BF. We cherry picked battles that looked interesting for both of us. After all it isn't much fun to play a scenario where you 1. Do not have a snowball's chance in hell and 2. can't even pretend to come up with a plan.

You (and many others) are definately not understanding me correctly.

I don't want battles where the germans are pounded to death by artillery or massively outnumbered to the point where they will be steamrolled in ten minutes.

I don't want one tiger tank trying to hold off 1000 T-34's or one Platoon of germans trying to survive a batallion of russians storming them.

I'm just saying that as it stands, the overall feel of Operation Bagraton in CMRT is that of a very even fight where the germans and russians were largely on equal footing when it comes to numbers.

A well played defending force can stand up to a much larger opponent in many cases, and that is also what happend quite often on the eastern front (just look at the battle of east prussia in january -45. The russians attacked with a force that was sizably larger than the defending force but due to bad weather they didn't get air support and the battle ground to a halt for the first days because of the defenders tenacity).

So what I'm saying is not that I want battles that are in the extreme on either side. I'm just saying that as it stands, it feels like both sides were largely balanced.

Even more so than it felt like on the western front (CMBN) for some reason.

That's what I don't get about this thread. I can see how a radically unbalanced scenario might be fun once or twice but why would anyone want the majority of campaigns or scenarios to be unbalanced in such a way? you'd have to be a masochist to enjoy them on a constant basis. It would do zero for sales either.

Would a dream campaign for those wanting such masochism involve the first battle being a German company with no AT and limited ammo facing off against fifty T-34s and a regiment of infantry following a six hour barrage by multiple artillery assets? Then seven or eight battles where Soviet heavy tanks pursue the shattered survivors? While historically accurate it makes for dull gaming. Any game without balance is dull as dish water.

While a few hold the Soviets up scenarios would be fun I certainly wouldn't like the focus of the game to be multiple battles in which my forces are expected to be little more than a speed bump.

This goes for any time period, in any era, in any game system - radically unbalanced battles are not fun. Used sparingly they have their place - a niche within a niche hobby.

I wish people would stop trying to take this argument to absurd lenghts and try to imply that I somehow want to see german defenders with no ammo get slaughtered by millions of russians.

That's not the case and I feel that I've made that perfectly clear by now.

I'm simply saying that the scenarios often feel like they are balanced for the sake of balance and in general it doesn't feel like the russians outnumbered the germans in any way.

Actually, I don't think anyone is suggesting that "pretty even" skirmishes were the norm historically, merely that is what most people enjoy wargaming.

Of course, but I'm saying that it is showing through too much and the entire game feels "balanced" artifically.

One of the reasons I play CM and not other, less serious, tactical games is because the game ISN'T balanced and favors no faction. It relies on the historical facts and when not based on historical evidence it is usually "in the spirit" of the battles that took place.

But with this iteration of CM I don't feel that.

It feels too balanced and too "homogonised".

Oh screw it. I'm not going to post any more since I feel that people are not taking me seriously and just using straw man arguments to make it seem like I want scenarios that are boring.

So I give up.

Hopefully the other scenarios in the game will prove me wrong, but right now I don't even feel like playing because of this thread.

[niall78]

Any game will be balanced artificially. Otherwise it is zero fun as a game for the vast majority of players.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't want battles where the germans are pounded to death by artillery or massively outnumbered to the point where they will be steamrolled in ten minutes.

I don't want one tiger tank trying to hold off 1000 T-34's or one Platoon of germans trying to survive a batallion of russians storming them.

So 1 to 1 is too balanced and 1000 to 1 is too much. Where do you want the line drawn? What you have said previously is:

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.

... which I take to mean that you are looking for numerical odds in the 1:4 to 1:10 range. In order to do that without making the scenario a Russian steamroller -- which you say you don't want -- the quality of the Russian forces would have to be much lower. But if you do that then you will have other people pointing out that such a disparity in quality is itself not historically accurate.

[Baneman]

You (and many others) are definately not understanding me correctly.

...

Oh screw it. I'm not going to post any more since I feel that people are not taking me seriously and just using straw man arguments to make it seem like I want scenarios that are boring.

