Jump to content

Kampfgruppe Peiper Campaign


Recommended Posts

I'm not sure about the convoys of trucks. But, with regards to the fuel dump part of your question. Taking the square will trigger the off-map capture of the fuel dump. You do NOT need to go beyond the town square. As for the role that capturing the fuel dump plays in the campaign itself. it means that you have enough fuel to feed your hungry King Tigers all the way to the Meuse, i.e. the end of the campaign

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

I'm trying to follow the historical path in this campaign, but once I get to the second mission in Stoumout the instructions say that the Germans didn't capture the square and instead pushed along the river, but when I follow this pathway I end up at a non-historical mission.  

Can you follow the treads of history after the second mission in stourmount ? The one where they tell you to take the square.  

I believe historically they might have made for the fuel dump, but the instructions don't really support that theory.

Is there are a campaign tree like with Panzer Corps that I can look at ?  

Edited by simon21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that is what I want.  

So following history you go 

[00] --> [01] --> [03] --> [05] --> ? 

It appears all roads lead to Storm on Stoumount, which claims to be non-historical.  The description claims the Germans left a lot of resistance in the square, so I followed that path.  

Edited by simon21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Just playing this campaign now, late I know, can't think why I but I think I started playing, lost my saves following some clearing of files then forgot.

SPOILERS

 

 

 

 

First mission I got a total victory but a few of my infantry squads got a bit heavily depleted.  Personally I prefer PG over the Pioneer teams that I never seem to be able to use well.  I tend to pull them in last to occupy captured positions rather than using them offensively.  When I've tried they tend to get killed fast :( .  Not sure it was here or in scenario 2 that the lead PZ IV got the loader killed effectively turning that tank into a mobile pill box.

 

Second mission I decided not to rest.  Wrong I think as my depleted squads didn't get replenished (not sure if they do if I stop for refit).  Second mission was a success, only a couple of infantry killed. Machine gunned the hell out of buildings from afar with the tanks while the infantry moved up to them in the cover of the valley on the right flank.  Any buildings that the infantry identified as being occupied (including a couple of "there has to be a bazooka team in there) I'd knock down with HE.  Kept all the HTs back. I did play with having the co Cdr and 2ic out on the hill from the start position.  Hoping they might be able to spot.  Waste of time that was LOL.  Planning to start the campaign again and keep more infantry in tact.  A few squads got hit badly when I came down the right flank after crossing the stream and working down.  Amis in foxholes with an MG or two I think.  Should have used the Stummel, 250/9 and tanks more aggressively I think, was too concerned about ATGs and zooks.  Pushed on to Richard and took it without too much difficulty.  Somewhat needlessly here, before I decided to go for a no stop push, I drove the Pioneers up to the woods opposite the bridge at the start and used them to probe through the woods for concealed bazooka teams, certainly not enough time to do this if you want to storm through and take both objectives.  Even though I know there's nothing there I'll still do it, as I'd think there would be.  If I do a replay I do try to do what I'd normally do rather than "there's nothing there, don't bother".

 

And the reason I'm starting again.  3rd mission.  LOTS of open ground to cover between the start and the town of Stavelot.  Only one PG squad at full strength, the rest at 3-4 men (maybe I'd incurred losses I forgot).  Just seems to be a lot of town to take with little infantry firepower.  At the start I had a complete platoon plus the co cdr, 2ic, mortars HQ unmounted and on the hill watching from a distance.  Almost 30 minutes in and not a single spot.  Get the feeling the tanks need to be used aggressively here (where I'd normally scout in front of the tanks before exposing them).  Too much open terrain in front of the town for the infantry to get mowed down in to risk that.  And again, bloody Pioneers.  Not sure why I hate them so much.

