Please let me take Berlin in 1943!

[killmore]

This is a request for CM2 since I don't think it will be included into CM1.

Please add a strategic level that will let me choose what to attack and when. Let me get to Berlin in 1943 is I play extremly well (or on easiest level ).

Allow me to take Moscow in 1944 or 1945 as German.

Give me a world where I see clearly consequences of my actions and a world where I can make decisions that will change the outcome of the war. (Maybe similar strategic level to CC4:Battle of the Bulge)

No other company lets player do that and if you will it will guarantee that much more players will play the game!

[Guest Big Time Software]

No strategic level will be added for any version of Combat Mission. The reason is very simple -> to have any meaning, other than "gamey", there must be a direct relationship between the battle you are fighting and the "big picture" in order to reward you for your actions at that level (i.e. "you took Moscow!!").

CM's level of simulation is far, far, far too removed to have any relevance in the big picture. If you take one little village after a 40 minute battle, that means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at any scale higher than Regimental, or perhaps divisional level for that particular day, or perhaps week, but at most that larger operational battle. Beyond that... your victory or defeat means nothing to the strategic picture. Of course we could invent some relationship ("congratulations, you took a town in the middle of nowhere, population 331, now Moscow has fallen" ), but that would be "gamey" and nothing more. Combat Mission doesn't do "gamey". We'll leave that to the other WWII squad level games...

Steve

[Chris Jenkins]

I agree, Steve, but let me play devil's advocate. The escape from encirclement in France was a battalion-level action. A lieutennant led an attack in which the US battalion commander's APC was destroyed and an entire German Army escaped destruction in France. Granted, this is not the kind of thing one can simulate with CM, nor should it be.

Killmore: If you're interested in strategic gaming, try the Operational Art of War. I am going to combine that game, Achtung Spitfire, Fighting Steel, and Silent Hunter II with CM to reenact the war. Of course, this will be the Hohenzollern monarchy, and the Holocaust and war crimes will not happen. Airfields will be bombed instead of cities, Dunkirk will be attacked on land, Moscow will be attacked earlier, and u-boats will not be assigned to surround Greenland. Also, I will NOT reduce panzer divisions to one brigade of tanks with two infantry brigades, and each brigade will have three (not two) battalions of tanks.

[killmore]

Operational art of war has terrible UI. After playing the demo I hated it. Nothing is obvious. There is no clear indication why something happened...

So what if batalion level battles would not change the outcome of the war (Actually if germans would win "Last defense" american landing might be in trouble!).

I want to feel that I make a difference!

Just assume that what ever was the performance of the batalion such was performance of the army in that sector!

Anyone played SWOLT? There you could feel you are important!

If you don't like it just play a campain in which germans will lose anyway, no matter what you will do. Campain is easy to do if you already have maps for "strategic points".

Don't do that for CM. Think about CM 2!

Make points on the map strategic. Like this point increases tank production, that point fuel production, etc. Or just prestige based like Panzer General.

Maybe thats what I really want. Panzer general like game but with CM beautiful graphics and let me pick which battle to fight next. What to attack, what to defend and where to put reinforcements.

[killmore]

Remember that sometimes:

'Remember, too much reality is bad for gameplay'

'We are here for good gameplay first!'

[Guest L Tankersley]

killmore,

I understand what you're looking for, but remember that that sort of artificial inflation of the significance of particular small-unit engagements is antithetical to the design precepts and aspirations of CM. As Steeeeve says, it's gamey and artificial.

If CM is successful, perhaps down the road someone will come out with a game that merges CM's interface with the sort of dynamic war-spanning campaign you're describing. In the interim, you could implement something like it yourself - design a bunch of scenarios, and have a decision tree to decide what order to play them in depending on levels of victory. All you're really asking for is that that progression be automated. Why bother?

Leland J. Tankersley

[killmore]

See I don't want a decision tree like in PG.

I would like to be able to decide myself what to attack next - even if I fail completly. AI should also be able to attack strategic points.

Someone will make lots of money when they do that - even if it is gamey...

[Guest Big Time Software]

What you are asking for is SO far removed from reality that we could just pop up a message at the end of a battle and say "Eventhough hundreds of battles were being fought at the same exact time as yours, it was your one small 40 mintue firefight that lead to the defeat of the millions of Allied soldiers that were on their way towards Berlin! Well done Major".

I am not kidding. This is how utterly silly it would be. It is like hitting one home run in baseball and winning the league championship, or scoring one football goal and taking home the FA Cup. One little battle means NOTHING in the big picture. That is reality. The most you can hope for is some modest local "difference". We have thse in CM, and were outlined clearly in the two demo scenarios. What you need to do is readjust your sense of scale and tone down the scope of your contribution to the war to a more sensible level.

The "difference" you are being asked to make in a battle is much more humble than you seek, but it is there. Your job as the US forces in Last Defense is to save the rest of your battalion, and Division, from being overrun. In Riesberg the Germans are there to stall the American attack so that a few more precious hours can be bought for the retreat of friendly forces. If you succeed in your mission you have made a difference. No, you aren't the victor of the world, but as I say, that is so far removed from even fantasy that we will never put something like that into CM.

The success of a game is directly related to its focus. Trying to mix things that are unmixable is a bad idea. Again, you might *think* that your idea is a money winner, but we disagree using experience as our guide.

Steve

[Brian Rock]

The expansion for EF2000 had two ways to play the campaign game, "realistic" (your mission has as much impact on the campaign as any other mission) and a "consequences" model (your mission had a major abstracted impact on the war's progress).

The original version only allowed the "consequences" model, which I seriously hated. No offense to people who like that sort of thing, but I found it... well... to be honest - silly.

In that context. (Note qualifier)

(Even more annoying was DI's Apache, where you could take a flight out, destroy a battlion or six of tanks, APCs, ZSUs, and then lose the campaign because you landed to hard when you returned to the FARP. Sure.)

I'm not trying to be a game snob here - there are some very good games where this kind of thing works. It depends on the concept behind the game.

It's just not remotely realistic to expect that a single company or battalion could have an impact on the scale you're suggesting. I know some people enjoy that sort of thing, but it doesn't really fit with Combat Mission's design concept.

There is nothing to set up a series of campaigns that do play part in larger operational or strategic concept, either your own solo system or with others. In fact I think there are a few people on this board planning linked campaigns.