So I give up.

Hopefully the other scenarios in the game will prove me wrong, but right now I don't even feel like playing because of this thread.

No, we get what you're saying 100%.

We're just saying that from a wargaming point of view, the bulk of scenarios that are shipped with the game will necessarily be of the more "balanced" variety.

If you haven't already tried it, suggest you play "Red Hordes" from the German side. That should give you an excellent experience of Bagration - you feel very small as the Germans as that one gets going, yet the Germans can still win it.

[Michael Emrys]

So 1 to 1 is too balanced and 1000 to 1 is too much. Where do you want the line drawn? What you have said previously is:

... which I take to mean that you are looking for numerical odds in the 1:4 to 1:10 range. In order to do that without making the scenario a Russian steamroller -- which you say you don't want -- the quality of the Russian forces would have to be much lower. But if you do that then you will have other people pointing out that such a disparity in quality is itself not historically accurate.

Not necessarily. There are other ways to give a German defender a good chance to win. One is to create a map where the terrain favors the defender. wooded heights above a river that the attacker has to cross, for instance. There is in fact such a map that comes with the game. Another or an additional evening factor would be to give the defender lots of prepared defenses, trenches, foxholes, wire, hedgehogs, sandbags.

Michael

[slysniper]

I just want to know what everone has been drinking lately. man some attitude has really shown up this week.

As far as scenario design is concerned. a mixture of all types are great. It is too bad they even picked which ones went into the game, Put them all in,

But no matter who designed it or the logic involved. Some will like it, others will not. you can never please everyone.

So it is good that at least you have a game that allows you to make what you like, or there appears that plenty commenting here would not own the game at all if they could not do their own thing.

As for expecting BF to meet your preferance, get real, they will meet what they feel is the norm and will please that group in general because that is the smart bussiness, and they have provided the ability for those that are not that group to still enjoy the game also. That is even smarter Bussiness.

Please show me how many other game companies do that, not many. So be grateful.

It is sad when I read the jasonC will not share his skills and produce a scenario for all to enjoy. I know he would do a excellent job.

But I understand, for it is easy to create something for yourselve and it takes much less work and no one will be critical of your work. I find myself doing that, but my reasons is for time sake, I just dont have the time to create something I think worthy to share with others anymore.

But when I did, I did it for the sake of giving something of myself to others. I did not care if someone did not like my work, because I know others would.

I had scenarios where some would give me perfect 10's and others might give me 6's or 7's. I did not mind their comments, even when rude. there is things you can learn from them, I had the choice as to if there is value in their views, without having to take it personnally.

So like that, those scenarios here being discussed can provoke thoughts for future designs. But dont worry about the negative comments too much. You created what you wanted to, and for some, they find them un-appealing. if you want to design something to their likes go for it, but I find, its best to do what you like and dont try to please others too much unless you can see the logic and put it into your own wants of what you want to create.

[sburke]

Oh screw it. I'm not going to post any more since I feel that people are not taking me seriously and just using straw man arguments to make it seem like I want scenarios that are boring.

So I give up.

Hopefully the other scenarios in the game will prove me wrong, but right now I don't even feel like playing because of this thread.

On the contrary, I think they are trying. Unfortunately we are possibly all mis communicating. I know I am struggling to understand what you mean and considering it is a subjective "feel" to the content of the module, that may be a particularly difficult item to understand and agree upon.

The time period in CMRT versus CMBN reflected extremely different circumstances and if the overall feel of the strategic situation were to come through, the German player should have a sense of a more dire situation. It took the allies 2 months to finally breakout from the lodgement versus Bagration where essentially the German lines were torn to shreds in the space of a couple days.

Is this an accurate assessment of why you think the module should feel less (for lack of a better word) balanced? I hate to use that word as it has so many more connotations within designing CM scenarios.

Can you elaborate a bit on why you feel that CMBN had this down a little more than CMRT- keep in mind that designers have varied in each release so the content can also vary based on the bent of a particular author as well.

