Combat Mission x1 Operation style campaigns?

[womble]

The next day: rain! Attack with or without air support?

So 4a1, rather than being the same rerun like the player expected takes place on a rainy version of the same map, and since it's raining, and it's WW2, no air support is available. He can ceasefire early again, losing, again, and go to 4a1alpha when

...the rain stops. At the evening...Now the player must decide for or against a night attack. The night game is loaded, but the player decides to wait for the next day. But he uses the night battle to sneek some of his units forward to better locations.

This is where the current system fails, because there are three options: sit tight overnight; do some infiltration/reconnaisance overnight; go for the night attack. The campaign designer could, though, make this two decisions: decline the full night assault, followed by decline to conduct harrassment/infil/recce operations. Each of these choices could lead to a different next step.

The battle next day offers the promised air support.

And possibly some attrited piquet units, and much better pre-battle intel, if the night operations were conducted...

With the reinforcements and the air support the attack is successful and the bridge is taken with minimum losses.

Though every battle thereafter will be a "day later" and the defenders will be that much better prepared.

Then the bridge-episode is finished...

And in my very sketchy "cascade" of scenarios, there would be several different ongoing paths, and some of those paths might be travelled having taken greater or lesser numbers of casualties and having expended greater or lesser quantities of resource (well, ammo, though you might count vehicles), though you could gloss over that element with "full resupply and reinforcements"

Where the new system cannot do what the old one could is, I think, twofold: the automation and the continuity of terrain and item damage. If a field is being fought over several times, the designer needs to create variants of the map with increasing battle damage and debris, and those elements will only ever be representative of the craters, rubbled buildings and wrecks that the scenarios preceding actually created. AIUI, the old system actually used the map the player was looking at at the end of the previous scenario, painted new setup zones and left all the broken bits in place. The continuity would be less granular in the old system; in the new, you would have to accept that if you managed to get further on the right, say, than the left, the designer for the next battle that's supposed to be picking up where you left off might have assumed the converse, so your left flank setup zones might be ahead of where they "should" be, with the right flank tidemark being withdrawn from your "previous" positions. This can often be rationalised (handwaved) away, but might jarr sometimes. It also means that the designer has to make a lot of variants on the map, to accommodate all the "operational" choices the player makes.

Yes, it's more "storytelling" than a "free-form" operational layer, but even free-form operational layers have their external context, which has to be a narrative item, reflected in the victory conditions the designer imposes overall: your example of the river crossing being delayed by a day might mean the operation is a failure; it can be made to mean that in the current system too. However, the scale of CM does lend itself better, overall, to the tactical storytelling. Having the scenario 4a1alpha(didn't do anything overnight) variant lead to a mission briefing reading like a red hot poker up your jacksie because you're holding up the whole damn army group with your shyness simply adds to the ambience, which a bald "do what thou wilt" approach to automated operations generation cannot.

[ASL Veteran]

Interesting. Why is that?

I'm not a code guy, but considering that there is no intent by BFC to do anything like the old system in the future it can be assumed that combining the two systems would be that much more difficult to accomplish.  Thus combining the two systems is even less likely to happen than switching entirely back to the old system from the new system.

[womble]

I don't think the switching back to the old system would be any easier than adding the auto-battlelines-assignment and persistent battlefield damage/debris to the existing CMx2 branching framework would be. Which is to say that the additional complexity of the battlefield depiction makes doing that automation extremely difficult compared to CMx1. I have no idea how "satisfactory" the "tidelines" that CMx1 operations used to draw were, but I can imagine some very odd results eventuating, a problem which would be exacerbated by the additional terrain and force complexity of the newer iteration.

[Skinfaxi]

Hi womble,

I am pleased you took the time for that lenghty reply because I want to make sure, before I buy the game, I have understood it's capabilities and shortcomings.

Please bear in mind that I am new to CM (didn't even know that such a game exists, if in a discussion on a blog someone wouldn't have mentioned it in a discussion about the conflict in Ukraine). If I overlook some features the campaign system allows, please correct me.

