Jump to content

So you just got your hands on CMCW...now what? Designers Q&A thread.


Recommended Posts

First off, thank you and welcome to the game.  This post is really a place for you guys to Q&A with the game designers.  Questions on features, campaigns or scenarios can go here and we will try to get to them to help you out.

So if you are new to the CM you probably want to start easy and small to get the feel for the game.  Check the scenario notes as designers often will highlight which side may be easy or harder.  For example, "Valley of Ashes" is by-design, pretty easy for the Blue side as an opportunity for beginners to get a feel for a larger scenario.  While the Red side of this scenario is pretty tough.  I will let the other scenario designers chime on on their babies.

I will say that the Soviet Training scenarios by Cpt Miller are a very good place to start for a lot of people as full Cold War Soviet formations, in all their glory, are a bit of a new thing for the series.

For the Campaigns, I highly recommend people start with NTC.  Bil and GeorgeMC did a really good job in putting together some very good scenarios that can get people into the groove of maneuvering in the context of a Cold War battlefield. 

Then I would suggest moving onto the US Campaigns.  1982 was designed to be the primary but 1979 turned out to be really interesting, so players choice really.   1982 is probably a little easier as 1979 can be challenging with the older equipment set.

Finally, I would then suggest that players can gird their loins for the Soviet Campaigns.  These are designed to be tough and a challenge to manage.  Every battle is battalion sized and frankly pretty tough.  The March or Die version is designed to be downright unfair to the loins, but also probably the most realistic....you have been warned.

Anyway, enjoy and have fun!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't want to 'spoil' scenarios by playing them while still not up on the equipment try playing a few quick battles first. Just to see how fast an M60A1 travels cross country, how reliable Dragon missiles are, and how good Russian T64s are at spotting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

 

Finally, I would then suggest that players can gird their loins for the Soviet Campaigns.  These are designed to be tough and a challenge to manage.  Every battle is battalion sized and frankly pretty tough.  The March or Die version is designed to be downright unfair to the loins, but also probably the most realistic....you have been warned.

Anyway, enjoy and have fun!   

Thank you for the game!

By "tough and challenge to manage" you mean attacking with less forces than defender, searching for tanks in the bushes and painfully saving and loading every minute? :) Or different kind of tough? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Thank you for the game!

By "tough and challenge to manage" you mean attacking with less forces than defender, searching for tanks in the bushes and painfully saving and loading every minute? :) Or different kind of tough? 

Soviet Campaigns = Tough and Challenging:

- First off the player has to manage an entire MRB TF (so Bn and a Tank Coy as a min) in each battle (except the last one but lets leave that one for now).  Over the Campaign the player is basically managing an MRR across the campaign scenarios, so 3 x MRBs, a TB and AT Bn as they fight down towards Alsfeld.

- The Campaign reflects Soviet doctrine (and POV to be honest) so there is very little RRR between battles (in March or Die it is zero).  So if one loses the better part of a tank company in Battle #1, you have to live with those losses for the rest of the campaign.  It is very easy to run out of gas by the end if a player is reckless.

- Force ratios are pretty forgiving actually, Soviets will go into each fight with at least a 2:1 advantage or higher.

- Tough as in US troops quality and positioning.  The US troops are 11 ACR and 3rd Armd Div, about the best equipped and trained the West had in this area.  They have owned the ground for nearly 40 years at this point and know every inch of it.  So each fight sees them very well positioned and with the best stuff.

As to saving and bush-searching, well I will leave that decision to you but each fight in on the clock so don't take too long.  Bottom line is that the campaign is not recommended for first time players as it will likely be frustrating.  Veterans should be prepared for shaking hands and tears in their eyes if they make it to seeing the street lights of Alsfeld.

Edited by The_Capt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

If you don't want to 'spoil' scenarios by playing them while still not up on the equipment try playing a few quick battles first. Just to see how fast an M60A1 travels cross country, how reliable Dragon missiles are, and how good Russian T64s are at spotting.

