We need campiagns!!!

[Guest mch]

Perhaps there's a saddle point:

Through a patch,increase the number of battles in an operation,and also the maximum

map size(say 50 battles/10km sq.maps)

(gee...making a 10km sq.map.....scary!)

This would put more of a "Campaigny"feel to

an operation,IMHO.

As for experience....I like it the way it is.

Reading the manual will make perfectly clear

what BTS's view of unit exp.is..Ex.Assuming that a unit has never been in combat before,

"green" would be the choice.After a few days of fighting,he'd probably become "regular"

and stay that way..I think "veteran" refers

to people like Frank "Buck" Eversole and

"Tag"Allumbaugh,whom Ernie Pyle wrote about.

Such people had experience that you don't get from fighting a few weeks or months,but

fighting every day for years!

[dumbo]

Personally I love campaigns (and I miss them) however I dont expect it till CM2 if BTS is going to do it. I am not sure asking for such a large feature add on in a "patch" is very fair on BTS.

Just my 0.02c

_dumbo

[Thomas Norton]

I too would like to see Campaigns. And, I do understand the reasons why they are not in CM at the present time.

I want to propose we get away from the "core unit" problem. These are my boys. Kind of like the old Combat series. You know the boys are going to make it, but those poor new guys in tonights episode.... I really liked the guy with the BAR, dont remember his name anymore, Kirby?

I think the focus should be on the actual unit. Yes, if your Brigade does well, it should have a increase in overall moral, but over a longer time frame. It would be nice to reflect the fact that your men "captured" all those nice German Panzerfausts to use against those nice German Panzers, but the game does not allow for it.

However, when you do get pulled out, for R&R you should get the benefit of being brought up to stength.

I worked with a guy who was with the American 4th Infantry Division. He was a cannon cock, but still in unit and combat from the Utah landing, up to Cherbourg, and was wounded in August during the "race".

Patton used the 4th as his pivot when he was ordered by Bradley to shift the 3rd Army North.

The point has been made that most of the men who started the liberation of France and the fight for Germany, did not make it to the end with either the same unit or at all. True. But, in most cases the unit did, and that is what I would envision the campaign to cover.

There are, I am sure, program problems with this. What to do if you win a battle in an area that the real unit lost? Example; your Brigade takes Cassino on the first push? What if the bomb carpet does not wipe out Panzer Lehr when Cobra jumps off on July 25th? Thus, the game models operations, not campaigns.

Still, I like the idea of the campaign and the operation. Players use a lot more caution when there is a tomorrow factored into their combat.

We may need to wait for North Africa. Small units were the rule not the exception. They fought over two years. Both the English and the Germans could not afford wholesale replacement of units (some English exceptions).

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

"The Legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace."

[Bastables]

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

I’m not sure that combat exposure is the main ingredient in creating veterans or even regulars. If this were true the Reich’s practice of forming elite units would have been a spectacular failure. The men of the USA 82nd, 101st and British 6th airborne formations proved ‘elite’ in spite of the fact that many members had never fired a shot in anger before their jump into France. If anything constant combat exposure blunts the effectiveness of even ‘elite’ formations. One only has to look at the relatively poor performance of Grossdeutschland as Citadel (Kursk) dragged on, or the slide in effectiveness of the 7th armoured division after the Nth African campaigns. And of course there are the units that proved incapable no matter how many times they ‘saw the elephant,’ such as the 53rd Welsh division, the 6th Duke of Wellington Regiment, the Germans 276 infantry division and of course the Americans celebrated 90th infantry division. Chronic incompetence was not waved away by continued combat exposure, if any thing it exacerbated it.

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

[DrD]

I like it the way it is. Reason: In CC I couldn't resist cheating and replaying a battle when my favorite unit got waxed. Now I can actually finish an operation without reloding saved games!

