Operations - Your Thoughts?

[Epée]

>I just think the battlefront line system in >operation is quite a few rigid...

This is my only complaint. The setup zones could improved a great deal. I hate it when I take territory and I am pushed back nevertheless.

It would be also very nice to see a new Pegasus Bridge campaign, but with objectives, rather than just "advance" or "destroy" goals. The campaign system in ASL is very nice, for example in Red Barricades and Pegasus Bridge: You win if you control a number of buildings or if you take the Bridge (in PB).

Epée

[Croaker]

I second Jarmo's suggestion, at least as a near-term solution.

[Smirnoff]

I like Jarmo's suggestion.. I found that during a operation by just moving 1 or 2 squad's forward the I can place my units on ground not jet advanced on..

Still I like them more then battles.. a lot more intresting.. haven't played through PBEM yet .. (no frends capable off playing CM yet.. .. )

sorry for the bad english I seem to have a hole in my head whenever I must write ...

(even dutch my native language.. only understand things between begin .. end

[Wild Bill Wilder]

Great input, gentlemen! These are very nice ideas. I've had many of the same concepts in my own mind as to how operations should be.

I think Battlefront has the right idea for this scale of game. I support them. But, like you all have stated, it could be improved.

I love operations and campaigns. Like BAR stated, you get attached to certain units, especially those who distinguish themselves.

These are great posts and I'll be gleaning ideas and writing them down. Thank you!

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

Wild Bill

Lead Tester/Designer

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

The DeSobry Operation was cancelled after only one battle for no apparent reason but I believe the patch will fix this (???) and I'm anxious to give it another go.[/quote}

*************Desobry Spoiler*****************

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

That is so strange that you would mention that. I had the exact same thing happen to me. I was playing as Germans. I think I killed every tank in the city, but I had not managed to take any ground. (My troops were on the outskirts of town still) When the final turn in battle 1 comes around, the operation was over. Could it be something about that specific operation? Like a victory rating triggering it? Oh well, just wanted to throw that out there

*************SPOILER OVER*************

I like Jarmo's idea too. There is nothing more frustrating than giving blood to hold a position, succeed, and then find yourself 100 meters back when the next fight starts

[Peterk]

> in battle 1 comes around, the operation

> was over. Could it be something about that > specific operation? Like a victory rating

Hi Foobar,

I "think" I remember Charles mentionning a bug that ended operations early but I'm not 100% sure. A lot of people had the same problem as us with this one so you're not alone. Hard to be mad though when battle 1 was so much fun. Isn't it just plain evil the way Bill made the yanks deploy on the run?

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

********SPOILER AGAIN*****************

Oh I know, they caused a good deal of damage to my SS panzers, but with all the different firing angles I had, and that hill off to the german left, I tore them apart. Its hard to be mad when you are that successful in an engagement....

**********************OVER*************

[Guest mch]

Love Operations!

Just finished designing my first one

I have had a few problems...see my WARNING!!!

thread....(understand this will be fixed?)

[dalem]

Woops- just tried a completely different Op and got the same pushback. Oh well - no more Ops then - too frustrating.

QBs will do just fine though.

Have to say this is the only thing I thing I think is 'broken' so far - all else is a joy.

-dale

[PAEZ]

I also like operations, I like the fact that there are not flags objectives. No having flags lets me as a commander determine what my priorities are; a hill or crossroad etc. this supports a good realistic approach. And in a real battle you usually don't get to see a flag every time

Also, I don't like the fact that battles lines are change arbitrarily. You get to capture a hill and then just because the sun went down you are back 200m . I'm sure that there is a technical reason why

Bts did it this way, but my vote is for making an effort to change it. At least to something like Jarmo was suggesting.

Overall I find them very enjoyable with a lot of room to improved

[crumply]

I wish there were more "rpg" elements: kill totals for units, improvement in troop quality over time.

I've read BTS believes this isn't realistic. Remember, though, this is a game we are talking about.

[Guest MantaRay]

Crumply, these Battles last 60 seconds, so how much will your troops improve anyway? Not right for the scale bro.

Ray

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

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

New CM Site. In process of switching. Brought to you by Hardcore Gamers Daily

Hardcore Gamers Daily

[apex]

What I would like to see is campaigns or a series of campaigns that attach themselves to a unit rather than a struggle around a certain location. Probably CM's timescope is too small for this, but really putting someone in the battalion commander's seat, leading his troops from Poland to wherever they surrendered and taking part in every important battle the unit was involved in along the way really would be a killer. As I said, it's probably not doable right now or at least only in limited scale, but it should be a long term goal IMHO.

apex

[Geier]

I put up some suggestions on the "We need campaigns" thread that might be of interest to those who really want to play campaigns.

Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks

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

Geier

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

Dashiell Hammett

[Bertram]

I like the operations, but have the same problems with them as mentioned before:

lack of insight in the objective in some (how far do I have to advance to do good?)

the retreating of my troops due to the battles end. I understand the need to disengage, but having taken a key feature (like a hill with nice cover) and having it reinforced with most of my troops, it is very irritating to find that you have to start next battle by taking it again.

In my opinion the algorith which decides the frontline (preferable not straight) should use some method of weighting spots on the map according to defensability (woods, hills, buildings) and troops employed. Troops in good positions should not be forced to withdraw, while troops in the open should withdraw at least to the next cover.

Nb.: In my opinion an not straight version of the front line is a must if you want to get the city fighting on the East Front right.

[Frenchy]

Germanboy:

I've contacted Moon and and he has the map. I am awaiting a reply for total cost bust so far no word as of yet.

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

Webmaster

http://www.trailblazersww2.org

http://www.vmfa251.org

[David Stone]

I agree with some of the things already stated... Particularly, the need for more info (or even demarkation points?) on what is expected on the big map in an operation.

The "campaign" stuff, similar to SP, is questionable.

The only way this could be done realistically is to "play" a specific unit. The US 1st Inf Div, 115th Rgmt, etc... AND track experience level by the losses/replacements over multiple battle/operations. Now, that adds a little RPG flair and is realistic.

Herr Stoner

[Echo]

In regards to Jarmos suggestion, I have already seen this happen once in an "advance" operation. My AT gun was left in no mans land, about 400m behind the line, but my Inf. platoon that was in the same location was bumped back.

So it does seem possible that this could be coded, but I would think this alone (without further tweaks to the line) would lead to some very gamey situations.

For instance, I opted to move my AT gun that was left in no mans land back to my own lines, for fear of an enemy rifle platoon being set up only 20m away at the battles start. You can imagine the problems that would come about from units starting too close together if units are just 'left' in no mans land.

In addition, a buffer zone would have to be added around those units left behind(a set up zone), that would prevent enemy units from being deployed to close together.

In effect, one(BTS) could leave the front line calculations as they are now, but allow "the isolated units w/ buffer/set up zone" to simulate isolated pockets and bulges. The size of the 'buffer' could be unit type dependent, larger for a tank, smaller for an inf.

In this way the whole line is not thrown out of kilter by 1 lone squad. If its 1 squad, then you have 1 small pocket or buffer left behind. If its a whole company left behind/cut off, then the buffer zone is going to be direcly proportionate to the number of units AND there deployment at the end of the last battle.

The only difficulty I see (code wise), would be preventing the placement of a unit thats not cut off (behind friendly lines) into a setup/buffer of a unit cut off in no mans land or behind enemy lines (during unit placement at the start of the next battle). Thus "reinforcing" cut off units.

Im no programer, but I would like to see an improvement in this area of an otherwise outstanding simulation.

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

As I walk through the Valley of Death, I will fear nothing, for I am the meanest mother*#*#** in the valley. (George S. Patton)

[IntelWeenie]

IIRC, the reason for the "push back" effect is from the calculation of the front lines and "no-man's land". Unrealistic? A bit, perhaps, but still not too horrible, IMHO.

I would like to see this improved, too. I especially like the idea of weighting positions based on the terrain (sounds like ASL ).

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Deron]

Why are there no objective flags in operations? That is my major problem with the ops, since it really limits the type of scenario you can design. It works perfectly in the battles, so why not use them in the operations as well (just create a fourth kind of operation: Capture or Secure).

I also heartily agree with a need for more information in the operations: how big is the map, how much further do I have to go, what are the phase lines going to be if I stop here?

I also really like the idea of being able to leave your units in the exact same spot they ended the previous battle, or of pulling them back to a resupply line. All new units have to come in at the new line. Excellent solution, and not a tough one at all to code, I would imagine, since they already allow for immobilized, isolated units.

[Oberst Angsthase]

Since the game understands the concept of "zones" perhaps there could be a second zone layer where the operations designer sets up geographic zones. A village is one zone, a large field another zone. The game would determine who controls each zone at the end of the game. This would allow salients and islands to develop over time. Troops that are cut off would have their ammo supply drop a level for each game they remain cut off. You could then get rid of the "No Man's land" but have a setup zone about 300 yards from the front. Units already on the map and not cut off can stay where they are (I'd give them the ability to move 50m or so to find some cover if needed) or they could pull back to the set up zone. Reinforcements could only be deployed in the set up zone, and would have to make their way to the front. Players would have to deal with a more fluid set of problems then.

