Aachen Campaign As Allies

[user1000]

I really like quick battles more than I like campaigns, but I decided to give Aachen the benefit of doubt and try it. I usually play the game on vet mode. I am not a huge fan of large city fighting but decided to try Aachen anyways. The maps were beautiful and extremely well done! As far as the campaign, every mission of the campaign was appalling. There was an mg-42 at every buildings and  it resulted in my men doing the one step forward and 2 steps back routine. The furthest I got in terms of ground, was the 1st mission where I captured half the map but resulted in a major defeat go figure. It seems we are only to shift select all forces and move them them up like ants.. There were panzershreks everywhere you can think as well. The Germans constantly had the high ground, and no where to turn to advance. The air/artillery strikes did nothing. For some reason I had more machine gun teams than regular infantry squads resulting in tired troops constantly if I did do advances. You guys really gave the volks troops made of pretty much old men and kids too much credit. The last mission was the only map with a decent amount of time to move your troops strategically. But you were bound to loose as no high ground again and another uphill battle. My shermans did good because I used the infantry to advance first, but eventually the optics were knocked out or something dumb would happen. The open top tank destroyers really seemed pointless. Way too big of a map for my liking.

[Wodin]

Well I really enjoyed the first mission...slow and steady with lots of area and suppressive fire won the day

[Combatintman]

I tested this one and won every mission and I am by no means a great player.  Of all the missions I thought the second one was the hardest but they all needed some careful planning and a deliberate approach with heaps of firepower.  I really enjoyed testing it and I think it is a really well put together little campaign.

[benpark]

Take your time, recon by fire and concentrate forces and fire to an overwhelming degree. Also take the routes less expected- there are no "gamey" routes in this campaign. It is based upon the historical realities of the battle.

The campaign maps are based on actual topographic maps, down to individual structures. I was very careful to research this campaign extensively, so the challenges you face are as they were. The Germans did indeed hold the high ground in the final battle for the central city. The Americans are also outnumbered, as they were historically. But you have vastly superior firepower, and higher quality troops. The VG have fewer MGs and AT assets than historically. I also think the timelines are very generous.

[Ithikial_AU]

12 hours ago, user1000 said:

I really like quick battles more than I like campaigns, but I decided to give Aachen the benefit of doubt and try it. I usually play the game on vet mode. I am not a huge fan of large city fighting but decided to try Aachen anyways. The maps were beautiful and extremely well done! As far as the campaign, every mission of the campaign was appalling. There was an mg-42 at every buildings and  it resulted in my men doing the one step forward and 2 steps back routine. The furthest I got in terms of ground, was the 1st mission where I captured half the map but resulted in a major defeat go figure. It seems we are only to shift select all forces and move them them up like ants.. There were panzershreks everywhere you can think as well. The Germans constantly had the high ground, and no where to turn to advance. The air/artillery strikes did nothing. For some reason I had more machine gun teams than regular infantry squads resulting in tired troops constantly if I did do advances. You guys really gave the volks troops made of pretty much old men and kids too much credit. The last mission was the only map with a decent amount of time to move your troops strategically. But you were bound to loose as no high ground again and another uphill battle. My shermans did good because I used the infantry to advance first, but eventually the optics were knocked out or something dumb would happen. The open top tank destroyers really seemed pointless. Way too big of a map for my liking.

If you need some help. About to finish a full campaign playthrough of this urban nightmate. Just RL at the moment is delaying me finishing the final mission.

 

[Bulletpoint]

What experience level are the Volksgrenadiere set at in this campaign?

[user1000]

It's easier the 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th time because you kno wher the enemy is going to be.

[benpark]

Those videos are terrific. Thanks for doing them.

The level of experience is mixed, as it would be historically. The general average should be a mix of green, regular and veteran.

References are listed in the campaign briefing. They should give an idea to how things are set up, as I relied on that research to guide me on every aspect. Where I diverge, it was due to things being too hard, or unworkable as a CM scenario.

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by benpark

[Warts 'n' all]

With Sonnie Terry and Brownie McGhee's "Move into Germany" blasting from your speakers this campaign is so much more enjoyable. On a more serious note, take benpark's advice on board, make use of your firepower. And also, remember, these are not "old men and boys" that you are facing, you might be confusing Volksgrenadier, with Volksturm.

Just for the record, playing on Iron I managed a "Major Victory" for this campaign, and I consider myself to be pretty rubbish at CMx2. 

[Swant]

3 hours ago, user1000 said:

It's easier the 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th time because you kno wher the enemy is going to be.

Yes, in CMBN there are different setups in the campagins wich is great for replayabiliy. Then BF got lazy so in CMFI and CMFB its the same everytime and that sucks.

 

[user1000]

I have been liking quick battles so much, I think I have only played 5 actual battles from CMBN. For CMFB I have only played 1 campaign and no battles. I have to start playing more battles and campaigns. Thanks guys!

[benpark]

There are variable setups for the AI in this campaign for a few units. I use this in nearly every scenario I make for variety and replayability. If I do a 4.0 revamp of this campaign, I will add more. The new features allow for variable setups to be better utilized. The main issue was facing- which can now be set in 4.0.

