Progression for Noob in Cold War

[Simcoe]

Most of my experience is WW2 titles and a little SF2 so Cold War feels like a huge leap in playstyle. 

With that in mind what scenarios/campaigns would you recommend for the new player? 

For example. Battle for Normandy had a pretty clear progression from training campaign to Task Force Raff to Road to Montebourg.

For the US should you start with the NTC or US campaign? For the Russians can you go straight from the training scenarios to the Russian campaign or should you do other scenarios first?

Any help is appreciated!

 

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

On 4/30/2021 at 6:12 PM, The_Capt said:

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!   

 

[domfluff]

I feel that Cold War is pitched rather higher than the other titles, so it might be the least noob-friendly CM Title. That being said:
 

US

The NTC campaign is fantastic, but it is not really a great tutorial to the game in general. The key lessons you should take away from the NTC campaign are how armour works in Cold War, and notably how to use terrain to divide the enemy and create favourable engagements.

This seems to be a common sticking point to players coming from CMSF and CMBS - if the M60A1s in the NTC campaign were Abrams, they could roll up to a ridge and take on the enemy battalion by themselves. If the M60s try that, they will be overwhelmed very quickly - every AT asset in the Soviet arsenal can penetrate an M60 frontally, including the BMP-1's 73mm low-velocity HEAT rounds. Like the real NTC, the intention is that you can learn by failing. The enemy is highly skilled and outnumbers you.

NTC is a really good introduction to Cold War, but I don't think it's a good "tutorial" as such.

The US campaign (especially the later one) is pitched to around the same level as most CM campaigns. It's therefore about as accessible as any of them really.

Soviets

The Tutorial missions do a very good jog of progressing you towards the campaign. I wish this kind of thing was standard in CM, because I think this would solve a lot of common sticking points ("What are 2 inch mortars good for?" and similar questions).

The first mission pair is the formal attack, and should teach you about the importance of mass and coordination with fires. Simple lessons, but core to the Soviet game.

The second mission pair is a doctrinal meeting engagement, and therefore is a much more fluid, complex situation. The same core ideas are present, but they have to be applied in less obvious situations.

The first mission of the Soviet campaign is brutal, but builds directly off the second training mission. The difference here is that the enemy is actively trying to win.

[Ultradave]

4 hours ago, domfluff said:

every AT asset in the Soviet arsenal can penetrate an M60 frontally, including the BMP-1's 73mm low-velocity HEAT rounds

This is a key point to remember. The US armor of the time is NOTHING like having a bunch of up to date M1s that can shrug off most hits and take on almost anything regardless of odds.

Be prepared to lose M60s. Sometimes quite a number of them. It's a little bit like having M4 Shermans in WW2 and the Germans are all Panthers. If you keep that mindset and are careful how you use them, more will survive (not a perfect analogy but it sounds like most of your experience is WW2 titles).

During beta, I playtested the US '79 campaign, and while you have older equipment, there are still scenarios where you have advantages. So the campaign as a whole, while challenging, is not overwhelming. I haven't tried the '82 US campaign yet myself. Pretty sure the same balance is there, but the forces on both sides are different. I DO know from discussions that one scenario in particular, was much easier in 79 than in 82. (no spoilers, you'll have to try it )  Others were harder/easier the other way.

For individual scenarios, try some of the smaller ones first, so you can more easily manage what your troops are doing, to get a handle on vehicle strengths and weaknesses.

Hope that helps and have fun!

Dave

[Sgt.Squarehead]

5 hours ago, domfluff said:

I feel that Cold War is pitched rather higher than the other titles, so it might be the least noob-friendly CM Title.

I'd bestow that honour on CM:BS personally, but otherwise I am in agreement with your comments, particularly the excellence of the Soviet training missions.....I really enjoyed them and they felt about as Soviet as it gets. 

PS - @The_Capt  IIRC one of the Soviet training missions features an objective that is portrayed in the briefing as being an exit.....However it's not an actual Exit Zone, which means if your units take it by 'Coup De Main' they wind up sitting there getting shot to pieces by the defenders, rather than exiting as they should.

A lot of fuss gets made about using Exit Zones, because they complicate VP allocations, but it is my opinion that they should be used when the scenario calls for it.

 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Bufo]

24 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Be prepared to lose M60s. Sometimes quite a number of them. It's a little bit like having M4 Shermans in WW2 and the Germans are all Panthers.

Soviets had a lot more armor than the US. I didn't play the campaigns so far, but they should reflect this, and not the other way around.

