M Hofbauer Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 One thing I feel lacking in CM1 is some sort of larger campaign. Operations are great, but fall short of what I'm thinking of, i.e., some sort of multi-op/multi-year campaign, where you will live with your unit through it's various battles. I know I'll probably get flamed for it, but I just love the character development / history accumulation and witness the fate of "my" outfit through a larger time period (*remotely* -for example- like cc3, or even SP), watch green troops evolve (I am talking about combat experience not maneuvewr training), see how my one trusty KV-1 keeps racking up kills etc. A good record in previous battles might lead to preferrential treatment resulting in earlier (than otherwise) outfitting with new equipment ("Guards" - status etc.). I'ld also guess that in a larger OP people would be less willing to sacrifice units in a risk-loving (read gamey) way, since they have to think not only about the battle at hand but about the future, upcoming battles and be more conservative about the way they use their resources (men & materiel). ------------------ "Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 The larger camapign was left out of CM1 for a reason. And to somewhat sum up what BTS has said, "A continuing campaign where you could follow a unit through-out a war is unrealistic at best, because in reality any particular unit only fought in one or two operations anyway." Example, a unit that fought in North Africa probably didn't see any action in NW Europe. Hence a unit that fought in Sicily and Italy may have not even seen action in North Africa. NOTE: a unit shall be called a platoon, company, etc. Because look at the casualty rates in CM, I doubt seriously that once surviving units went through more than two replacement outfittings, they had very little, if any of its original troops remaining. So therefore, it would be pointless in to following a unit through a war because the units composition would have changed a dozen times over through the war if they even survioved at all. ------------------ "Upon my signal, unleash Hell."--General Maximus, Gladiator "Aim small, miss small."--Mel Gibson, The Patriot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 I think that the player campaigns will be more fun than a coded one.. I mean, there are some great tools in development so you can either run a campaign with you and a cpl of mates or join in the big ones being run by the CMMC team (well I hope they run more in the future too!) That's my real hope for campaigns, although I do like campaigns too M.H PeterNZ ------------------ "What do I care, I got laid last week" - Chupacabra "Bjorn again are really quite good!" - Germanboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Personaly i think a long campaign in CM would be nice, even if it was only linked operations. As to how 'realistic' it would be, here we differ on the definition of an LC as I dont think the LC represents following one unit as core units never realy survive to follow anyway, they have the same name but are basicly replacements. I see it as force allocated per mission with replacement, manpower & material etc, basicly just a longer Op maybe. Anyway just my thoughts..... Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triggerhappy Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Hehe, no month without at least one "I want campaigns" posting. :-D ------------------ Rührt euch! CMPFCICM2 - Combat Mission Players for Campaigns in Combat Mission 2 - Join us! ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: I know I'll probably get flamed for it, but I just love the character development / history accumulation and witness the fate of "my" outfit through a larger time period (*remotely* -for example- like cc3, or even SP), watch green troops evolve (I am talking about combat experience not maneuvewr training), see how my one trusty KV-1 keeps racking up kills etc. I have a campaign system a few people are trying out right now - it's designed to track just one HQ unit, but could be used to reasonably track all the leaders in a company or battalion, say - it would be a horrendous amount of bookkeeping. Take a look at http://wargames.freehosting.net/campaign.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted February 17, 2001 Author Share Posted February 17, 2001 Maximus, I know what you mean, and it applies to some of the units we have in the west in CMBO, but IMHO your argument is more wrong than right w/r/t the Eastern Front. Maybe that is because you are thinking only in terms of the big engagements (Kursk, Stalingrad etc.). But the war doesn't consist solely of the big, famous operations with total ceasefire inbetween, but rather there is a steady war going on all the time, with many smaller, local operations and lulls inbetween. All I need to disprove you is have a look at one of the unit histories of units deployed on the East front. Sure there where periods of refit & rest (although rest generally took place more on an individual soldier level), periods of more and of less activity. Still, most line units in the east took part in *many* smaller and larger operations over the years. Michael Dorosh, that's a very interesting idea (and splendid page btw) though not exactly what I meant / had in mind above; and yes, I guess your system involves quite a bit of bookkeeping =-) ------------------ "Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 I don't think it would unrealistic to track an infantry battalion over the course of the NW Europe campaign. The problem is that for every major battle, there was a week or two of nothing but patrol actions. If you could come up with a random system that generates a mix of scenarios - from a full scale battalion operation that would take 8 or 12 battles to complete, to one that allows YOU to select one or two platoons and conduct a fighting patrol, it would be worthwhile. Would be a lot for the computer to track. I can only speak from the standpoint of Canadian battalions - Canadian Army manpower was always low, and the same units were committed again and again. The supposition provided by Maximus that units were used for only one or two actions may hold true for other armies, but the Brits and Canadians had to reuse their resources over and over. The point about casualties Maximus makes is