If I understood your post correctly sadly my fear is strenghtened, that the campaign system cannot model whole battles:

 

Normal scenarios, chained to happen regardless of outcomes: even if a skirmish went badly, the other elements of the operation would dislocate the defense and force the supposedly victorious defenders to withdraw. However, the different levels of damage done, or not done, to the defenders and the attackers can be preserved and ammo expenditure made permanent, since you can have "core forces" for each side, and if you don't give them resupply and reinforcement, they'll be down men and bullets in the next fight in which they appear.

 

I don't understand this assumption. I guess you have good tactical knowledge about WW2? Then you must know, how incredibly important little things on the tactical lavel can be. A spotted or unspotted HMG (bunker) can decide if the attack of a whole company succeeds or fails (for the day). A single sMG42 running out of ammo can mean that suddenly a gap of 150 meters can't be defended.

It is not possible to simulate this, by a designer chopping a battle into different independent phases, re-deploys units according to his imagination of the previous outcome, transfers the units to a different map while all changes to the battelfield vanish.

The destruction of houses, or the availability of craters - under certain situations incredibly important tactical factors for all the action that follows there.

No designer in the world can overcome this.

This is not game dependent, it is a fact of the reality of tactics. If a game only models the operational level, then ok, it's not decisive if at the end of the street behind that house a MG is placed. But a low tactical level game claiming to simulate the tactical level down to single bullets that cannot simulate little battles as a whole but instead only offers a campaign system, that puts unrelated individual engagements together with a story? Cannot convince me.

 

Scenario 3: a recon scenario. Victory based on OPs scouted and "Spotting" victory conditions rather than forces destroyed or territory held.

How could a designer define victory points for a recon scenario, if the recon phase is based on a bigger operation? That's not possible because the designer does not know, how the player decides to solve the problem. The designer doesn't even know what units the player wants to use.

There can be different ways to win a battle. Maybe careful recon is one way. But maybe an immediate attack with tanks from a crazy direction overwhelms the enemy?

 

If reinforcements are an option, Scen 4 can be a "decision" scenario, where the player gets to choose to call for reinforcements, or not, which would branch the campaign for the next section.

If I understand it correctly, reinforcements or not in the current system are a binary option and they are fully dependent on the designer.

But in reality it depends on the development on the battlefield.

Additionally reinforcements should not be dependent how a designer imagines the player will play the game.

In my understanding reinforcements either are part of the tactical reality or not. If they are potentially available, then there should be the possibility for the player to recognize if, decide when, how much and what kind of units/weapons he needs. If he needs pioneers for mines, and/or a platoon of StuGs to deal with tanks, or PAK to secure a flank because of an expected attack, one or two batteries, light or heavy artillery.

How could the designer know, what the player knows after the recon phase? How good the player is and how much reinforcements he needs?

 

Or Scen 4 can be the attack, and losing the attack (which could mean just not starting it and Ceasefiring on T1) means that Scen 4a gets called instead of Scen 5. 4a is:

What does losing mean, in that sense?

It can only mean a designer had decided previously during design, that a certain amount of points or units lost or destroyed mean a certain judgement for the specific phase of the battle. But the designer can't know, if one player prefers to keep his reserves hidden until the second attack while another player prefers to immediately uses everything available for a counterattack.

What if one player wants to give the attacker the illusion of success? Even over several "battles"?

Either the game system allows to model all phases of a whole battle, then it must allow the battle to evolve naturally from one phase to the next while as much information from the battlefield is preserved, or it cannot model that. But to split up a battle into artificial phases to overcome this missing game mechanism cannot work.

Don't understand me wrong: I do not mean to say that campaigns with the current system cannot be fun. How could I. I don't know. But I can judge from the available game mechanisms if the campaign system could be suitable to simulate whole battles.

