Campaign and Scenario discussion

[bodkin]

So far I've found the 1980 campaign quite challenging unfortunately not because of genuine tactical problems but often because of unclear briefings or frustrating scenario design.

I've just finished the Kill Zone mission where you have to escort the convoy, with 15 minutes to go I was finishing off the last group of defenders between my trucks and the exit zone when the enemy surrendered, which gave me a minor defeat! I presume because I didn't get any trucks to the end. The Muj got a hefty 500 points just for turning up.

The mission before that I waited in ambush as the briefing suggested only to find the Muj convoy decided to take a big right turn and exit off the map out of effective range of any of my weapons.

The ambush mission before that in the snow covered mountains ended in a draw as many of the enemy somehow exited off the map no where near the zones shown on the tactical map.

Just needed to vent a bit, hopefully things will improve as I keep playing.

[Lethaface]

Didn't the briefing say not to engage decisively?

[LJFHutch]

Yeah, second mission I had trouble with, first time I managed to lose all of my guys, second time I thought I was doing great until the AAR gave me a minor defeat

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/9966/cmafghanistan2010092220.jpg

How does that work? I lost 5 guys: 2 killed, 3 wounded, and took out 90 of theirs: 61 killed and 30 wounded. Yet they won on points, is it even possible to win that scenario?

[bodkin]

Another baffling result, all trucks made it safely to the exit zone.

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/5456/cmaaar.jpg

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Yeah, second mission I had trouble with, first time I managed to lose all of my guys, second time I thought I was doing great until the AAR gave me a minor defeat

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/9966/cmafghanistan2010092220.jpg

How does that work? I lost 5 guys: 2 killed, 3 wounded, and took out 90 of theirs: 61 killed and 30 wounded. Yet they won on points, is it even possible to win that scenario?

SPOILER

The scenario briefing is rather lacking on that one. I think the bridge is a touch objective for the Muj and the hill a hold objective.

I moved my troops off the hill across the bridge in the 2 functional BMPs and crushed the Muj in the corner there, then just waited and killed all the advancing Muj before they could reach the Bridge. In the last few turns I retook the hill. major victory.

The briefing on no. 3 is even worse, still trying to figure out where the Muj exit objectives are.

[Zatoichi]

Well, I lost a few of the 1980 missions, but still ended up with an overall Tactical Victory at the end of the campaign. (But there were a few reloads along the way, to be honest!)

I think maybe some things have been 'lost in translation' to some extent in the briefings. Overall I've really enjoyed the missions of the first campaign, whether or not I've fully grasped the briefings!

[phil stanbridge]

I'm not going to touch the campaigns until a patch is forthcoming to be honest. I believe there's a few little odds and sods that are going to be addressed reading some of these threads. I'm enjoying the single missions for now.

[Secondbrooks]

So far I've found the 1980 campaign quite challenging unfortunately not because of genuine tactical problems but often because of unclear briefings or frustrating scenario design.

I've just finished the Kill Zone mission where you have to escort the convoy, with 15 minutes to go I was finishing off the last group of defenders between my trucks and the exit zone when the enemy surrendered, which gave me a minor defeat! I presume because I didn't get any trucks to the end. The Muj got a hefty 500 points just for turning up.

The mission before that I waited in ambush as the briefing suggested only to find the Muj convoy decided to take a big right turn and exit off the map out of effective range of any of my weapons.

The ambush mission before that in the snow covered mountains ended in a draw as many of the enemy somehow exited off the map no where near the zones shown on the tactical map.

Just needed to vent a bit, hopefully things will improve as I keep playing.

I think middle part of 1980 campaign was bit fuzzy with victory conditions. True it's about asymmetric warfare but still i can't see any logical reason for so high BLUE casualty threshold and overall how easily they score points... Ofcourse as BLUE i'd probably whine about same thing

Still no idea about other campaign or scenarios. Todays i managed to finish 1980, got tactical victory with about 30-40 casualties but i "had" to replay couple missions from middle to get that result.

This far my impressions with game have been that it doesn't suit for that kind of warfare which BLUE tries to utilize. Heart of CMx2 seems to be decisive battles.

And i think that there are few scenario developement brainfarts. I really would like to setup my BMPs myself. Right now often scenarion developer sets imobilized BMPs outside setup zones as dug-in BMPs. If BMP is dug-in then i'd favor that it wouldn't be immobilized and would have prepared hull down positions, instead of being immobilied and often not haveing hull down positions. Game seems to have lots of similar oddities. Not game breakers, but minor nuisances.

