theforger Posted February 23, 2022 Share Posted February 23, 2022 ha ha! definitely! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 OK, so I tried "Chewin them up at Cheneux", which I lost by a minor defeat and got booted from the campaign. There seems to be a problem that I'm told in the briefing to hold the village, which I did, causing a 2:1 casualty ratio. But the scenario requires me to hold both the village and the outer objective. This could be clarified in the briefing. Second problem I ran into is that it seems the main US force stops at the outskirts and never moves towards the village. However, some HQ units and the captured Stummel did move ahead on their own, which seemed strange. The Stummel did surprisingly well by the way. First it knocked out my Drilling AA vehicle that I put into a clever keyhole position, secondly it moved up and knocked out another AA vehicle even though I had LOS on where it would pop up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: the main US force stops at the outskirts and never moves towards the village I meant that it stops at the outer objective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted March 4, 2022 Author Share Posted March 4, 2022 On 2/25/2022 at 9:27 AM, Bulletpoint said: OK, so I tried "Chewin them up at Cheneux", which I lost by a minor defeat and got booted from the campaign. There seems to be a problem that I'm told in the briefing to hold the village, which I did, causing a 2:1 casualty ratio. But the scenario requires me to hold both the village and the outer objective. This could be clarified in the briefing. Second problem I ran into is that it seems the main US force stops at the outskirts and never moves towards the village. However, some HQ units and the captured Stummel did move ahead on their own, which seemed strange. The Stummel did surprisingly well by the way. First it knocked out my Drilling AA vehicle that I put into a clever keyhole position, secondly it moved up and knocked out another AA vehicle even though I had LOS on where it would pop up. That sounds like rotten luck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 9 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said: That sounds like rotten luck. About the Stummel? Yes. But actually started to feel like I was fighting a human opponent, which was a nice surprise from an AI plan. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted March 4, 2022 Author Share Posted March 4, 2022 2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: About the Stummel? Yes. But actually started to feel like I was fighting a human opponent, which was a nice surprise from an AI plan. No, I meant about getting booted from the campaign. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 1 minute ago, Warts 'n' all said: No, I meant about getting booted from the campaign. Ah right, no that wasn't due to bad luck, but about the briefing not telling me I had to hold both objectives. I decided I couldn't hold the outer one, and decided to fortify the town instead, as that's what's the briefing tells me I have to hold. Also that the US forces don't actually attack the town, so I lost out on a lot of points for causing casualties. Looks like a bug in the AI plan that they don't advance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted March 4, 2022 Author Share Posted March 4, 2022 2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: Ah right, no that wasn't due to bad luck, but about the briefing not telling me I had to hold both objectives. I decided I couldn't hold the outer one, and decided to fortify the town instead, as that's what's the briefing tells me I have to hold. Also that the US forces don't actually attack the town, so I lost out on a lot of points for causing casualties. Looks like a bug in the AI plan that they don't advance. I've just taken a look at my results and I scored a fairly low casualty "Total Victory". Although with my old sieve brain I can't remember how. With the campaign over will you be playing any of the missions as stand-alone battles? If so, I'd like to hear your views on them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 22 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said: I've just taken a look at my results and I scored a fairly low casualty "Total Victory". Although with my old sieve brain I can't remember how. Maybe your brain is better than you give it credit for, or you got a version of the scenario where the US actually attacks the village and forced them to surrender in the end. 23 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said: With the campaign over will you be playing any of the missions as stand-alone battles? If so, I'd like to hear your views on them. I might... but why is it important that I play them as stand-alone battles? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted March 4, 2022 Author Share Posted March 4, 2022 56 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said: I might... but why is it important that I play them as stand-alone battles? It isn't "important". But, they are available as stand-alone battles on the Few Good Men website. And if you do take them on it would be nice to have your views on them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said: It isn't "important". But, they are available as stand-alone battles on the Few Good Men website. And if you do take them on it would be nice to have your views on them. Any particular battle you'd like my view on? I'm working my way through them in the campaign, so I guess it's more of less the same as doing them as individual missions... apart from most of my Panthers are pretty toothless by now. Just finished the mission after "Chewing them up at Cheneaux" and lost two more tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted March 4, 2022 Author Share Posted March 4, 2022 1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said: Any particular battle you'd like my view on? I'm working my way through them in the campaign, so I guess it's more of less the same as doing them as individual missions... apart from most of my Panthers are pretty toothless by now. Just finished the mission after "Chewing them up at Cheneaux" and lost two more tanks. Ah, it seems like a misunderstanding. I thought that you had lost the campaign with your defeat at Cheneaux. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 2 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said: Ah, it seems like a misunderstanding. I thought that you had lost the campaign with your defeat at Cheneaux. Well I did, but of course I reloaded my savegame and gave the mission another go. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted March 5, 2022 Author Share Posted March 5, 2022 11 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: Well I did, but of course I reloaded my savegame and gave the mission another go. Ah, thanks for clearing that one up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 5, 2022 Share Posted March 5, 2022 Am still working my way thru the first part of the campaign and am very impressed with Mission 6. 