No designer in the world can predict how the engagement phase, or the encirclement phase will look like, depending on imagined and then calculated point results of a game mechanism. But probably I will buy the game despite its incapability to model whole battles anyway, because the tactical depth seems to be unique and without comparison.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Skinfaxi

[Bulletpoint]

I don't understand this assumption. I guess you have a good tactical knowledge about WW2? Then you must know, how incredibly important little things on the tactical lavel can be. A spotted or unspotted HMG bunker can decide if the attack of a whole company succeeds or fails (for the day). A single sMG42 running out of ammo can mean that suddenly a gap of 150 meters can't be defended.

 

This is the one and only reason why CM doesn't do operations like you want (and you're not the only one to want that). Because the computer needs to be able to deploy and use any force on any given map. And it just can't.

 

The only reason why CM games against the computer work well is because the map and the location of each unit is carefully crafted by a human mind - the scenario designer. When doing an "open ended" operation, you need to somehow combine an arbitrary map with an arbitrary army force.

 

You'd end up with units scattered haphazardly in locations that make no sense - unless you could program the game to analyse the terrain and set up a defense like a human does. I don't know if that's even possible, but it's not on the menu right now at least.

[womble]

Hi womble,

I am pleased you took the time for that lenghty reply because I want to make sure, before I buy the game, I have understood it's capabilities and shortcomings.

Then you're digging far, far too deep into a portion of the game that doesn't appear to be able to do what you want it to do.

Combat Mission CMx2 (Shock Force, Battle for Normandy, Fortress Italy, Red Thunder and Black Sea) are Tactical simulators first and foremost and par excellence. The campaign functionality is decidedly secondary.

Every crater on the CMx2 map that you're playing on might have momentary criticality for one team. But if that crater being there or not being there makes the difference between you holding your ground and failing to do so, you have done something wrong, because there are hundreds of factors more important than its precise location.

Every machine gun matters. But again, if you didn't have overlapping fields of fire, and one MG failing (or dying due to a lucky mortar shot or a sniper or anything else) means your line folds, then you've either made mistakes or didn't have enough there to support the mistaken decision of a superior.

Perhaps it's because English isn't your mother tongue, but your attitude seems to be "If I can't do whatever I like, it's no good." It is worth recognising that every commander operates in his own organisational context and you cannot, as a commander at any level, do whatever you like. There are always constraints. The scenario format allows a designer to explain and mould those constraints to make an enjoyable or challenging tactical environment. A good designer can give the impression of freedom, allowing the player to explore (one of) several "reasonable" routes to victory, complete with context. One of the big problems with "operations" is that if you're better at operational play than your opponent, your tactical encounters are one-sided uninteresting affairs of overwhelming force against inadequate defense. That problem goes away with scenario-based campaigns. Another related problem is having the opposition have "credible" responses to your actions; for example delaying your attack might mean they get dug in further, but you get more info, but it might also mean they get reinforcements. Someone has to write that side of the script, or make an algorithm for it, and if they've no feedback into your side of the script you can easily see that things can get out of hand one way or another. Heck, delaying your attack might mean having to fight off a counterattack with just the forces you had as a picket while your other elements got rearmed and reloaded. And if that counterattack breaks through, your withdrawn elements get caught with their pants down.

CM is a tactical game, which can be made to occur in a defined operational context called a campaign. That context can be as broad as the campaign designer has time and inclination to permit, but it can never be "Here's your brigade: off you go. See you in Falaise." If that's what you want, buy an operational scale game.

[Skinfaxi]

Womble,

now you did not answer one argument I presented, why the current system never be capable to model a whole battle.

I don't argue for an operational game, I talk about the lowest tactical level. Attack that village. Take that bridge. Take that hill.

All that does not happen in one engagement, as soon as there is a stronger defense. To find out, if there even is an enemy, already needs a recon phase. Teh result of the recon phase is that the attack is planned. That's NOT operational level. That's tactical level.

