Operations - Your Thoughts?

[Guest Silesian-jaeger]

I would like to see an Operation coving the ground forces of Market-Garden. They had it very tough. A single lane highway much of the way up against Falshirmjager, assault guns, and King Tigers!

I have only played two of the current operations so far. Arnhem, and A Day in the Cav. I thought the Arnhem scenario was too easy for the British. But the map of Arnhem is fabulous! Dan

[maxim zasov]

First of all as I am Russian I would like to apologise for my bad english.

Totally agree with previous replies. Operations are good, but what I miss totally is the campaign mode. Something like Panzer Generals style of campaign. I dont know whether these ideas may be implemented or they are only for cm2 but i think most of war gamers will agree with me.

1) For example I can start a campaign as a small batt. or company leader and progress during the war. I should be given an opportunity to choose what kind of troops I want to manage and front I where I will be fighting, or high command (computer) will decide that for me.

2) Points after battles or operations can be spent on training or buying new units, and units should change their status during the campaign, for example conscript can become elite.

3) Also I can be promoted to manage more troops or even sent to another front or region, of course if I agree to do that. Leader (me) can also die during random event: bomb, cold, or even executed if failed during campaign.

4) My units and me of course should gain some special abilities during battles. Something like superior night operations or sneaking skills gained after successful night operation. Or improved targeting after several successful shots. You understand what I mean I hope.

5) Of course as we manage small units we can only delay the defeat of germany or vice versa if we play for allied force, but you of course can give us an opportunity to change history.

6) This campaign can range the whole WW2 if you will be able to add the all range of actions from spain to eastern front. Especially eastern front because I would be very happy to try Kursk tank battle or Stalingrad battle using CM.

This is not a full list of ideas so if game/campaign designers will contact me i will present them a full pack of info.

[gashford]

I agree with one of the earlier posts, if I hold a line against an enemy attack then I should not be forced to have to capilulate the hard fought for ground as the aggressor gains a freebie 1000 or so metres? Perhaps I am doing something wrong but in my opertaional PBEM games this happens. I would like to hold onto ground that has been denied the enemy? Otherwise this game is still the best ll round ww2 PC game I have played to date.

[Mikester]

Back to the top.

As before, I'm still looking for information/ answers / explanations from BTS on these issues. And namely the issue of how the new start lines / setup zones are determined in between operaton battles and why. Because many of the results we as players are experiencing sure don't seem to be very realistic.

Thanks.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[This message has been edited by Mikester (edited 07-31-2000).]

[Keith]

When designing Destroy operations where the entire map is viewable, it would nice to be able to specify which map edge reinforcements will arrive from. This would allow for operations that have flank attacks or encirclement battles.

As far as on-map objective flags are concerned, I think this a bad idea. As someone posted earlier, it is really up to the player to pick objectives. If there is a commanding hill that the attacking player fails to capture, then that player will suffer the consequences if it is used by his opponent. On the other hand I know that the AI uses the objective flags for its strategy, so the computer may not defend a tactically important piece of real estate adequately without an objective flag.

[Mikester]

Back to the top yet again.

I'm going to cling to this like an old junk yard dog to his last bone until I get some answers from the powers that be.

Mikester out.

[Tanaka]

Hi…

This is just a copy of a post posted by me whithout doing a search first !

"I’m currently plying Arnhem operation for the Germans against AI. At the end of 3rd battle I control the battlefield until 5th row of houses after the bridge (Note that all my troops advance in line, row by row)… the AI is being beaten, my moral its 86%… Now cames the problem, when the 4th battle starts my deployment zone its only on the other side of the bridge , but the major problem is that 75% of my troops are now inside the deployment zone (behind the bridge), who the hell forced them back there? The other 25% are scattered around the map, inclusively in the allied deployment zone (behind 7th row of houses) completely surrounded by British; others are in the middle of the river , yes in the water ( don’t try to suwim with an MG-42 on your back, you might not go far )

I have played this operation on 1.02and this does not happened…. Seams to be a 1.03 problem only."

Thanks

Tanaka

[Guest Mortiis]

I would love to see a campaign mode- nothing like the feeling of watching your own company/battalion fight thru the war- even if most of em get wasted-half the fun is the sorrow you feel when you see your fav units that fought back at the start of the campaign wasted near the end.

