We need campiagns!!!

[Toni]

Hi,

We are CM-players in germany, and we think

this wargame is superb.

But one thing is missing:

The campaigns, like steel panthers, where my

troops can get new equipment and reach better

experience.

A campaign generator which makes dynamic campaigns (like steel panthers) were be cool

too.

Please guys from Big Time Software, make an

Add-On for CM with these ideas!!!

So long

Toni.

[Milt Smegma]

I was quite shocked to hear that CM didn't have campaigns and unit advancement

[KiwiJoe]

I'd love a campaign system too. But BTS did explain why 1 wasnt included and they defended their decision in some detail. Search for campaign and you will prolly find it.

[Sten]

(Milt, could you please send me an email? I got some questions for you.)

Toni and Milt,

This is not an omission on BTS' part, but a concious design decision.

Follow KiwiJoes suggestion and search for it if you want all the details, but there wer mainly two reasons, IIRC.

1. CM depicts battles over maximum a few days. This is not enough to increase the experience for any unit.

2. Very few soldiers actually participated in several major battles while still in the same organizational unit. Therefore it makes more sense to have the exp-level set from the start.

This is all from memory so I may have forgotten some details, but IIRC, those were the major points.

Sten

------------------

Keep your whisky on the rocks and your tanks on the roll.

[This message has been edited by Sten (edited 07-21-2000).]

[Geier]

With a little ingenuity you can easily create whatever campaign you want. Simply play a battle or an operation and write down all your remaining forces at the end. Note their experience level and how many are left in each squad/crew. Note how many were KIA and also determine how many of the WIA that could be available at a later date.

Create a new battle. When you select your force, re-create the units from the previous battle/op. Example, a Green unit which did not suffer any losses could now be Regular quality, a Veteran squad which suffered 80% losses could be reduced to Regular to reflect the mix of old and new soldiers. A Veteran tank crew that lost their vehicle and had 2 casualties could be Veteran still asf.

Remember, just because something isn't in CM at the press of a button doesn't mean it can't be done. Some day someone might provide an add-on that does this automatically, until then, if you really want it you will have to do it yourself. Not necessarily a bad thing since you probably will become very attached to your troops. After all, you created them.

Good luck.

------------------

Geier

"The succesful execution of a well devised plan often looks like luck to saps."

Dashiell Hammett

[Fred]

Excellent Geier!

That idea was on my mind too. Maybe I create some nice tables with probabilities (dice rolls) for experience gain/loss, Leader ability changes, equipment changes etc.

Fred

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geier:

With a little ingenuity you can easily create whatever campaign you want. Simply play a battle or an operation and write down all your remaining forces at the end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's just about the thing I'd like the game to do for me.

As it is, this game, as exellent as it is, battles easily become

killfests, no need to save your men or equipment.

It's victory at any cost. No long term.

Operations help a big deal. But it could go so much further.

Usually, during an operation, crews of destroyed vechiles

are useless cannon fodder candidates. With a long campaign this

wouldn't be so.

For big battles you could have extra units temporarily attached

to your forces. Sometimes elements of your forces would be

removed to serve somewhere else.

[Jarmo]

To make one thing clear.

I'm not expecting anything like this until CM2 or 3.

[Törni]

Considering the scale the game, it would be highly unlikely that same units that are acting together in one battle would do so in the next. So core unit should alawys be infantry or motorized infantry and rest (tanks, mortars, guns etc.) visiting suppor sections.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Törni:

core unit should alawys be infantry or motorized infantry and rest (tanks, mortars, guns etc.) visiting suppor sections.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be just fine.

But wouldn't it also be possible to play as a group of tanks that

are thrown here and there as support?

I was under impression that also tanks would usually be organized

into platoons or something. Or were they just "individuals"?

[Bil Hardenberger]

But there is a campaign for CM! It is called the CMMC and you can read about on Madmatt's CMHQ site.

Bil

[tss]

Sten wrote:

2. Very few soldiers actually participated in several major battles while still in the same organizational unit. Therefore it makes more sense to have the exp-level set from the start.

I might illustrate this with one example: One of the most efficient Finnish units was the 12th Infantry Regiment that fought first at Salla and Kiestinki, then at Rukajärvi (or at least parts of it were there, I'm not certain if the whole unit was). From there it was transferred to Poventsa where it was until it was sent to Ihantala in late June '44.

Under the command of colonel Puroma the regiment was used as a fire-brigade unit that led the attacks and counter-attacks. A FO Lars Holmström writes that the company of the 12th Regiment in the sector that he was positioned had lost its officers 5 times by the time (mid-43). That is, each platoon had lost its commander 5 times in the two years of the war, either as killed or wounded.

(Holmström also mentions that during the fall '41, it was said that the evening prayer of the men of the regiment was simply: "Dear Lord, let colonel Puroma get his Mannerheim's Cross so that we don't have to attack at point anymore. Amen." (Puroma got his Cross on 18.10.42)).