Bulletpoint,

that's a good argument, that the AI cannot be good enough to solve such tasks. But my suggestion is that of a synthesis anyway. The current system expanded, not that of an exclusion. Current campaigns would not change a bit, but also campaigns against humans and the simulation of whole battles would become possible.

I am also not sure, if an expanded campaign system would not be suited for AI play under all circumstances.

I am thinking of a mini-campaign that now is cramped into one engagement, where the player attacks the AI.

The first battle is the recon phase. The player gathers the intel. The second phase is the attack. The third is the mopping up. The time between the phases could be minimal. So there is no need for the AI to make intelligent decisions or analyze the terrain or something like that.

I have seen there are even huge "master maps" available. I think it would be terrific if two players would have a certain pool of units and the map would be a portion of the master map and it would shift around, according how the battle develops.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Skinfaxi

[ASL Veteran]

Womble,

now you did not answer one argument I presented, why the current system never be capable to model a whole battle.

I don't argue for an operational game, I talk about the lowest tactical level. Attack that village. Take that bridge. Take that hill.

All that does not happen in one engagement, as soon as there is a stronger defense. To find out, if there even is an enemy, already needs a recon phase. Teh result of the recon phase is that the attack is planned. That's NOT operational level. That's tactical level.

Bulletpoint,

that's a good argument, that the AI cannot be good enough to solve such tasks. But my suggestion is that of a synthesis anyway. The current system expanded, not that of an exclusion. Current campaigns would not change a bit, but also campaigns against humans and the simulation of whole battles would become possible.

I am also not sure, if an expanded campaign system would not be suited for AI play under all circumstances.

I am thinking of a mini-campaign that now is cramped into one engagement, where the player attacks the AI.

The first battle is the recon phase. The player gathers the intel. The second phase is the attack. The third is the mopping up. The time between the phases could be minimal. So there is no need for the AI to make intelligent decisions or analyze the terrain or something like that.

I have seen there are even huge "master maps" available. I think it would be terrific if two players would have a certain pool of units and the map would be a portion of the master map and it would shift around, according how the battle develops.

Well now you are starting to confuse me because I'm not really certain what your expectations are or how reasonable they are with respect to what is possible and what isn't possible in a computer game of any kind.  As a scenario designer I can recreate, down to the individual soldier, any battle that has been fought where sufficient information is available to recreate it.  I'm beginning to think that perhaps there is a difference between what you term a 'battle' and what I might term a 'battle'.  If you want to fight 'The Battle of the Bulge' as a single battle that lasts for a month and covers several hundred square kilometers well then Combat Mission isn't your game.  A 'battle' as defined by Combat Mission is when the 1st battalion of the 376th Infantry Regiment attacks some German bunkers behind the Dragon's Teeth at the West Wall.  A battle has a start point and an end point and typically an engagement like that (in other words, an individual unit attacking another unit at a given location) might last a few hours at most before the attack has either succeeded or failed.  An individual scenario can simulate a battle just fine.  As far as what you want in a campaign goes - well by definition a campaign will be a series of linked battles.  Sometimes the battles might be in the same location (old way) and sometimes the battles might be in different locations (new way), but a battle is a battle is a battle and has nothing to do with some of the things you seem to be including in your battle calculus.  The odds of actual combat troops running out of ammunition during the course of an actual campaign is pretty low unless your force is facing some sort of strategic difficulties as the Germans faced in the closing months of WW2 where the entire logistics system was failing.  An American unit running out of ammunition?  That's not likely to happen and really that's something that most players would rather not concern themselves with.  Most players would rather just fight the battle without worrying about ammunition availability.

 

Why don't you just download one of the demos and try playing the game yourself then you can decide to get it or not get it. 

[Warts 'n' all]

I agree with ASL Veteran, playing the demo gives you a good idea of how "Battles" or missions are handled in CM.

 

As much as I miss the old style "Operations", because they could be played from both Axis and Allied sides, the new style "Campaigns" do throw up their own particular challenges, and are, therefore, well worth playing.