[Mikester]

I very much want to know what BTS thinks about all this and the suggestion(s) that have been brought up to improve the way the start lines/positions are treated in the ops in between battles. There seem to be many people that are none too happy about the way the game does it now and I would like to hear BTS's explanation / thoughts on this matter. And whether, or not, they are considering making changes to how the operations and in particular the start line determination between battles is handled Thanks much.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Hawkeye]

I'd like to see a campaign for the entire War. All 6 or 7 years of it, however long it was, (I must've just offended hundreds of regulars on this board). Oh, and I want all the battle locations to be historically precise -- as in detailed satellite topography of every inch of Europe. And uhhh, there should be an option where if the Germans are doing really well they can actually invade the US. Of course, you're going to need detailed topography of every inch of US soil in that case... and the war would probably last a lot longer so you'd have to account for future weapons... And this map zone crap sucks, so you're just going to have to show ALL of it, ALL of Europe's 3d terrain in the 3d engine. Everything I have requested is not only reasonable but practical.

But seriously... I'm about as green at Combat Mission as they come, I've only been playing for a few weeks so you can go ahead and subtract some from the value of my comments. My first impression of the operations was kind of... dissapointed. They're great and all, and I like the attempt at a larger scope but I DO miss campaigning such as in (I'm really walking on egg shells here) CC4. Now wait wait!! CC4's strategy portion of the game could be a LOT LOT better. I'm just saying that *I* like to requisition my own troops, and choose my OWN units, and decide where *I* want to attack. The WWII officers weren't as brilliant as me which is why I need these things.

I've only played 2 of the ops only one of which I finished because I got absolutely slaughtered as the Allies in that one op that's in the Ardennes. They just don't feel very seemless. They feel more like a series of battles than an OPERATION. The only operation qualities to it are "reinforcements have arrived" at the beginning of some battles. All the battles in ops have a limited number of turns and are pre-planned as to when they occur. There's just not enough control for my taste. How 'bout deciding whether you want to fight into the night? Wait for a day? Pull back your troops to a certain position without having to retreat from within the game engine. A very large OVERVIEW map that shows unit placements.

Alright, it sounds kind of like I've raged on CM here, but it's not true. The game is priceless to me and the combat is truly excellent -- I haven't stopped playing since I received it in the mail and it's ONLY gotten better. My only beef is that if some larger scale strategy was fused into it then it would be truly EPIC. It would be... it would be... I dunno, I can't think of a good word. But seeing as how much attention and detail that BTS has put into the combat alone, I can only quiver in anticipation at what they could do with a campaign portion.

But ops are fun. Better than battles sometimes. Please excuse the ranting nature of my posts.

-Hawkeye

[jdl]

We definitly need more operations. I've finished 3 already, Villers Bocage, the Cavalry one, and The Drive to Mortain. The Day in the Cavalry I liked the best (played as American). The Villers Bocage (played as german) and the Drive to Martian (played as American) were ok. I think that at the end of the operations I did alot of driving around with no big surprises as the enemy's main weapons were already knocked out. I was just waiting for the turns to end.

[JWorthing]

Regarding the "pockets" of setup zones left after each battle in an operation:

Is it in the operation's scope to possibly surround a company (or whatever forces the operation has). If it is within scope, then that would make the game even more exciting. Imagine your opponent managing to sneak forces on either flanks for 2 battles and only finding out on the third one. Now you have to defend the town from 3 directions! Can you do it???

Being able to execute brilliant flanking manuevers and take key roads that leads to an objective and being able to keep them for the next battle (in order to conduct other assaluts) would really add to the immersion factor.

Of course it brings out a lot of conflicting issues. If the enemy did manage to sneak

a sizeable force by dark into your right flank (in battle #2), how would the set up zones be handled (for battle #3)?

Would the defender still be able to set up in the infiltrated zones, simulating fow? If not, then obviously the lines have been breached and fow has been broken.

I hope what I have said is clear and hope that BTS will improve operations (which I'm sure they will, maybe even in an upcoming surprise patch!). The operations are great! considering it is a new approach, BTS are allowed a few "mistakes" (for lack of a better term) although we can be sure that these "mistakes" will be taken into considertion and us as the players will be heard (unlike other game companies)