[Phantom Captain]

I will just add by saying, the Soviet Campaign is definitely NOT noob friendly.  Actually it's just plain, downright, not friendly at all.  

Edited November 21, 2021 by Phantom Captain

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'd bestow that honour on CM:BS personally, but otherwise I am in agreement with your comments, particularly the excellence of the Soviet training missions.....I really enjoyed them and they felt about as Soviet as it gets. 

PS - @The_Capt  IIRC one of the Soviet training missions features an objective that is portrayed in the briefing as being an exit.....However it's not an actual Exit Zone, which means if your units take it by 'Coup De Main' they wind up sitting there getting shot to pieces by the defenders, rather than exiting as they should.

A lot of fuss gets made about using Exit Zones, because they complicate VP allocations, but it is my opinion that they should be used when the scenario calls for it.

 

I will pass that onto the scenario designer, thanks.

As to the OP, pretty much been said.  I would say that US and Soviet doctrine did not evolve that much from WW2, in fact WW2 reinforced the doctrines.  For the US, this was a real problem as they simply were not going to be able to keep up an attrition based strategy with the Soviets.  They also had not shifted all the way into active defence or AirLand Battle as an offset strategy. 

So basically for a new player who has played the WW2 titles, I would start with the US as you will recognize a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to the other modern titles.  Just be aware the US is really the underdog in this title, a scrappy underdog but until you get the M1/Bradley series on the battlefield (and they are in CMCW but in much smaller numbers) the US is challenged.  Soviets and their tactics is where we hear a lot of...well lets just say "concern" in the feedback from new players.  They often try to apply western tactics to the Soviets and most often fail, which leads to some disgruntlement.  The Soviets are not mindless hordes of human waves, but there perspective on speed and mass is totally different.  The Soviet campaign is basically a "ninja-baby-swim-test" we throw the player directly into it without water-wings.  I would definitely play the training missions and maybe a few scenarios before jumping into the Soviet campaign.  The Soviet campaigns are also really big.  Every battle is MRB sized, maps are pretty much maxed out, you are basically fighting an entire MRR across the entire campaign (we built one as core troops). 

Last point on the Soviet Campaign (which seems pretty popular based on Youtube streams) there are two versions.  Standard is more traditional in CM terms, there are second chances and better RRR.  March or Die, is by far the hardest we could make it without being downright evil.  You either win, or the campaign ends, no second chances.  No RRR to speak of, you march...or die.  We have had new players cry out that the campaign "is broken"...it is not.  It is working pretty much as designed (although we did tone down in a couple spots) and it is by far the most realistic of the options; the soviets did not mess around.

When you get to Alsfeld, post a screenshot

[Halmbarte]

For me conceptually, the biggest difference between the WWII titles and CMCW or the other modern titles is lethality. 

Everything can kill everything (except US AT weapons vs T-64 or T-72 in '79) with one shot, AT weapons are ubiquitous, everyone has an assault rifle, and artillery is even more deadly than in WWII with VT fuses and ICM. 

 

The margin for error in modern titles is much less than in the WWII series and the tempo is faster. 

 

H

[Ultradave]

1 hour ago, Bufo said:

Soviets had a lot more armor than the US. I didn't play the campaigns so far, but they should reflect this, and not the other way around.

They do. But two things about this. 1) I wasn't talking about numbers of tanks, and 2) there are always times when a local superiority might be obtained, even if it's for a short time (like a scenario length) before the hoards reinforce

Dave

[dbsapp]

Just finished my second playthrough of the 1st mission of Soviet Campaign (with steam patch).

This time I got Major Victory and captured all three objectives. 

Still don't understand if the M113 thermals bug is fixed. There are some thermals among equipment icons in the M113 description bar. 

Soviet AT-4 don't shoot enemy tanks for some reason, despite having line of sight and staying in range (2,5 km from the target). I order to engage them manually and they still don't do anything. 

M60s apparantly can hit and kill moving T62s from 4 km away. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by dbsapp

[Sgt.Squarehead]

23 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Soviet AT-4 don't shoot enemy tanks for some reason, despite having line of sight and staying in range (2,5 km from the target). I order to engage them manually and they still don't do anything.

Were they deployed in or on buildings by any chance?

[dbsapp]

8 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Were they deployed in or on buildings by any chance?

Not in the buildings, I know that they will run away like little claustrophobic girls from firecracker if they shoot it inside.