a valid one, if overstated. Typical Canadian infantry battalions (numbering 800 men) suffered on average 1600 casualties between June 1944 and May 1945. The majority of these came from the 400 men in the rifle companies. Tracking this in a campaign would be truly eye opening - yes there would be a lot of replacements and losses - that is where the challenge lies!!! Getting the most out of that veteran company commander while trying to get your green troops to do their jobs and learn something, knowing full well the next "big show" is coming up and you will probably lose half of them anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 One thing is sure...if you track units that historically saw a great deal of combat, you will find yourself totally replacing all your troops once or twice. This is especially true at the scale of CM. Junior leaders and sergeants just don't last that long. They may survive, but few made it all the way through unscathed. Several US divisions replaced several times their alloted numbers of line infantry. What this means to me is that it is relatively unrealistic to do a long term campaign and expect to have many of the starting units still there at the end. Operations would be different, and it would be nice to track vehicle and equipment losses and observe the "wising up" process of green troops. At this scale, each battle is sort of a fresh start. This is largely because of the generic nature of our little troopers. If we begin looking to individualize the leaders and crewmen to the extent that they have discrete personalities, then one wonders how this will impact processing speed in battles over company size. Of course, I'd love to see WW2 with the original cast! All on my little 19" screen. Perhaps when we all have Pentium XVII's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 I like Hofbauer's idea and have suggested the same on past occasions. I liked ATOMIC's idea behind prolonged campaigns in Close Combat IV and Close Combat V. I also liked TALONSOFT's use of protracted campaigns in their Campaign Series games: "East Front" and "West Front". IMHO a similar approach of giving a player a grander scheme of things, or a larger context to scenarios and would add much to player immersion in Combat Mission 2. With respect to it being “unrealistic” for the reasons of units not fighting in the same campaigns, this would not be applicable to most German Formations fighting on the Eastern Front, and it certainly wouldn’t be true of any Soviet Units Besides, campaign games could focus on several months worth of action…ala Von Manstein’s Backhand Blow around Kharkov. Or god forbid a campaign retracing Von Mellenthin’s inaccurate accounts of battles in the Ukraine during late 43 – early 44 Or perhaps a more fact filled campaign romp based on some good ol’ Uncle Glantz [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 02-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viceroy Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 But how can you track members of a unit fighting in NW Europe 1944-5 when casualty rates were so high? "Of the 61 divisions in the theater, 20 had a personnel turnover rate of 100% or higher.." see M.Doubler "Closing with the Enemy" p239. The 4th Division had a turnover rate of 252% !! In "If you Survive" G.Wilson wrote that as of mid-March 1945 his Battalion had only one surviving officer who had been serving since D-Day ..... and sadly that officer was killed the next day. On the back of "If you survive" it says, ...."of all the men and officers of Company F .... Wilson was the only one who finished". And remember the computer would also have to keep track of all the postings, leave, rotations, training, transfers etc.etc. Any attempt to do this, IMO, would be futile and take away from the realism that is the trademark of CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viceroy Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Sorry, I should have added that if the casualty rates were that bad in NW Europe, imagine what they would be on the Russian front? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molotov Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Why not just do the campaigns the way they did it in Panzer General??? You buy your guys and go to the battle. There is no following of specific guys just companies. Also since it's the Eastern Front BTS could make like a northern, center and southern front campaign. This meathod would be very smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_Ridgeway Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 **punt** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Norton Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 In order for this idea to really work at the CMBO level, I think you have to go with a different concept of what does the "campaign" represent in this game? I am excited at L4Pilot's idea to have a strategic game generate the operational battle, which the player fights. The player commands UNITS NOT INDIVIDUALS. Thus, you do not track, in the campaign, a group of men, but you do command the, oh pick one, unit. That unit will survive, abet with a 200 percent turn over in personel at the CIB level. That is the campaign that can be done at our level; and the sorrow/joy of seeing that trusty old veteran platoon rotated back will be real for all those would be Majors out there. I realize the position of B.C on this issue, and that is why the Mega group and L4P have such opportunity. Yes, I want my own command unit too. So when those mortars hit, there goes the Major's tent....Song base upon the tune of "I cant get no satisfaction". There was a game on the Eastern Front that was trying to do something very close to this idea, but only project the Divisional dimension. However, the game followed the unit from the training ground to the field. The game died, called Road to Moscow, but the idea was a real good one. Now you take the same game, use it to generate the campaign story line, and then fight the battle with this, the best tatical WW 2 game ever made, and you can be at the marriage counselor in no time. Better yet, the game just drops you into the battle where your unit is located. Would you buy this game? Despite the Surgeon General's warning, yea I would. Get some! Tom ------------------ "The Legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts