Small campaigns?

[daft]

It certainly is touching on my upper limit, and I was slightly confused about the force disposition with the numerous Aufklärungs and pioneer teams that appear in the beginning. That is caused more by my poor ToE understandning of the units involved than anything else though. Not finished yet, but overall a very interesting and well designed scenario with lots of manouverability and choices. I rushed my battle plan so I will probably restart and do it properly.

[GraemeA]

I've pretty much stopped playing because of the battle sizes. The three smallest battles are ok for me while the campaigns are way too big (again, for me).

Partly it's the setup phase: I open a battle and on being confronted by a sea of icons, I mutter 'oh c**p',and hit Control-Q. If the scenarios came with a sensible setup so that I could start immediately, I may be more patient, but spending a heap of time getting everything into position just drains all my enthusiasm.

I've read posts where people report spending hours on the setup phase, but for me it's something that has be done before the interesting stuff happens. Most times I just want to get into the fight.

Graeme

[PanzerMike]

@Daft: do not rush, you have 1h40m +/- 10m. You should be able to pull this of within this timeframe. Do your recon, depending on what you encounter, choose a Schwerpunkt and press home the attack relentlessly.

@GraemeA: not all scenarios are that big as far as I know (I have not played all of them, been busy designing)? Which ones have you played thus far?

[GraemeA]

When the scenarios are listed in the (default?) order, small -> large, I've played the first three and loaded then quit the rest. Can't check the names at the moment.

Please don't think I'm saying there's anything "wrong" with the scenarios

[scottie]

I think the CMBO "Devil's Descent" is the perfect example of one of the strengths of this game. Small unit tactics over multiple linked scenarios. I keep a spreadsheet of squad head count when I play it for added management fun including leader changes. I want to create an affinity with the company I command within the wonderful realism environment that CMx2 creates (as opposed to COH point and click rubbish).

I understand from previous and multiple discussions over the years a campaign map is never going to happen, that's fine if its not worth the investment BF. But more support for linked maps (in terms of persisting destruction for example) would help bridge the gap between linked scenarios (and anything more creative).

I too struggle to play large maps in terms of "fun" levels of manageability and system performance issues. Desperately want to get into this game again but finding it hard to get the motivation. Posted about this a year ago , all the new modules are just too darn similar for me sorry (IMO) ... prefer features not 20 version of the same tank with different branding ....

[ScoutPL]

You all may be interested to know there was a rather lively debate re: scenario size/design in the CMBS development forums about this same issue. I think we managed to advocate rather successfully for a more balanced scenario spread (small to large) in CMBS.

I prefer smaller scenarios as well and enjoy the immersive feel you get from playing a campaign. I think CM is maximized at the CO/BN level and just turns into a micro-managing nightmare at larger organization levels. PLus, as mentioned above, trying to fit the brigade/regimental staff work into a single evening required with some of the larger scenarios is just not conducive to enjoying the game. Trying to conduct terrain analysis, enemy analysis, friendly troop analysis, Course of Action development, etc as a single person when in real life it would be done by 50+ is simply daunting.

The argument that is usually put forward is "well if you want a certain type of scenario than start designing your own." The problem with that argument, from my perspective, is that most of the players who prefer smaller, quicker scenarios don't have a lot of time to begin with. And GOOD scenario design can take weeks, if not longer. So its a trade off (play vs design) most who are constrained by life, work, family, etc dont want to make.

I am currently working on a "Beginner Campaign" of platoon and company scenarios designed to introduce the beginning player to tactics and game mechanics. But plan to move on to a company level "week in the life" type campaign next.

[Skwabie]

I understand from previous and multiple discussions over the years a campaign map is never going to happen, that's fine if its not worth the investment BF. But more support for linked maps (in terms of persisting destruction for example) would help bridge the gap between linked scenarios (and anything more creative).

well look at the other side of the coin. with a more functional campaign cm might just become too addictive. you might end up with small countries going bankrupt coz ppl spends all their time playing it.

just kidding:D

[daft]

well look at the other side of the coin. with a more functional campaign cm might just become too addictive. you might end up with small countries going bankrupt coz ppl spends all their time playing it.

just kidding:D

Actually, this is very true. With a proper campaign system in plave I'd probably have to resign my job and sell my family to play CM full time.

[Michael Emrys]

Would anybody like to support legislation declaring wargaming an important national resource and wargamers eligible for DoD grants?

Michael

[Apocal]

I think the CMBO "Devil's Descent" is the perfect example of one of the strengths of this game. Small unit tactics over multiple linked scenarios.

You sure about that?

[Wodin]

I too would love to see some smaller campaigns..in size that is. Was very surprised at the size of the map in the first mission of tithe German campaign. I thought it would have started abit smaller and built itself up. Still, really enjoying it and just starting the third mission.

Huge thanks to all you scenario designers out there..you really do keep the game alive and fresh!

[tdogg]

I too love the game but hate the mega battles of the campaign. When I saw that cmrt was going to move this direction I was thinking it would have been nice to improve the infrastructure to support it. Like maybe platoon formation orders or select unit by movement path lines. It's like when a city finally developed that run down patch of land near your house but don't improve the roads so your happy about the rise in property value but complain about the traffic all day.