...hey, maybe they were out of range indeed? I will double check it. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by dbsapp

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That wasn't my point.....I've noticed that (in CM:SF2 at least) MANPADS won't fire if they are placed on the roof of buildings (unless it's been patched out), was wondering if it might be a related issue.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, dbsapp said:

Soviet AT-4 don't shoot enemy tanks for some reason, despite having line of sight and staying in range (2,5 km from the target). I order to engage them manually and they still don't do anything. 

AT-4 are working fine, checked.  It is you (why, is it always you?)  Would very much like to see that 4km shot.

[Codreanu]

I always mess around with scenarios quite a bit before going for the campaigns, it's like eating your appetizers before your entrée to me. The Soviet training scenarios are really good too, would recommend playing them all before you even touch the Soviets because they really get the gears in your head turning on how best to play them to their strengths.

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That wasn't my point.....I've noticed that (in CM:SF2 at least) MANPADS won't fire if they are placed on the roof of buildings (unless it's been patched out), was wondering if it might be a related issue.

Wow, I'm playing a PBEM of Rumpenheim Rumpus and couldn't figure out why my Redeye teams weren't doing anything, didn't expect to find the answer to that in this thread so thanks. 

[Halmbarte]

39 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Not in the buildings, I know that they will run away like little claustrophobic girls from firecracker if they shoot it inside.

...hey, maybe they were out of range indeed? I will double check it. 

If anything the overpressure of firing some AT weapons indoors is under represented. It's hard to guide a missile when your eardrums are running out of your head and your sinus cavities are blown out. 

 

H

[Simcoe]

Thank you for the great answers! I'll start on the NTC. Wish me luck!

[Combatintman]

2 hours ago, Codreanu said:

I always mess around with scenarios quite a bit before going for the campaigns, it's like eating your appetizers before your entrée to me. The Soviet training scenarios are really good too, would recommend playing them all before you even touch the Soviets because they really get the gears in your head turning on how best to play them to their strengths.

Wow, I'm playing a PBEM of Rumpenheim Rumpus and couldn't figure out why my Redeye teams weren't doing anything, didn't expect to find the answer to that in this thread so thanks. 

Rumpenheim's one of mine - apologies mate, I wasn't aware that of the building/MANPAD issue either.  Good luck with the rest of your PBEM, I presume that you will now move those guys to a handy piece of ground where they'll work for you.

[Codreanu]

15 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Rumpenheim's one of mine - apologies mate, I wasn't aware that of the building/MANPAD issue either.  Good luck with the rest of your PBEM, I presume that you will now move those guys to a handy piece of ground where they'll work for you.

No worries, there's always something new to learn with CM even if sometimes that new thing might be a bug! Besides that it's a really lovely scenario and I'm having a ton of fun playing it, so thank you for that.

[Combatintman]

3 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

No worries, there's always something new to learn with CM even if sometimes that new thing might be a bug! Besides that it's a really lovely scenario and I'm having a ton of fun playing it, so thank you for that.

Thanks mate - to be honest I thought I was being ambitious in terms of getting it finished - CW was a tight timeline for those of us on the Beta team that got let in late to the secret and as you can see it is a fairly big map.  As I said in the designer notes ... I really really really wanted to bring an assault river crossing scenario to the title which drove me on.  I surprised myself and got the initial cut of the scenario cracked in about three to four weeks which is a bit of a record for me in terms of a scenario of that scale.  Polishing it up took a week or so following the feedback from the guys on the Beta crew that kicked the tyres.  Anyway - I'll let you crack on with your game.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

3 hours ago, Codreanu said:

Wow, I'm playing a PBEM of Rumpenheim Rumpus and couldn't figure out why my Redeye teams weren't doing anything, didn't expect to find the answer to that in this thread so thanks. 

1 hour ago, Combatintman said:

Rumpenheim's one of mine - apologies mate, I wasn't aware that of the building/MANPAD issue either. 

I'm not 100% sure it's the case in CM:CW, but it definitely was the case in CM:SF2 when I was testing Coup for @MOS:96B2P.....It's one of the things he specifically asked me to check.

 

[Vergeltungswaffe]

When you feel like you've mastered M60's, slide into M48's and enjoy a real challenge.

Win or lose, you'll do in style though.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I learned the US stuff chronologically, so I started with M48s (at NTC).....You really come to appreciate the upgrades, especially thermals!

[Halmbarte]

4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I learned the US stuff chronologically, so I started with M48s (at NTC).....You really come to appreciate the upgrades, especially thermals!

If you really want a challenge swap out the later models of US tanks with the older units and replace the M901s w/M150s in the scenario editor. Match them with age appropriate Sov kit, of course, like the T64 early model and BMP1 instead of BMP2. 

 

H