Another example would be the war-path of my own grandfather. He served the whole Continuation War (1941-44) but according to his military records he participated only in 7 battles (I think that the record is wrong and at least one battle is left out) in three areas. First, he participated in four battles (Särkisyrjä, Rytty-Leppäselkä, Tuokslahti, Saavainjoki) during the Sortavala campaign, then two battles in the Karelian Isthmus in late '41 (Pien-Kallelava, Lempaala). In these battles he was in the 37th Infantry Regiment.

After that, the next real battle that he participated in was when his new regiment (58th) was caught under Soviet steamroller at Rajajoki 9.6.44. (The regiment fought a couple of battles during the fighting withdrawal to VKT-line, but for some reason they are not mentioned in the records.)

Each of these battles lasted for 2-6 days, making them of similar scale with CM operations. Also, with the exception of Rajajoki, the battles are quite obscure even here in Finland. (I personally hadn't heard of any of them before starting to research my grandfather's war and I've read quite much on Finnish military).

Most Finnish soldiers fought in more battles than my grandfather because his regiment was in reserve for initial parts of the war. Additionally, the losses in Sortavala campaign were so heavy (his batallion lost 244 men KIA+WIA+MIA in Särkisyrjä alone) that the regiment was again put in reserve for two months.

I have to say that grandfather was very lucky to be in JR37. He was a platoon assistant-leader and in the battles he volunteered to be the point SMG man. Both roles were very dangerous and those men usually didn't die of old age. (He got two medals in '41 but the citations have been lost so I don't know what exactly he did to receive them).

[This message has been edited by tss (edited 07-21-2000).]

[marcusjm]

Regarding campaigns

BTS has many times explained in detail why they decided to not include campaigns. It's possible that it is more realistic and I respect their decision. With all due respect to BTS I think they are wrong on this one. Anyone who have read the excellent Roland Hassel books knows what I'm talking about.

The possibility to follow some green amateurs to crack veteran soldiers would be fantastic imo. I don't think Steel Panthers worked very well in this department to be frank, there were simply too many troops to get personally attached to them. Close Combat1 worked best so far.

This should be spiced up even more with the inclusion of medals (in any case) and other awards.

Even if this is considered gamey or something I think BTS should consider this for the games sake (it is a game after all I want to play). If not CM2 maybe CM4 or something.

Just my 2 öre

Marcus

[Bobbaro]

About throwing away crews (AND AFV that are out of ammo in operations as I did in doing play testing a scenario,) they both contribute to the next stage in the operation. Crews thrown away now can mean a AFV or other weapon missing in the next stage besides adding to the enemy score.

But damn it was great running over that AT gun - - - - what a way to go.

[Sten]

marcusjm,

Do you really mean Roland Hassel?

If you are talking about the books by Sven Hassel they are entertaining but totally fictional.

Sten

------------------

Keep your whisky on the rocks and your tanks on the roll.

[tss]

marcusjm wrote:

Anyone who have read the excellent Roland Hassel books knows what I'm talking about.

Ummm. The only Roland Hassel books that I'm aware of are a series of Swedish detective books (I may be wrong, Swedish literature has never been my strong area).

If you mean the series of books by Sven Hassel, you should note that any connections between them and reality are purely coincidental.

- Tommi

[Geier]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marcusjm:

Anyone who have read the excellent Roland Hassel books knows what I'm talking about.

The possibility to follow some green amateurs to crack veteran soldiers would be fantastic imo. Marcus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, even if I must admit that using a Lillebror and Porta squad for close assault would be entertaining I wouldn't expect it in a realistic wargame. If you want the rpg-element AND Combat Mission there is no other way to go but the CMMC AFAIK. And of all the green amateurs that went to war, very few lived long enough or had the opportunity to become crack troops. Even flight-sims have a hard time with portraying this element. Some sort of (silly, imo) experience point system does not reflect the psychological/fysiological stress put upon individuals. Every individual is differerent and handle stress differently.

I think it was a good call by BTS not to provide some silly CC3 "fire-brigade-all-over-the-front" campaign.

But still, if you really want a campaign there is only a little work that needs doing but you will have to do it yourself.

------------------

Geier

"The succesful execution of a well devised plan often looks like luck to saps."

Dashiell Hammett

[Geier]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss:

If you mean the series of books by Sven Hassel, you should note that any connections between them and reality are purely coincidental.

- Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What!!?? You mean that they aren't 100% accurate depictions of historical battles?

Seriously, does anyone know what, if any, battles Hassel took part in? I believe he spent a lot of time in various prisons?

Note: A large amount of smilies were stolen from this message and sold on the black market by Obergefreiter J Porta of the Uberallefronteatthesametime Panzer Penal Battalion, Behind all enemy lines Division.

------------------

Geier

"The succesful execution of a well devised plan often looks like luck to saps."

Dashiell Hammett

[Tactical Wargamer]

I agree a campaign mode would possibly be a little "gamey" however would be a definite plus. Maybe for CM2

[Guest Commando]

Please excuse my faulty knowledge of CM. But I simply don't understand the logic behind not having campaigns in CM.

What about the following:

1) Battle of the Bulge - small series of battles linked to form a larger campaign from several perspectives (US, German, different battlegroups, etc). Many of the same troops (Peiper's) fought a series of battles to reach their objectives.