 

Great campaign though, very immersive and great maps, just wish the Pioneers had been given the day off.  The terrain feels very natural.  It's in contrast to me to the CMBS Rolling Thunder map that feels very contrived to give max LOS to ATGMs, zero by way of covered lanes of approach. Just feel like it's designed for blue to be hard rather than than terrain you'd likely to encounter, feels too much like your'e playing against the terrain AND the opfor.  Not wishing to sound overly critical, it's a great scenario, just hate the map.  Pity there aren't more campaigns like this for CMFB, seems to me this game has less by way of follow up campaigns than say, CMRT.  Pity, it's my favourite WW2 game, CMBN is great too but I find bocage a bit of a slog.

 

Edited by Apache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting read. I've started playing this campaign again recently. It's the third time I've played it since CMFB came out. I don't do "restarts" if I lose I just record my defeat and move on to another campaign or battle. I love the map, it is a joy to fight over, even when the amis are killing my pixeltruppen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Apache said:

I drove the Pioneers up to the woods opposite the bridge at the start and used them to probe through the woods for concealed bazooka teams, certainly not enough time to do this if you want to storm through and take both objectives.  Even though I know there's nothing there I'll still do it, as I'd think there would be.  If I do a replay I do try to do what I'd normally do rather than "there's nothing there, don't bother".

I often do the same thing. Would be great if more designers added some variability to the enemy setup, to give more replayability. A pet peeve of mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Variable set up is going to be somewhat random if that is route a scenario maker goes in.

I do already have an outstanding “would be great to see” list entry for multiple AI plans for setup which would allow the scenario designer to have multiple, hand placed unit set ups that would be randomly loaded, as with the other parts of the plan. I think this might be a bit trickier than it first seems so I don’t know if it is in the cards, but this has been a long term desire of mine for the Editor as well. 

CMRT is indeed getting a module, which is currently underway. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, benpark said:

Variable set up is going to be somewhat random if that is route a scenario maker goes in.

Not to school you, because I know you're an experienced designer, but just to recap: The designer can paint a zone for each AI group and the group members will semi-randomly deploy in that zone.

If you think about where you paint the zone, you can have variable placement that keeps making sense. And all this can be done within one single AI plan.

A typical example is to make AT gun locations vary, but also stuff like which building has an MG covering the bridge is a good thing to make variable. Or infantry placement inside a city block/forest.

I wish more designers would use this kind of setup, because when I play great campaigns like KG Peiper with its meticulous maps, I really want to have a second and third go. But then I know the enemy placements...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I wish more designers would use this kind of setup, because when I play great campaigns like KG Peiper with its meticulous maps, I really want to have a second and third go. But then I know the enemy placements...

1

You are not guaranteed you will get a different AI Plan though. Currently, designers nor players can select which AI Plan to play against. So I can create three to four AI Plans but no guarantee you won't end up playing the same one on subsequent occasions.

In scenarios, you can at least open the scenario and select which AI plan in the editor. You can't do that in a campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, George MC said:
21 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I wish more designers would use this kind of setup, because when I play great campaigns like KG Peiper with its meticulous maps, I really want to have a second and third go. But then I know the enemy placements...

1

You are not guaranteed you will get a different AI Plan though. Currently, designers nor players can select which AI Plan to play against. So I can create three to four AI Plans but no guarantee you won't end up playing the same one on subsequent occasions.

But you don't even need more AI plans.

Put AT gun 1 into AI group 7 and paint its setup zone along a whole hedge on the right flank. AT gun 2 goes in group 8 and you paint its zone on the left flank. Now you have both flanks covered, but the player can't know where the guns will be, exactly.

Meanwhile, Inf. platoon 1 guards the bridge in any combination of building 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... etc.

All this is within one single AI plan :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fully aware of that method (and have indeed used it- see the Aachen campaign, at the very least- variable setups are used).

What I was describing is hand placing the units, then saving as a variable plan.  That’s not set up zone reliant.

This allows precise placement and facing, unlike the random, painted zone method.

 

Edited by benpark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

But you don't even need more AI plans.

Put AT gun 1 into AI group 7 and paint its setup zone along a whole hedge on the right flank. AT gun 2 goes in group 8 and you paint its zone on the left flank. Now you have both flanks covered, but the player can't know where the guns will be, exactly.

