Campaigns (29 Let's Go): Why such brutal start line placements?

[Joe Perez]

Playing an e-mail game of the 29 Let's Go campaign, and not thrilled about the way the computer decides where it moves the start line after a scenario.

As the Germans, I pretty much pounded the Americans, holding them to advancing one bocage field on the left and center, and two fields on the right, where he made his main effort. at the end of the 20 turns, I was in what I like to think of as pretty good shape.

Problem is, with just a few turns left, my opponent managed to run tow Shermans, with one mortar tema mounted on one, around my right, through the open field at that end of the map, which I felt was indefensible, and refused my flank, knocking out three Shermans in the open field.

Because he was able to move "fast" into my rear for two turns, he reached well into the wheat field behind the front. There was not another American unit within 200 meters of those two advancing tanks, yet the computer moved the start line for the next battle all the way back to the wheatfield, even on my left, where his gains amounted to only 100 meters.

Needless to say, I'm not too happy to find out that this is the way the computer fixes start lines for battles in campaings. It seems awful gamey. Seems like another one of those "universal carriers charging victory locations on the last turn to contest flags" deals.

Posting this now, but won't be back until Saturday. Any opinions welcome.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I agree, the campagins need work to make perfect.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Before you play any operation, it is usually good to open it in the editor and change the "no man's land setting to less than 80m". Otherwise, a successful defense in place is rewarded with being pushed back.

[CombinedArms]

I feel this is one of the biggest problems with operations in general. If there's a big margin set between forces, the defense keeps getting pushed back even if successful. You can actually hold your initial line with entire success, force the enemy forces to withdraw to their starting point, and still be pushed back several hundred meters--often into really rotten defensive positions, with no foxholes. Meanwhile, you've arbitarily lost the very ground you were fighting so hard to hold. Even setting the gap between lines to a smaller margin like 80mm, as suggested, doesn't always solve the problem--since being pushed back even that far often costs you a good defensive position.

Following several frustrating experiences, I've pretty much given up playing operations. I hope they find a new way to handle this in CMBB. (This is my one real gripe about CMB0). I'd like to see VLs (or somefink) and a more flexible and realistic means of handling battle-lines.

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]</p>

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I agree wholeheartedly. I would rather play an operation than a scenario anyday, but there are definitely some major problems.

I feel certain that most of the concerns have been addressed in CMBB. I'll bet there will be victory flags in ops, which will solve some of the biggest problems, and I also hope there will be a quick op generator.