 

Perhaps watching this...  

  ...will give you a clear idea of how they work, without you having you having to buy the game. Edited February 5, 2015 by Warts 'n' all

[womble]

Womble,

now you did not answer one argument I presented, why the current system never be capable to model a whole battle.

I don't argue for an operational game, I talk about the lowest tactical level. Attack that village. Take that bridge. Take that hill.

All that does not happen in one engagement, as soon as there is a stronger defense. To find out, if there even is an enemy, already needs a recon phase. Teh result of the recon phase is that the attack is planned. That's NOT operational level. That's tactical level.

After this I'm done with you. The language barrier is obviously beyond us. Anytime you "stop to plan" it stops being tactical. Tactics is where the plan meets the enemies (time, ground and opposition). Can you imagine how boring it would be to have to drive your recon elements around for hours before you even know there's an enemy on the map? That's why the operational recon (find out if the enemy is even there) isn't part of a battle. What you're describing is tactical scenarios with an operational framework knitting them together.

You wanted to know what CM can do. I told you. I didn't dissect your post because most of what you wrote was nit-picking troll-bait, as far as I'm concerned. But that's probably just the language barrier. What you call a "whole battle" can certinly be done. The maps are big enough, and 4 hours is entirely long enough, at "CM pace"* to conduct a full day's operation by a couple of Battalions-plus. Recon, development, conclusion. Your demands for what you think it ought to be able to automatically do are unreasonable, since you don't have a foggy clue what the game actually does do. Download the demos for RT, BN and FI (even if they're all at different engine levels) and you'll have a perfect view of what the game is designed to do.

Perhaps someone else would like to unpick your definitions.

* Because of the nature of the game (your god's eye view and perfect coordination), you can do far more in an hour of CMx2 than could routinely be achieved by a real life army with Clauswitzian friction at real world levels in the same time with the same forces. You can also get far more pTruppen killed and expend far more ammo than would be the norm in an hour of intense combat.

[Skinfaxi]

Womble,

After this I'm done with you.

if you prefer this tone I can talk with you adequately, too.

Anytime you "stop to plan" it stops being tactical. Tactics is where the plan meets the enemies (time, ground and opposition).

You seem to live in the illusion that people need to have played CM to know what tactics is. But the one who is not knowing what he is talking about is you:

The planning of a batallion is not operational. Not even the internal planning of a division.

The advance of a division along a street that is blocked and then a Flak battery is moved forward to deal with the problem, is not operational.

What nonsense are you talking?

And you are not even consistent:

If the argument comes from me, then you claim it would be operational and operational was beyond the scope of CM.

But when in the current campaign system US airborne division is moving through France and this move is used as story background, then the portrayed operational moves in Market Garden between the engagements are not beyond CM's scope...

In the meanwhile I have watched video reports from two campaigns and I can only laugh, how you claim that a tactical framework was operational, while the CMx2 campaign system often is based on operational storytelling.

Can you imagine how boring it would be to have to drive your recon elements around for hours before you even know there's an enemy on the map?

Yes I can. But I can also imagine that the one or other would prefer higher realism over storytelling. Me for example.

It is often argued that CM is about realism. But is it realistic, if the player always seems to know where the enemy is, how strong he is, and that his forces are adequate to fullfill the order? Is that realistic?

 

What you're describing is tactical scenarios with an operational framework knitting them together.

Now you are confusing me. You are talking about the current campaign system, yes?

Didn't you follow our discussion from the beginning, where people explained the old CM1 campaign system? Was that an operational framework, too?

[Skinfaxi]

Warts,
thanks a lot! There are quite some great educational videos out there.    I think I have a good understanding now, what the CM2 campaign system is and what it can do and what it can't. My expectations from the written descriptions were very close.

 

I can only support those who want a system that can portray consecutive engagements on a map where unit location and status, map destruction are preserved.