[Uedel]

I would like to see Campaigns in CM maybe from the point u get an Inf. or Tank Btl and u got to head for several combats. The men may change in your unit yes this is thrue and sometimes u got to give away an Vet Tank crew and only get green replacements. BUT IMO when u lead your troops wise they should gain exp. and go further in the status. So a Campaign can last the whole war with u as the Commander of an Btl. no matter what mens are serving in your Btl. Reeinforcments and reequipment should not lay in your hands or only limited to select the units who gets the replacements.

So let me explain.

U fight a battle and loose a total of 45 men.

After the battle u get 30 replacements (green) for now so u select Team C1 who lost 5 men and give them 3 green Replacments the status of the unit going from Vet. to Reg.

U should also be alowed to uprank some of your troops to max. Sergant or Feldwebel.

But only 1 rank per time.

This way we could have campaigns that are realistic (Computer gives u Replacements and reequips you --> new Tanks improved Weapons etc but he also gets teams from u in exchange --> he gets team Platoon B and gives u a green platoon U fight with your Battalion several Battles of the War with mixed intentions (Recon, Reconattack, defend, Breakthrough etc)

[Seanachai]

I've read BTS's posts on why there aren't 'campaigns', and I have to say I agree with all their points. It's innappropriate to this level and style of game. Many of the 'work arounds' that people are suggesting are, frankly, more appropriate to an operational level game, which this is not.

But all questions of realism, accuracy, game level aside, I'd have to say (for myself alone, of course), that nothing gives me a bigger yawn than the idea of 'campaigns', and working units up in some sort of rpg manner. I love RPGs, but when I want to play one, I do so. There are tons of them. I think it would...well, I'm having trouble with how to phrase this without insulting people, which is seriously not my intention, but I think it would 'cheapen' this game to add features like that. And, I have to say, this sort of 'feature' isn't something that's added with a few quick keystrokes. I think there are other more significant and appropriate features and updates that could be added to the game that should get coding and time preferences ahead of this kind of thing.

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Lorak]

I agree with BTS on this one.

If you want a feeling of advancement over a long Campaign, then join something like the CMMC. Personaly I'me having a lot of fun playing in the Role playing campaign that James is running.

I'd say look for the oppertunity to do something like that, or start on yourself. Pretty nifty plan that James has running. He gives you battle paramiters, you fight the battle and give him the results. Depending on how you and your fellow team members do.

He then desides on wheather or not your defending or attacking, force experience levels,size,and equipment you get for your next turn(battle).

Not only does this feel like a real campaign, but it gives a great feeling of being the part of something bigger.

Not to mention role playing your charactor and bragging and/or taunting the others.

Just my .02 worth.

Lorak

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

"someone you trust is one of us"..........the illuminati

*

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring

[guachi]

Also, BTs has a limited amount of time - The oportunity cost of coding a large campaign system probably just isn't worth it.

Especially when such a system can be finessed by the players anyway with a little ingenuity.

Jason

[Calvin]

Hmmm... interesting posts.

I for one am alarmed at the lack of campaigns/personal involvement in both the flight sim world (Flanker 2.0 for example) and in wargaming.

Sure, campaigns and advancing units are kind of "gamey." But they are often the only way to create a rationale for force conservation.

Otherwise, it's all too easy to just go for the throat regardless of casualties. And the affection one develops for certain units is also in a sense realistic. Many a company commander had a specific platoon--- even a squad--- he would call upon to get the job done.

Hope someone takes this up.

c.

[Seanachai]

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

Hmmm... interesting posts.

I for one am alarmed at the lack of campaigns/personal involvement in both the flight sim world (Flanker 2.0 for example) and in wargaming.

Sure, campaigns and advancing units are kind of "gamey." But they are often the only way to create a rationale for force conservation.

Otherwise, it's all too easy to just go for the throat regardless of casualties. And the affection one develops for certain units is also in a sense realistic. Many a company commander had a specific platoon--- even a squad--- he would call upon to get the job done.