... and I'm sure @Hapless has a few video exposés under way already? [crosses fingers] 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the way the training campaign uses a 1/10 scale mini-map to decide the initial deployment - it's rather useful to give a good sense of the lie of the land.  I'll suggest that's used in future campaigns to provide an immersive geographical perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, leon_2 said:

@The_Capt what difficulty do you think the game is played best? are you a fan of the iron setting? also thanks for putting in the work, my download is still taking a bit :)

I can't speak for Warren, but I myself prefer Iron. I think it gives a much better idea of the situational awareness for my own troops. I always play the game in WeGo, so I can see my whole force as normal during the command phase as well, so there really is no downside to playing Iron. Again, in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, leon_2 said:

@The_Capt what difficulty do you think the game is played best? are you a fan of the iron setting? also thanks for putting in the work, my download is still taking a bit :)

I normally play Iron and the campaigns were designed with that in mind.  I think players should grow into the higher settings once they get comfortable with them.  The higher settings are where we start to see realistic Fog of War simulation.  I would recommend Warrior as a min but only once the player gets comfortable with gameplay etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About M60A2. It fires the late-generaltion MGM-51C Shilellagh missile with a minimum arming distance somewhere around 740m and a max range of 3000m (I just tested it out). The conventional rounds are low velocity and object to be fired much beyond... I dunno... maybe 1000m?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

About M60A2. It fires the late-generaltion MGM-51C Shilellagh missile with a minimum arming distance somewhere around 740m and a max range of 3000m (I just tested it out). The conventional rounds are low velocity and object to be fired much beyond... I dunno... maybe 1000m?

Thanks.  I'm 5 turns into the scenario in March 1979 with Starships versus T72's.  No spoilers, but I'm hoping for a hyperdrive.  The flight time on the ATGM's is terrifyingly long and they have to maintain LOS on target until impact. I *think* I may have gotten a mission kill at about 1700m, but not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

So what was it that convinced Steve and Charles to go ahead with this project?

Bill and Warren doing all or a ton of work I believe...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be overstating things to say that Steve was basically handed the title as a fait accompli. There was a point where benign neglect abruptly shifted to overt enthusiasm. 'What? We're now on a deadline? You want it out WHEN?!!!' 
😱 (my new favorite emoji).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to give us a model of the LAW that isn't in the deployed configuration? I know the engine can't handle swapping between them but if I had to choose I would prefer to have it in the stowed configuration since that's how it'll be 99% of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KungFuTreachery said:

Would it be possible to give us a model of the LAW that isn't in the deployed configuration? I know the engine can't handle swapping between them but if I had to choose I would prefer to have it in the stowed configuration since that's how it'll be 99% of the time. 

This has been discussed before. Not sure if a consensus has been reached yet, but for what it is worth I agree, I think they should be in their collapsed state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IICptMillerII said:

I think they should be in their collapsed state

It's like grounghog day! Collapse the launchers for the LAW, RPG-18 and Bradley TOW launchers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will we eventually see the ability to bring Soviet SPGs such as the 2S3 into battle? For scenarios it would be useful as an objective to destroy, and doctrinally the Soviets would keep the artillery forward from what I can tell. The 2S3 is even noted as being useful in a secondary anti-tank defense role. I guess high-caliber HEAT has its use, heh! 

Thanks for the new releases! I'll have to wait for the bundle on Red Thunder, but digging into CW now. And Rome Remastered just came out... Feast or famine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SovietOnion said:

Will we eventually see the ability to bring Soviet SPGs such as the 2S3 into battle? For scenarios it would be useful as an objective to destroy, and doctrinally the Soviets would keep the artillery forward from what I can tell. The 2S3 is even noted as being useful in a secondary anti-tank defense role. I guess high-caliber HEAT has its use, heh! 

Thanks for the new releases! I'll have to wait for the bundle on Red Thunder, but digging into CW now. And Rome Remastered just came out... Feast or famine!

Moreso the 2S1s than the 2S3s, but yes that was a doctrinal role for SPG's in the Soviet army. Though, it was more for immediate direct fire (think of assault guns in WWII blasting fortifications) as opposed to antitank work. That was a purely last resort defensive consideration. 

I personally asked to include the 2S1 as an on map asset, but it was not to be for this title. Not sure if there are future plans for it though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, brain and strings of letters and numbers don't always work out, heh. Thanks for the answer! Disappointing for sure, but not a deal-breaker. 

Do you know if there are any future-expansion plans, or really any semi-official thought on the inclusion of the VDV?

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
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...