As to your comment that sometimes scenarios seem balanced for the sake of balance- well there is some validity to that. There has been some very strident voices requesting exactly that from the game scenarios. BF is struggling with the fact that only so many scenarios come with the game. Those are considered purchased content and held to a different standard than user created scenarios. If scenarios were designed to only be played as one side versus the AI I think you'd find the character of the scenarios would likely change dramatically. For a designer, the response of the AI would be quite a bit more predictable. That however isn't likely to change anytime soon.

Out of curiosity - It might help if we knew in what mode you typically play scenarios. That would then determine your user experience more.

Last question- there have been other comments about altering the force multipliers (terrain, defensive works etc) in a scenario to increase the defenders position while at the same time giving them fewer troops. I get the impression that may not be what you are saying either as that still strives for a more balanced (there is that damn word again) scenario and isn't going to reflect the same sense of urgency.

In our Hamel Vallee game Broadsword and I were able to create a tense exciting game without trying to "balance the forces" but that was largely done with 2 items , the time frame and casualty ratios. The clock is an uber sensitive item for scenario design that repeatedly comes up. Casualty ratios could be an item, but that would tend to go against Russian historical usage which was not casualty averse. It was also strictly head to head with two players who know each other and have similar playstyles.

Anyway I will stop there. I know you are feeling a bit frustrated but I'd encourage you to try and continue the discussion. I feel it is an important point about how to design to reflect an overall strategic/operational situation. While every scenario is a standalone event and can be anything a designer wants it to be, the more we make it feel part of something larger it becomes more immersive.

[slysniper]

As for the proper feel for the time setting and the battles. Can someone comment on how the campaign games do.

I have not had time to play them yet but was hopeful that they gave you the player a more of a Historical correct feel for what was happening for this time frame.

I found CMFI very good in the campaigns as to giving the feel of a dominating attack where one is seeing a force steam roll over the enemy but that there still concerns for not taking losses, using ammo wisely and other factors that made for a interesting as to see if the attack would make it to its finial objectives or loose momentum because of minor losses that add up to force the advantage into more of a stalemate situation.

[Canada Guy]

I am enjoying the Soviet campaign and this is the first campaign that I have ever played for any CMx2 games. It is challenging and I have not yet won a total victory (I cannot remember but perhaps in scenario 2 but I have forgotten) and now am on scenario 4. So far, especially Scenario 3, it was a slog and I ended up taking a lot more casualties as the Soviets than I ever would have as either the Western Allies or the Germans.

But that is the point I guess as to why I am enjoy it. I too just want to relax but still want a challenge. Most realistic scenarios would probably be a cake walk if played according to absolute historical accuracy. I am sure I would learn something but not enjoy it as much. I like these more even evenly matched ones.

BTW - Does anyone know how many scenarios there are in the Soviet campaign?

[JasonC]

And as usual, Oddball remains right and reasonable, and everyone else is whistling Dixie and pretending they can't see anything. Which fools no one.

The shipped scenarios don't feel like Bagration because the designers don't like the premise of Bagration. The closest they got was giving us some tank rider focused scenarios with T-34/85s - bully for that. But they still want to think of the war as a clay pigeon shoot by imaginary supermen in black, and they design to that Signal magazine script. It is not like we haven't seen it before (endless Tiger Tails, uberStuGs, etc). It is not like we can't tell when it is happening. And no, we don't have to pretend your stuff sandwich is caviar.

[womble]

And as usual, Oddball remains right and reasonable, and everyone else is whistling Dixie and pretending they can't see anything. Which fools no one.

The shipped scenarios don't feel like Bagration because the designers don't like the premise of Bagration. The closest they got was giving us some tank rider focused scenarios with T-34/85s - bully for that. But they still want to think of the war as a clay pigeon shoot by imaginary supermen in black, and they design to that Signal magazine script. It is not like we haven't seen it before (endless Tiger Tails, uberStuGs, etc). It is not like we can't tell when it is happening. And no, we don't have to pretend your stuff sandwich is caviar.

I didn't know you were actually prone to trolling. Nice one. You can put the troll puppet back under its bridge now.