[ASL Veteran]

It is often argued that CM is about realism. But is it realistic, if the player always seems to know where the enemy is, how strong he is, and that his forces are adequate to fullfill the order? Is that realistic?

 

It is actually more realistic than you might realize.  A scenario briefing represents such things as operational recon and prisoner interrogations.  If a given unit has been in contact or near an enemy unit for several days or weeks the exact unit designation of the enemy unit is typically known.  Morale state and combat capability can also be deduced from the prisoners who have been captured and from the manner in which they were captured.  It was a very rare situation during WW2 where a friendly unit was advancing into a complete void. 

 

There are individual gamers who, on their own, have created an 'Operational Layer' for players to play within which is what I'm thinking perhaps is what you are looking for.  The game itself doesn't have an 'Operational Layer' and probably never will.  Various independent parties have made attempts at linking an Operational Layer to the game itself but so far all attempts at creating an actual computer Operational Layer have failed.  Some of the gaming clubs like "Few Good Men" have ongoing 'Operational Layer' games that they host, but they are conducted manually outside the limits of the game of Combat Mission with a referee or game umpire who manages it for the players.  Perhaps you might check the CMx2 forums at Few Good Men and see if that's what you are after.  Here is a link to the appropriate forum at Few Good Men

 

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/forums/combat-mission-x-2-cmbn-cmfi-cmrt-add-ons.160/

Edited February 5, 2015 by ASL Veteran

[Skinfaxi]

It is actually more realistic than you might realize.  A scenario briefing represents such things as operational recon and prisoner interrogations.  If a given unit has been in contact or near an enemy unit for several days or weeks the exact unit designation of the enemy unit is typically known.

I agree, but I want to emphasize that you are talking about a SPECIFIC situation. There are many other situations, where such informations are not present.

This is even more valid for armies, where commanders have a high degree of freedom and flexibility. Have you ever heard about the term "Auftragstaktik"? It was used by the Germans and it means, that there are not given orders, but tasks. It is up to the local commander to fullfill the task.

If there is no reconaissance available, he must act accordingly - but he must try to fullfill the given task.

In the meantime I have bought CMRT and as you know, it's timeframe and geography is around Bagration.

The tasks without any useful reconaissance infos maybe even were the majority then.

A very good example that supports my point of view: regimental or divisional commanders often didn't even know where their neighbouring regiment/division had gone and they often only received informations like: the enemy was seen at City X. "Oh damn, that's 50 km behind our lines! So we can expect another encirclement."

"Take your company, a platoon StuG IV will be placed under your command and open the street torwards City X."

That's a typical task. The commander knew NOTHING and it was comepletely on his own, how he achieved it.

Purely tactical, nothing operational.

I can only repeat myself: I have not argued nor do I want a development torwards an operational game. All I argue for is better tools for more realism instead of storytelling as the only way to simulate whole battles.

What I don't understand: why are you suggesting I would want something absurd or completely new?! The old CM1 system obviously was quite close to modelling whole battles. That it maybe had shortcomings with drawing frontlines or other things does not mean that an implementation in CMx2 must repeat the shortcomings. The not so good things - ofcourse - should be avoided.

What do you guys have against improvements in areas where the game is weak?

Edited February 5, 2015 by Skinfaxi

[ASL Veteran]

I agree, but I want to emphasize that you are talking about a SPECIFIC situation. There are many other situations, where such informations are not present.

This is even more valid for armies, where commanders have a high degree of freedom and flexibility. Have you ever heard about the term "Auftragstaktik"? It was used by the Germans and it means, that there are not given orders, but tasks. It is up to the local commander to fullfill the task.

If there is no reconaissance available, he must act accordingly - but he must try to fullfill the given task.

The tasks without any useful reconaissance infos even were the majority.

In the meantime I have bought CMRT and as you know, it's timeframe and geography is around Bagration.