3 hours long and a map almost as huge as the one in the standalone "Mission to Maas" scenario. Mission 6 could easily be a standalone mission. theforger has created some of the most enjoyable and impressive scenarios for CMFB. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theforger Posted March 7, 2022 Share Posted March 7, 2022 On 2/25/2022 at 9:27 AM, Bulletpoint said: The Stummel did surprisingly well by the way. First it knocked out my Drilling AA vehicle that I put into a clever keyhole position, secondly it moved up and knocked out another AA vehicle even though I had LOS on where it would pop up. Looks like you were unlucky there. During testing at best it took out one vehicle. Glad you are cracking on, very much respect your opinions and observations. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted March 7, 2022 Share Posted March 7, 2022 18 minutes ago, theforger said: Looks like you were unlucky there. During testing at best it took out one vehicle. Glad you are cracking on, very much respect your opinions and observations. Thanks. One thing I've been missing in this campaign is for the "designers notes" section to give some background info about each individual battle. Currently, you're using the same generic text for all the battles, explaining your interest etc. but it would be great to be able to read some more about each individual engagement and what happened there in real life. As an example, I'm curious about why the US forces were using a Stummel in that mission. I'm sure you have a goldmine of info that you used to create the campaign, but of course I also realise it's a lot of work to add it. Wouldn't need to be a whole essay for each battle though - just some brief notes would be nice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted March 7, 2022 Author Share Posted March 7, 2022 1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said: As an example, I'm curious about why the US forces were using a Stummel in that mission. This might be the answer to that one.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theforger Posted March 7, 2022 Share Posted March 7, 2022 Pressed into service because of lack of reliable armour support for the Paras. Page 126/196/197 Duel In The Mist volume 2 has some good pics too, "under new management" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted March 12, 2022 Share Posted March 12, 2022 (edited) A couple of thoughts about "Ambush at Chenai" I wasn't a fan of this battle. First time I played, I got completely overrun, but it's not so much that I lost - it's that due to the darkness, It's very difficult to really do much tactically as the Germans. The US forces can waltz up and gun down your defenders at extreme close range and grenade them in their foxholes, and there's precious little you can do about it. The second time I played through, I did win the scenario, but only because I knew exactly what avenues of attack would be used. I feel that this mision somehow showcases the worst of the CM spotting system. OK, it's dark, fine. But it's only "misty", and in such conditions, muzzle flashes should be visible at longer distances. However, even at 90m range, US forces were able to blast away with their Garands and my overwatching MG42 in the building could not spot them. This also made it almost impossible to open the firefights at range by targeting briefly. In the real battle, the mortar farther back could have been used to fire illumination rounds, and the "misty" conditions wouldn't mean pea soup fog. Now onwards to "Violence at the Preventorium". Edited March 12, 2022 by Bulletpoint 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted March 18, 2022 Share Posted March 18, 2022 Ok, next mission the exact same problem. It could have been a really nice night fighting mission, but when units can't spot each other at more than 42 metres EVEN WHILE FIRING, the whole thing is ruined. I consider the modelling of mist at night night to be bugged at this point. Isn't mist supposed to be less foggy than fog and heavy fog? I liked the part about sneaking in small patrols to listen out where all the US tanks are located, then deciding on an axis of advance that uses the Preventorium to shield my own forces against the enemy tanks behind the huge building, in theory isolating my attacking elements from the enemy support weapons. However, since units are completely blind anyway, that doesn't matter at all. I guess the only way to play this mission is basically just to order everybody to run straight towards the objective? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted March 18, 2022 Share Posted March 18, 2022 If it's historically accurate that visibility was non-existant, one thing that could have improved the mission from a gameplay point of view would be to write this important info in the briefing: "It's pitch black darkness and extremely heavy fog means that visibility is restricted to less than 50 metres. Even the muzzle flashes will not be picked up farther than this". At least then the player could factor in this info in his plans. But really, it's not realistic. Especially since tanks for some reason spot better than infantry, the only way to knock out tanks is to run infantry up on top of the tanks and then wait until the tank spots the infantry (!) and starts to turn around. The movement of the tank will then allow the infantry to spot the vehicle. Hopefully in time to avoid getting gunned down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 18, 2022 Share Posted March 18, 2022 20 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said: tanks for some reason spot better than infantry This has been a problem from the start. Probably done for "balance" purposes. But, highly unrealistic. In addition, inf so close to a tank (esp to the sides or rear) should be relatively safe since the tank can't depress its guns to shoot them. In the game that is not so. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted March 18, 2022 Author Share Posted March 18, 2022 If I remember correctly, this was my least favourite mission. Trying to attack blind is no fun. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 14 hours ago, Erwin said: This has been a problem from the start. Probably done for "balance" purposes. But, highly unrealistic. In addition, inf so close to a tank (esp to the sides or rear) should be relatively safe since the tank can't depress its guns to shoot them. In the game that is not so. I don't think it's due to balance reasons, because what kind of balance is achieved by this? If anything, getting in close should be an equaliser for the infantry vs tanks. It's crazy that it's so dark you can't see a tank before running physically into it, but somehow the tank crew can spot infantry outside through their tiny vision slits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.