Variable setup- it is not an issue of laziness, rather one of making a scenario that works as intended and rationally given the features of the Editor. Particularly with multiple AI plans where things can get weird without extensive testing or features like we now have in 4.0- which were not available when we did the scenarios and campaigns. 

[Swant]

Ok great! I stand corrected

[Bulletpoint]

5 hours ago, benpark said:

The level of experience is mixed, as it would be historically. The general average should be a mix of green, regular and veteran.

I don't doubt your design decisions, because I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but just out of curiosity - I thought VGs were often basically conscripts?

[Lethaface]

2 hours ago, user1000 said:

I have been liking quick battles so much, I think I have only played 5 actual battles from CMBN. For CMFB I have only played 1 campaign and no battles. I have to start playing more battles and campaigns. Thanks guys!

You should indeed as they offer a ofter far richter experience vs a QB against AI. It might be a good idea to start with some smaller scenario's, to train. There's quite some quality guides available too. Armchair general has some video's, think there is even a thread with guides on the forum.

[benpark]

Volksgrenadier divisions were a solution to the manpower shortages the Germans were facing in 1944/45.They are a stripped down divisional structure, 2/3rds the size of the standard Heer divisional manpower complement. They were generally intended as defensive forces, and were fairly improved in infantry firepower, and light on artillery and towed AT assets.

They were generally formed around the remains of a shattered existing division, so there would be a core of veterans around which to rebuild (generally officers, but using whatever forces that could "shore up" the unit as possible). The remainder of the forces were generally made up from many sources- LW ground personnel, recruits and conscripts from various regions that had ethnic German populations and whatever veterans of the previous years fighting that were left.

I just checked the scenario files- plenty of "Green" and "Regular" forces. Officers are "Regular" or "Veteran". Some "Veteran" troops mixed in, but not many. PLENTY of "Low" motivation,

I'd suggest altering tactics if you are losing this campaign by a wide margin (it is tough- as the actual battle was), as the enemy you are facing in this campaign is far from elite. The terrain is as much the enemy as the enemy- urban warfare is notoriously brutal- but I shouldn't have to tell anyone here that.

Again- this campaign is extensively researched, and the design reflects the battle as fought with as few concessions as possible, and hopefully rational where I have made them. I'm far more likely to favor "historical" than "gamey", every time I make a "historical" battle.

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by benpark

[General Liederkranz]

Thank you for explaining this! I'm finding it very interesting to follow this thread. May I ask why you say that the VG in the campaign have fewer MGs and AT assets than historically? Is this a limitation of the OB in CMFB, or did you deliberately reduce it for playability?

Edited February 9, 2017 by General Liederkranz
omitted words

[benpark]

I wasn't writing about my choices in the campaign- the limitations in towed AT guns and artillery were actual historical OOB solutions to material limitations late in the war.

The OOB in the game Editor reflects the historical reality of the formation in question. The scenario maker uses that. One can add to it or remove from it with individual guns, etc.. Where I have added something to the stock OOB is due for the most part to it being accounted for in the sources I have listed in the campaign briefing. Where I have removed something (like additional AA in the last battle) is due to it being oppressively difficult in testing.

Edited February 9, 2017 by benpark

[MOS:96B2P]

37 minutes ago, benpark said:

<Snip> this campaign is extensively researched, and the design reflects the battle as fought with as few concessions as possible, and hopefully rational where I have made them. I'm far more likely to favor "historical" than "gamey", every time I make a "historical" battle.  

Thank you for all your time and effort as a scenario designer.  Your work is appreciated. 

[General Liederkranz]

Ah, thanks. I get that the VGs had less than ordinary divisions. I was referring to one of your posts way up-thread, that "The VG have fewer MGs and AT assets than historically."

[benpark]

You are more than welcome.

[benpark]

1 hour ago, General Liederkranz said:

Ah, thanks. I get that the VGs had less than ordinary divisions. I was referring to one of your posts way up-thread, that "The VG have fewer MGs and AT assets than historically."

I didn't write "MGs", though- my quote-

"They were generally intended as defensive forces, and were fairly improved in infantry firepower, and light on artillery and towed AT assets." 

Lookie here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050226065432/http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/German/volks_grenadier_battalion.htm

[Frederico]

I really enjoyed this campaign. Very good job of conveying the difficulties of urban combat. The maps were excellent and the AI setups were all solid. I played it ver 4 and found the new routing created additional challenges (mentioned it on another thread) as you had to find and fight units multiple times. Thanks for your time and skill!

[benpark]

Thanks, Frederico.

The OOBs in each of these games are all worth looking at in the Editor. The research that goes into them is insanely painstaking. They are all worth poring over even if you don't make scenarios. You can learn a lot about what particular units were designed for, and if that was actually wise policy or not.

Using VG units as assault forces (as in many actions during the Battle of the Bulge), rather than in their intended defensive role (for example) is an instance of this. Light on the artillery makes for a tougher time softening up and shocking an emplaced enemy, for example.

[General Liederkranz]

21 hours ago, benpark said:

The VG have fewer MGs and AT assets than historically. I also think the timelines are very generous.

Thanks for the link, it's helpful to see what the VGs had. I should have been clearer, I was actually referring your other post from earlier (above), which I understood as saying that the VGs in the campaign have less than the VGs did historically. I appreciate the work that you put into designing such a great campaign!