I guess I could just not play the campaigns but that will break the tradition, so I will probably grind through and only play company size from then on.

[Wodin]

@tdogg..well I went for it and it was no where near as daunting in the end as I thought it would be. I'm glad I did, though if I didn't then I'd have got little play out of the base game so it forced my hand. Still prefer smaller unit counts etc bu it was still a great wargame experience.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The love the mega battles. The scale is what convinced me to try the CMRT campaigns (I'd never played a CMx2 campaign before).

[DavidFields]

You all may be interested to know there was a rather lively debate re: scenario size/design in the CMBS development forums about this same issue. I think we managed to advocate rather successfully for a more balanced scenario spread (small to large) in CMBS.

I prefer smaller scenarios as well and enjoy the immersive feel you get from playing a campaign. I think CM is maximized at the CO/BN level and just turns into a micro-managing nightmare at larger organization levels. PLus, as mentioned above, trying to fit the brigade/regimental staff work into a single evening required with some of the larger scenarios is just not conducive to enjoying the game. Trying to conduct terrain analysis, enemy analysis, friendly troop analysis, Course of Action development, etc as a single person when in real life it would be done by 50+ is simply daunting.

The argument that is usually put forward is "well if you want a certain type of scenario than start designing your own." The problem with that argument, from my perspective, is that most of the players who prefer smaller, quicker scenarios don't have a lot of time to begin with. And GOOD scenario design can take weeks, if not longer. So its a trade off (play vs design) most who are constrained by life, work, family, etc dont want to make.

I am currently working on a "Beginner Campaign" of platoon and company scenarios designed to introduce the beginning player to tactics and game mechanics. But plan to move on to a company level "week in the life" type campaign next.

Glad to hear this. And, as I am tirelessly (and perhaps annoyingly) repeating: it is not just what we in the forum "like", it is about getting new people up to speed. There is a "feel" to the terrain cover/concealment which is hard to convey--and which can be most easily seen at very small unit engagement levels. And who wants to spend hours or 10s of hours on a large scenario, and then find you misunderstood what flamethrower units could do, for example? (Can they take out concrete bunkers from the rear, for instance? If so, would the units inside the bunker come out, pistols a'blazing--I would like a tiny, fun, battle which would demonstrate their capabilities.) This is not just a grog or history issue, there are specific CM2 practicalities.

I am trying to use the QB as a substitute for small scenarios. But I am hitting limitations. I am having, for example, a hard time getting the AI to put troops into defensive bunkers, so I can test the FT in the situations noted above..

I...I just don't understand the resistance in this area. Compared to the larger scenario/maps this seems to be near trivial to do.

[GraemeA]

I too love the game but hate the mega battles of the campaign. When I saw that cmrt was going to move this direction I was thinking it would have been nice to improve the infrastructure to support it. Like maybe platoon formation orders or select unit by movement path lines.

Platoon formation orders would get me playing again.

[daft]

Yeah, for the larger ones platoon autonomy would help immensly. Much like the Command Ops series, but I don't see BF moving in that direction any time soon.

[BletchleyGeek]

You all may be interested to know there was a rather lively debate re: scenario size/design in the CMBS development forums about this same issue. I think we managed to advocate rather successfully for a more balanced scenario spread (small to large) in CMBS.

It's interesting, and I can sort of imagine what were the arguments used by each side in the discussion. I think it all boils down to the amount of resources one can put into testing that the scenario "works". I've been working for five weeks on a Bn-level scenario, and I have come to the realization - to my chagrin - that I need to cut it down in order to be both playable and "testable".

Inspired by the concept on the Market Garden German campaign "A Moment in Time", I think it is - generally speaking - possible to capture such big scenarios by breaking them down into scenarios smaller in scope, covering opening phases of the original scenario and then propagate the outcomes in the following manner to another scenario covering the "end/late game":

Opening Phase Scenario #1:

If Win, go to "Opening Phase Scenario #2 (Win Scenario #1)"

If Lose, go to "Opening Phase Scenario #2 (Loss Scenario #2)"

Opening Phase Scenario #2 (Win Scenario #1):

If Win, go to "End Phase Scenario (Win Scen 1, Win Scen 2)"

If Loss, go to "End Phase Scenario (Win Scen 1, Loss Scen 2)"

Opening Phase Scenario #2 (Loss Scenario #1):

If Win, go to "End Phase Scenario (Loss Scen 1, Win Scen2)"

If Loss, go to "End Phase Scenario (Loss Scen 2, Loss Scen 2)"

So basically the campaing ends up baking:

* 2 versions (which are exactly the same, but with different filenames) of the "Opening Phase Scenario #2" scenario

* 4 (or 3 ) versions with substantial changes in the deployment and victory locations of the "End Phase" scenario

So you end up with 6 different files baked into the campaign, all using the same map resources and OOB.

I'd be surprised to find out that nobody has come up with a similar solution before. So, if anyone out there has thought along these lines, I'd appreciate to hear about their experiences.