Hope someone takes this up.

c.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will! I will! I admit that one thing that is disturbing in the game is that people are more than happy to throw troops into the meat-grinder as long as they succeed. I've even read posts by people who casually describe unit and vehicle sacrifices in a very off-hand way; all just part of the cost of doing business. But, on the other hand, I'd have to say that I've read a number of books on WWII, and those squads that commanders chose to 'get the job' done, were usually the ones that got chewed up the worst. Often, the only thing keeping them remotely effective was 1) they could only be called upon in this way over a fairly short period of time. 2) the unit had the odd NCO or Officer of quality that had managed to survive, and could motivate their constantly replaced personal to achieve good things. 3) it was less a 'they always get the job done' than, 'heck, send x squad again, they worked last time (command perception as a form of superstition)'. Realistically, when some company commander decided, heck, give it to F platoon, they weren't thinking: "Yeah, F Platoon, ol' Bill, and Sam, and Short Lenny, and Red, and Finnegan are the kind of guys that always get the job done." Because after a day or two, most of these guys were either wounded or dead.

Also, one of the other things that I've gathered from my readings, is that although there were officers who hated it, and no one was crazy or politically incorrect (not the modern useage) enough to state it, but that Command was willing, and often forced, to feed troops into the blades to achieve objectives (and for even more objectionable reasons). Although there were obviously officers, some even highly placed, that had a care for their soldiers lives, when it came right down to it, everyone was expendable. The Americans went in with the idea that high casualties in the short run were preferable to a drawn out war. And the Germans had to contend with Hitler and the High Command's rabid insistence that everyone die in place. The Brits were tenacious about holding to a plan, long after it seemed to have gone completely wrong, and their Command seemed willing to soak up casualties rather than back down from a bad situation.

So, we tender-hearted wargamers (and I admit, it chills me to take high casualties, even when I know it won't affect my victory) aren't necessarily representative of the realities of WWII combat. In fact, I'd say that gamers are more likely to be leery of wasting their resources than commanders in the field, not because they were monsters, but because the results were often perceived as more important than the cost.

And, may I point out once again, this idea of 'special' units and ongoing campaigns is not consistent with a small unit, tactical level game. This kind of thinking is more consistent with an operational level game, where the focus of command is platoons, battalions, and perhaps regiments. The larger the unit of decision, the greater the number of survivors and 'veterans', and the greater the consistency of execution and tradition.

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 07-22-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 07-22-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

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

But they are often the only way to create a rationale for force conservation.

Otherwise, it's all too easy to just go for the throat regardless of casualties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are a Coy CO and you have been told to take that objective over there. Hmm, after the first attempt you have lost one platoon and another one badly chewed up and you really think there is no way that you can take it. So you could now go to your BN CO and say that unfortunately you have not been able to take it, and lost quite a few of the nice chaps you got so attached to. And he will say - oh well Captain, I see you really feel for your guys and I don't want to make you feel bad about them all getting killed doing the job they are supposed to do. This objective is not really that important, so why don't you just take them to Brussels for a bit of R&R. And we send in one of those fresh divisions we have so many of to sort it out. Thanks for the effort, here, have a medal for trying. Why doesn't that sound realistic to me?

On the CM level you are supposed to hold on to that defense line, or go all out and try to take it within a given time frame. There is nothing wrong with that, and I don't find it gamey at all. And you have been given those troops to do that job, and it is quite acceptable for a number of them to get killed, maimed or injured in the process.

As a player, once I see I can not get anywhere, I just surrender. When playing an operation I conserve my forces, and I am very worried about losses.

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

Andreas

[marcusjm]

It should be Sven Hassel sorry . It was eons ago when I read them.

In any case I didn't think they were extremelly realistic either but it still shouldn't be totally unrealistic that soldiers continue fighting through a chain of battles. If I'm not totally wrong some Germans were transferred between the fronts also.

My main point however was that yes it would be somewhat "gamey" but imo it is a game and some features could be added for the sheer game value that they add.

It still wouldn't be criminally wrong to add this it could happen in theory and it did happen that soldiers fought through the entire war.

Marcus