2) Battle for the Hedgerows - Are you telling me the troops who fought for weeks in this bloody contest didn't gain experience?

3) Battle for Cain - again an action that took weeks to fight. It would make an excellent campaign.

I could go on. You could have both historical and fictional campaigns. CM depicts a series of smaller tactical battles, but then, that is exactly what a lot of the fighting in WWII amounted to: smaller units fighting it out village by village.

Campaigns would fit in perfectly with the CM system, but they would certainly take much longer to make and playtest than just single scenarios. But I simply don't follow the logic in not having campaigns in CM.

But that is just my humble opinion. Thanks.

------------------

You're playing a wargame, when suddenly you throw yourself on the floor and yell "No! Take me!", when you realize your favourite unit was just destroyed by the computer AI.

[paullus]

When you add up the total number of dead, wounded, missing, transferred, etc, the chances of a group of soldiers (above platoon level) actually surviving and staying together through a campaign (either Bulge, Normandy, or Italy) was extremely small.

Most American divisions experiences a 100% - 300% turnover in personnel during any given campaign. Personnel did gain experience, but for the most part those soldiers either got killed, wounded and sent home, or were transferred to other units. The US 90th Infantry Division, for example, lost a total of 300% of its authorized strength by the end of August 1944 (of course the unit received replacements, which also suffered losses as time went on).

We have this misguided notion that units were always kept together, fought with the same support, same tanks, etc, but in reality the chances of any battalion maintaining enough veterans to advance in experience was very, very small.

Perfect example- Audie Murphy (the most decorated US soldier in history). Out of his battalion that went into combat, only Audie & one other man made it to the end of the war. That other man was a supply clerk.

[Guest Germanboy]

Paullus, while the point you are making is enitrely correct and I fully support it, the figure for the 90th ID is way too high. It lost 290% of authorised strength between landing in Normandy and 8 May 1945, not August 1944. Doubler gives the figure for all US divisions in the ETO in 'Closing with the enemy'. The 90th was the worst. But there are a lot of IDs with >200%, and a lot of armoured with >100% (the worst being the 4th, IIRC with ~185%). Also, the majority of these losses would be incurred in the rifle batallions (70%, IIRC), meaning that the chances of a soldier making it even through one large operation like Normandy or the Westwall were very slim indeed. With the RD chaos thrown in, I doubt they would find themselves back in the outfit they were in when they were wounded. Ganter in 'Roll me over' states that he was the only one left in his platoon from the original crowd he joined in November 1944. This campaign mode may be nice, but it is pure fantasy. You can as well play Ultima. Now there is nothing wrong with that (I have done a lot of table-top RPGing), but IMO it has no place in a 'realistic' wargame. YMMV.

Note - the numbers in here are all off the top of my head. Doubler is in the library, and I am at home.

------------------

Andreas

[paullus]

Just had a chance to look in my book, and I did make an error (the numbers were too high). But the point is valid that turnover (losses, transfers, replacements, etc) was so high as to make any attempt to follow a group of soldiers through more than one operation (and even more than one battle) almost a hopeless task.

You could also make a case for the German units in WWII, but given that their divisions kept fighting until their were destroyed (or at least rendered completely combat ineffective), the number of troops would be reduced dramatically during any campaign.

It might be nice to have a campaign option, but it does feel very "gamey" and detracts from the overall historical feel of the game.

[Philistine]

There seems to be two basic camps (at least of reasoned posts):

One camp (to which BTS belongs) holds that campaigns are not realistic and/or appropriate to CM's scale.

The other camp essentially says, we agree, but we don't care, they are fun.

I fall midway between the two camps, I think. The problem I always had with campaigns in SP was that you either had one of two circumstances:

(1) You ended up pretty quickly with a super formation (elite troops, only the newest and best equipment) that just wasn't realistic; or

(2) You didn't have enough points to even come close to making up your losses and yet you were still expected to fulfill the role of the full formation.

I would think in a real war you have very little choice of replacements and that generally, you would receive replacements based upon need, rather than success, with a greatly attrited unit being broken up rather than reconstituted.

The type of campaign I would like to see in CM would be one where you pick a formation (company or battalion, depending upon the scale you like--I would think company) Auxillary units would either be temporariliy assigned or persistant (temporary wuold be more realistic). You would have little to no say over what replacements you received and would not receive x amount of points for replacements for destroying y units.

Most replacements would be low level experience and all but the lowest experience level units would only very rarely (after 10-12 battles or more) increase in experience.

While this would be nice, any campaign system (let alone one BTS would be happy with from a realism standard) would constitute a lot more coding than just a patch, I would think.

Still, due to the demand, it's something to think about for CM2...n down the road.

Just my $.02.

--Philistine

[Pak40]

"1. CM depicts battles over maximum a few days. This is not enough to increase the experience for any unit. "

This is so not true. Any soldier on the front lines for a few days of intense combat quickly learned a lot. After just a few days, many of them were considered veterans or they were at least "not Green".

There is a limit to how much they can learn, though. You wont see a green unit go to an elite status within a few days, that's obsurd.

There should be at least one level of experience increase for units in a CM campaign. But if a unit's turn over rate is high it will likely remain green because it keeps getting green replacements.