Meanwhile, Inf. platoon 1 guards the bridge in any combination of building 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... etc.

All this is within one single AI plan :)

Yup use that method BUT it's not very reliable IMO. I'd echo @benpark 's take which reduces the chance of the AI botching the set-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trusting the AI to setup anything more complex than infantry is a fools errand IMHO.  :unsure:

I have to say the newer games feel so much more powerful than CM:SF1 & CM:A, with creative use of snowballing and exit zones you can create some really convincing stuff (effectively recycling AI Groups for re-use during a longer scenario).  I'm still getting my head around the wonders that can be worked with triggers.  B)

PS - @benpark  Every time I see that Berlin map in editor view, I feel like I need a little lie down in sympathy!  :P

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Trusting the AI to setup anything more complex than infantry is a fools errand IMHO.  :unsure:

You mean the cases where the game will place the gun in the painted area, but somehow won't achieve the LOS you could find by placing manually? Yes, that can be an issue, but mostly in marginal LOS conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that was a bit of a kick in the nuts LOL!!!!

 

On 4/26/2016 at 4:13 AM, Erwin said:

I checked the effect of CF at the start of Missions 1-4 vs fighting to some sort of victory.  It seemed that at the start of #3 and #4 at least, there were a lot more intact US forces at the start when one was defeated in the previous battle vs when one won.  So, yes there is a reason to win each mission

Also, the resupply takes place at the start of mission #3 (am guessing that is only if one chooses to rest for the night for resupply).  So, one can be profligate with ammo, and probably men and machines, in #1 and #2.  But in #3 and onwards, one needs to become very conservative in expending either. That wasn't stated explicitly in the briefing, or I would have been less wasteful of ammo (especially in #4 where I blasted everything with every gun and MG that could get LOS). 

So...  If one ends up with not enuff stuff in #4 (Stavelot) or #5 (Stoumont), it may be necessary to replay #3 to get a victory (ensuring that you will face fewer US units in #4) with less expenditure of KG Peiper's ammo and equipment in both #3 and #4.  That way one hopefully ends up with sufficient ammo and machines for #5 onwards.

 

Re-supply at start on mission 3, for me, seems not!

 

SPOILERS

 

 

 

 

Took the first objective in the second mission and decided to rest up for the night.  Used very little tank HE having machine gunned the hell out of every potential target building.  Just one PzG killed by the US MG on the hilltop, promptly dispatched with 5 tanks opening up with HE silmutaneously :).  Was looking forward to the next mission to take Stavelot with a full inventory.  Then shock / horror.  Some bloody bright spark decided not to give me the tanks but instead I got the heavy gun platoon with the x2 Stummel ONLY to find their ammo had not bee re-supplied, so the rest and refit achieved what exactly? Robs me of the tanks and gives me two nigh on empty highly vulnerable bloody Stummels with depleted ammo from mission 1!  Not impressed at all!  

 

Not sure if it makes is 'easier' by making Stavelot a two phase mission (securing south of the river first vs IIRC having to go the whole hog)?  Sure hope so, otherwise the overnight rest has had zero benefit at all, replacing tanks with highly vulnerable gun mounted HTs :(.  In fact, in terms of operational effectiveness it's achieved jack.  Even more annoying given that the decision log tells me that stopping over night has cost me time but allowed for rest and ammo resupply.  So who forgot the Stummels?  One has just 19HE and the second has none, just 6 HEAT, what use is 6 HEAT gonna be!  Guess the mortars will have to be emptied out (and I'm guessing it will be emptied too, not placing any faith in getting  any ammo re-supply at all).  Not sure I'll bother much about briefings given that what it says doesn't seem to happen.  If info appears in briefings you kinda expect it to happen, otherwise, what's the point?  I like the campaign overall but not impressed with this aspect TBH.

Edited by Apache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Apache said:

I like the campaign overall but not impressed with this aspect TBH.