I think operations are great but need alot of work. Dont play them much for me multiplayer is what I use most for Im a slave to campaign and miss it dearly.

I may be repeating other requests but too

late at night for me to read entire thread right now

1)After each battle show exactly what you recieved for replacements, example

3 units to sgt patons squad

1 sherman tank + 1 to sgt peters crew

etc..

2) show what you recieved for reinforcements- Just easier to glance at such info displayed inbetween battles instead of trying to compare what you had last time and now

3)At the end of operation total casualties for both sides

4)Overall map and highlights of your progress from begining to end

5)status screen for all units- that way with a quick glance (similar to the way cc does it) you can tell what units or in trouble, it would be nice if this updated in real time so you can view this tool bar and if you notice a unit lose a man you can double click on it and voila your right in the action- and dont miss a thing

I know there is prolly a crapload more I would like to see but Im too tired to remember half of it, hopefully someone else does

[Peterk]

The problem with these monster "fight the whole war" campaigns is that there is going to be almost no-one left in the last battle that started the first battle. This really isn't Panzer General.

Play one of the longer operations (Carentan or Drive To Mortain) and you'll see that you're scraping and praying for reinforcements from day-to-day and you won't be left with all that much at the end.

I think a Market Garden campaign or anything tightly focussed might work, but beginning to end of the war isn't going to be much different than just playing a bunch of scenarios with new guys each time.

p.

[Dan Weaver]

A conventional "follow-your-troops" campaign is completely unrealistic. Many front-line US infantry regiments took close to 200% casualties in ETO, meaning that your troops would turn over not once but twice at the regimental level. At the company level, it would be even more nightmarish: four or five times turnover, if you managed to survive at all that is. Platoons and company commanders were killed by the dozens every day. On the Russian front, it'd be even worse. Put a rifle division in Stalingrad, and see how long it lasts!

I enjoy the current style of operation a great deal and I think it's a much better simulation of the grinding combat of World War II, which doesn't end when you reach your next objective. Operations make you cry for reinforcements, rearmaments, and repairs.

The operation I'd like to see is Patton taking it into his own hands to drive from Argentan to Falaise.

Dan

[Mikester]

Dan is correct here.

These "mega take me through the entire Western Front campaigns" are not realistic. This has been discussed several times here on the board in the past and this is exactly why such long drawn out campaigns are not in the game since, as BTS has stated, they are totally out of the scope and context of what CM is about. If you want to know more about why, do a search and find the old threads and and all the discussions that have already gone on and read them.

Mikester out.

PS: Dan, what unit did you serve in? It's always good to see folks here that were actually there in WWII. I for one have a deep amount of respect for people such as yourself and what you have to say on these matters. Hope you continue to provide your experience and insights to the many discussions here on the board.

[dumbo]

"Many front-line US infantry regiments took close to 200% casualties in ETO, meaning that your troops would turn over not once but twice at the regimental level. At the company level, it would be even more nightmarish: four or five times turnover, if you managed to survive at all that is. Platoons and company commanders were killed by the dozens every day. On the Russian front, it'd be even worse."

I dont know of any game that does a "follow your troops" they DO however do a "follow the formation". This is very very different which allows for your description very easily. Thus if you take heavy casualties your formation gets greener, if you survive battles then your formation gets more expereinced. Casualties are utterly irrelevant to the argument over a campaign system.

I discount arguments that formations did not fight many battles through the war as this is manifestly untrue. Even formations that got "wiped out" were often just reconstituted with new recruits and some seeding of veterans to give the formations some backbone.

Not that this all adds up to "campaigns are needed" in CM. Personally I think they are incredibly fun but the quick battle feature in CM is almost as good so I am not bitching.

cheers

_dumbo

[Mikester]

Still looking for answers from BTS on the front line issue.

Thanks.

Mike

[Mikester]

Back to the top. Still looking for "official" thoughts / response from BTS on frontline issues.

Thx,

Mikester out.

[Dan Weaver]

Oh heck, Mike, I'm not even old enough to drink yet. I wish I was worthy of your compliment!

Dan

[Mikester]

Dan,

Doooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Guess that's one of the pitfalls of my sitting here trying to speed read thru some of these posts. Misread "many" as "my" and your post sounds like it's from someone that was there.

Mikester out.

PS: Still awaiting BTS response.