A very good example that supports my point of view: the Germans often didn't even know where their neighbouring division had gone and they often only received informations like: the enemy was seen at City X. "Oh damn, that's 50 km behind our lines! So we can expect another encirclement."

"Take your company, a platoon StuG IV will be placed under your command and open the street torwards City X."

That's a typical task. The commander knew NOTHING and it was comepletely on his own, how he achieved it.

Purely tactical, nothing operational.

I can only repeat myself: I have not argued nor do I want a development torwards an operational game. All I argue for is better tools for more realism instead of storytelling as the only way to simulate whole battles.

What I don't understand: why are you suggesting I would want something absurd or completely new?! The old CM1 system obviously was quite close to modelling whole battles. That it maybe had shortcomings with drawing frontlines or other things does not mean that an implementation in CMx2 must repeat the shortcomings. The not so good things - ofcourse - should be avoided.

What do you guys have against improvements in areas where the game is weak?

Okay, well I am trying to be helpful but this isn't really going anywhere because nobody can actually figure out what it is that you want exactly.  It is not typical for a commander to know absolutely nothing about the enemy in front of him.  I'm sorry but it just isn't typical.  The degree of information would vary of course, but advancing into a total void is absolutely the exception rather than the rule.  Why that is important to you is something I can't figure out, but if it is important for you then it is important for you.  However, there is hope for those who want to advance into a complete void.  You can always play a Quick Battle or create scenarios and campaigns with out any briefings at all.  Alternatively you can always just play a campaign and skip over the briefings.  If you don't read the briefing then you don't know what the situation is so there you go.  If you want the campaign system of CMx1 then why don't you just buy a CMx1 game and play it?  I think they are still available for purchase on BFCs site.

 

In general, those who are responding to you don't think the game is weak.  You think the game is weak but nobody can figure out exactly why you think that.  I think that might be a result of your expectations of what reality is versus what reality actually was, but if you read enough about WW2 battles and campaigns I think you will find your expectations to be wanting a bit when compared to reality.  Ultimately battles and combat are story telling if you are writing about them after the fact.  If I'm reading the history of the 28th Infantry Division I am reading a 'story' about the 28th Infantry Division.  A story that was written when the soldiers fought in the battles that they participated in.  I'm not really clear on how you are defining 'story telling' or how that fits into your perception of what the game is all about, but most scenarios and campaigns are not 'puzzles' for the player to solve by doing things in certain specific ways.

 

Perhaps it would be helpful if you stated in simple and direct terms exactly what it is that you want from the game or what you expect the game to do?  Describe in detail how it would work and how the game would play out because in spite of all your text you still aren't making very much sense.  What other games do you like?  Perhaps that would be helpful in giving us a common frame of reference.

Edited February 5, 2015 by ASL Veteran

[Skinfaxi]

ASL,

I didn't say the game is weak. I said that in my eyes it has a weak area. And that weak spot I identified is the CM2 campaign system.

You can't claim that I did not write why in my opinion it is weak, because I brought examples what it can't model and what I would expect from a campaign system of a tacical simulation aiming for realism.

Can it be more specific than: damage to the map, unit statuses and their positions may not be lost if several parts of a battle should be modelled?

After I have played my first campaign maybe I can be even more specific.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Skinfaxi

[ASL Veteran]

Okay, well let us know how it goes.  Good luck and I hope you enjoy the campaigns that have been provided.  If those don't work out for you then perhaps you might look into some of the refereed campaigns at one of the gaming clubs like 'Few Good Men'.

[Warts 'n' all]

Also, bear in mind that "campaign editor" software exists. This can be downloaded from the repository or from websites such as Green as Jade, so that you can edit each individual "Mission"  within a campaign using the "Scenario editor" that comes with the game. Therefore you can tinker with the map, your core forces, your reinforcements, and the enemy's strength and set up. If you feel that the original designer has produced a campaign that doesn't suit your needs.

 

The one thing that this software can't provide is entirely new maps to insert into the campaigns provided in the game.