Same here. I chose not to rest, and expected my troops to take a hit to their fitness, but they seemed fit as ever. Either it's the effect of the Panzer chocolate, or somebody forgot something I suppose.

The choice/consequence thing was poorly executed, but it's still a great campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Same here. I chose not to rest, and expected my troops to take a hit to their fitness, but they seemed fit as ever. Either it's the effect of the Panzer chocolate, or somebody forgot something I suppose.

The choice/consequence thing was poorly executed, but it's still a great campaign.

SPOILERS

 

 

 

Kinda wish I'd done that, I still have the 'Save' from the previous mission with about 20 minutes on the clock so depending how this goes I might load that up and push on through.  I know I'll get the tanks then (played it to there before but had lost too many infantry to make it doable I think) which I'd rather have than the two next to useless empty Stummels that the overnight rest left me with.  Just not sure how pushing on affects how you are tasked with dealing with Stavelot, IIRC you had the whole of Stavelot to deal with, not just the south bank.  So, will see how it goes without direct fire HE support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played this campaign in December, great fun.  I chose the non-historical 'go faster' option.  In the end, then allies retook Stavelot and I couldn't retake it, at least not w/o replaying it again now that I know where the enemy is.  I might do that sometime, it's very tough.  In real life Peiper was doomed and so I was expecting things to get worse & worse after the initial battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Panzer chocolate

MMMMMMMMMM SCHOKA COLA!

I'm currently 4 or 5 missions into this campaign. I actually really like the choices that are given to the player. It makes the missions feel more open. That and the fact that the maps are MASSIVE -- you really have a lot of room for maneuver in this one. However, this is the only CM campaign, where I had to lower my settings because the large detailed maps murdered my FPS. The scope of this campaign is unrivaled in the franchise. Much props to everyone involved in its development.

While the quality of the troops is impeccable, I do find myself short of infantry 90% of the time. Pioneers often have to get pushed into infantry duties. Ironically enough, that takes less of a tole than doing what they're there for -- clearing out minefields. I'm actually not too happy with the Panther's performance. They're quite big and yet have problems spotting. Only advantage to a P. 4 is if they face 57mm AT fire or a 75mm Sherman. Two well entrenched/camoed 76mm Shermans wiped the smirk off of the faces of an entire late Panther platoon. Bazookas have no problems taking them out, either. 

The Doughboys aren't playing around anymore. Artillery is my best tool for breaking up the American defenders. I have to say, I've found the stummel and the 8cm mortar halftracks to be invaluable. Going from commanding a depleted company to a reinforced battalion took me by surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I hear you.  The lack of troops really hits home as this goes on.  Oh, hey, just like the actual campaign.  Peiper was short on men and especially on supplies.  And my lovely panthers, with all their wonderful sloped armor, were often getting main gun damage from sherman 75s also 57mm AT guns, rendering them relatively useless.  I had several like this in my Stoumont attack.  And the american artillery really becomes tough to get through also.  In 2nd stavelot battle I had two of my armored vehicles knocked out by direct hits.  Again, like nasty real life in that campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPOILERS

 

 

Got a shock with mission 3, those "vehicle sounds in the distance" transferred into a bunch of HTs storming up the road into the crossroads where I'd bunched up a fair few assets to cut down on drive time given the time limits.  Caused some havoc I must say.  TBH I restarted that given the already limited infantry had been carved up to give me much chance of success.  My two SPW 251/17s and a few other assets seemed to fare less well at spotting the approaching Ami convoy that seemed to be able arrive, deploy and shoot up with a vengeance.

I do wish there was more time with the scenarios I've played so far.  Given the style of CM these days where scouting, observing and a generally much more stealthy approach the 45 minute time allowances do push you to be faster bordering on reckless given the way I'd normally approach the given objectives, especially in BUA and with multiple bazookas.  I like the choices, not so keen on the re-supply of ammo to the Stummels not happening at mission 3 start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...