I am currently working on a "Beginner Campaign" of platoon and company scenarios designed to introduce the beginning player to tactics and game mechanics. But plan to move on to a company level "week in the life" type campaign next.

Those sound very interesting.

[Bulletpoint]

Count me in with the "I prefer smaller maps" team

I guess the reason is that I like to get into the nitty-gritty, and huge battles just means I feel I have to micromanage too much at the same time. I end up having to mentally multitask between, say, three big parts of my force, and at times it's just too much for me.

Also, checking lines of sight on a huge map feels like quite a big job.

[H1nd]

I love micromanagement and big battles. But I like small campaigns as well. There is a bit of a problem there tho since we are in ostfront now and the general scale of any serious combat is much bigger than in Normandy where realistic progress could be achieved with smaller units in geographicaly limited areas.

With Soviets I find it hard to imagine a realistic campaign with multiple missions following a company sized core unit. Such actions where simply very rare for the soviets and any core unit could be expected to be seriously depleted after just one battle. Once again we come to the soviet doctrinal use of battalions like germans would use a company. This applies mostly for normal infantry and tanks etc etc.

Maybe a campaign involving some sort of aggressive cavarly mechanized exploitation/recon group could meet the criteria of smaller scale while still being highly plausible and realistic?

For germans however I could imagine a lot of small scale campaign ideas with much emphasis on atmospheric action and desperate situations. I wil probably try something like this during the summer once i'm more free to meddle with these things.

[BletchleyGeek]

Count me in with the "I prefer smaller maps" team

I guess the reason is that I like to get into the nitty-gritty, and huge battles just means I feel I have to micromanage too much at the same time. I end up having to mentally multitask between, say, three big parts of my force, and at times it's just too much for me.

Also, checking lines of sight on a huge map feels like quite a big job.

While I do agree with the second bit - regarding to the overload of assessing, planning and then, executing manually those plans as ScoutPL pointed out - I must say that big maps are a "big thing" for me when armor is present in a substantial quantity. It is at longer ranges (not less than 500 meters) where I personally find the tank-to-tank combat to be the most interesting (and exciting).

The natural "scope" of tank units is much bigger than that of infantry, for reasons I think are quite apparent. My understanding is that it would be uncommon for a tank company on the attack over open terrain to be deployed on a frontage of less than 500 meters.

[Wodin]

I think because RT could do bigger maps the team got abit big map happy\scenario. Hopefully the modules things will calm down abit on that front.

Then again it's not so much the big map in itself but the amount of units..big maps and still a reasonable amount of units would be fine by me.

[Michael Emrys]

With Soviets I find it hard to imagine a realistic campaign with multiple missions following a company sized core unit. Such actions where simply very rare for the soviets and any core unit could be expected to be seriously depleted after just one battle. Once again we come to the soviet doctrinal use of battalions like germans would use a company. This applies mostly for normal infantry and tanks etc etc.

Which is why I would prefer a game scale where the normal unit size would be the battalion with a few company sized support or special arms. This would of course surrender a lot of the features that people like about CM, but you can't have everything.

Michael

[H1nd]

I have to also point out that bigger battles offer more tactical dilemmas regarding the use of reserves wich is often very limitedly represented in smaller scenarios. And since the use of reserves is one of the key corner stones of tactical skill I find it odd how many people can't appreciate these larger scale scenarios with proper maps. Sure it's a lot more work and effort and yes there could be better tools for group movement etc but I find it strange how people often limit their tactical intrest to the smaller scale simply because of the effort needed. Effort is part of the gaming experience for me but some people seem to need simple and quick fix of everything without too much sweat about anything. I put it out bit harshly due to lack of better way to say it.

But to summarize the benefits of large scale scenarios:

-Reserves

-Combat fatique and loss of combat effectiveness --> Cycling and resting infantry between individual actions. Delegating depleted units for secondary tasks.

-Ammo supply and conservation, especialy now that we have proper supply dumps (and finaly ammo for mp44!)

More realistic presentation of artillery --> Larger maps, more artillery needed to cause serious damage to well spread out enemy. --> Additional benefit: Stunning displays of artillery firepower wich CM does very very well.

Larger maps obviously generally offer more room for manuveur wich was very limited in CMBN due to the terrain and scale.

-And seriously if 20-40 odd dashing t-34's on a open field of rodina does not raise your hairs then what does?

My __personal__ taste says that these factors outweight the cons of micromanagement.

Then again like Steve has said it in several threads: one of the advantages of CM is that it can offer everybody the scale that they wish to have. In othe words bigscenario fans can have them and smaller scenario fans can have them as well. However I caution people to not to asume or present their case so that their style/preference is simply better than the other. Both have been catered relatively equaly in RT release and it is also naturally up to us players to produce more content as well.

[H1nd]

Which is why I would prefer a game scale where the normal unit size would be the battalion with a few company sized support or special arms. This would of course surrender a lot of the features that people like about CM, but you can't have everything.

Michael

I could not agree more with you! Besides the benefit from wego is that you can replay all you want to get everything out of every single small engagement happening in the larger scheme.