[Rosseau]

Is there any way to edit these campaign scenarios in the game editor?

Thanks, and now back to your discussion...

[SelfLoadingRifle]

For the record, I thought that I had won the first stand-alone scenario convincingly, having achieved all my objectives with very low casualties and I was only awarded a draw. I am also of the opinion that the briefing could have been better.

1) I am now looking at the opening scenario of the 1980 campaign. In the interests of realism, could anyone on this forum tell me what an authentic Russian briefing (Afghanistan circa 1980) would have said about rules of engagement in a similar situation, particularly with regard to civilians, their homes, plus of course the mosque?

2) Purely out of interest, what was/is the standard Russian Army orders format?

3) I am sure that some of the more fascinating user scenarios are going to come from Russia, where the game is selling well. Is there any public spirited person on this forum who will be able to translate the briefings into English? The number of scenarios and campaigns released with the game are very limited in number. Many more are needed.

I think that CMA has enormous potential and I look forward to the first patch.

SLR

[SelfLoadingRifle]

For the record, I thought that I had won the first stand-alone scenario convincingly, having achieved all my objectives with very low casualties and I was only awarded a draw. I am also of the opinion that the briefing could have been better.

1) I am now looking at the opening scenario of the 1980 campaign. In the interests of realism, could anyone on this forum tell me what an authentic Russian briefing (Afghanistan circa 1980) would have said about rules of engagement in a similar situation, particularly with regard to civilians, their homes, plus of course the mosque?

2) Purely out of interest, what was/is the standard Russian Army orders format?

3) I am sure that some of the more fascinating user scenarios are going to come from Russia, where the game is selling well. Is there any public spirited person on this forum who will be able to translate the briefings into English? The number of scenarios and campaigns released with the game are very limited in number. Many more are needed.

I think that CMA has enormous potential and I look forward to the first patch.

SLR

[Nick Carter]

Yup, same thing here, all trucks to safety and minimal casualties. I'm guessing the victory conditions are screwed up or the briefing isn't accurate or both. I noticed a lot of Muj. exiting off the side of the map, so possibly you're supposed to interdict them as well. Hopefully the campaign will be reviewed for the next patch. It's like that mission in the Marine campaign where the Syrians were given a humunguous amount of points, and you couldn't win no matter what.

Another baffling result, all trucks made it safely to the exit zone.

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/5456/cmaaar.jpg

[Clavicula_Nox]

The Muj get 500 bonus points in every campaign mission.

[Tim Snoddy]

In the first mission of the campaign do you have to eliminate every enemy unit in the town to get that victory condition? In the second mission what are the tactics. Ambushing from the hill seems useless. The ditch on the right seems a good place for the second group of units. Should I move the hill units this way too? Basically any help on either scenario much appreciated.

[jhdeerslayer]

I find CMA much harder than CMSF. I draw or lose every mission in the first campaign whereas CMSF I would win about every one. I am now on the mission where I have to escort about 20 trucks through this village. Another nail biter... Enjoying CMA though and just damn hard!

[dima]

As much as it may sound cliche for me CM is about playing, not winning or loosing. If I played the battle and did my best - that's what matters to me.

Overtime I got better, so when I was playing all the CM:A missions I won most of them from the first time. So it can be done, but it requires one to gain a lot of practice and practice in CM world. But while you play and get practice - have fun!

The only advice I may give - don't rush. Go slow but steady, if things look too good, don't feel tempted to go faster. Try to move en-masse so that other units cover each other. When advancing lay area fire at suspected ambush locations or buildings.

[whitehot78]

The Muj get 500 bonus points in every campaign mission.

I'd say that in some missions, like the ones in which you are ambushed by dukhs, they will get 500 points whatsoever, probably to reflect a situation in which since you walked into an ambush you have already "lost" part of the battle. In the manual,when explaining victory conditions, there's a section which tells about "expectations" from the HQ. Its likely that these bonus of 500 points is a way to tell that these expectations are not very high, and you cannot obtain a total victory. i finished the mission with the ambush in the green zone with only one wia soldier (reloaded one time ), and still got minor or tactical victory

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[phil stanbridge]

Nope, which means that all the stuff you buy in any module is playable exactly... once.

This is why I haven't bought it.

Eh? How you work that out? What about all the single missions, and all the new units, new features and everything else you get when you invest in a module. The campaigns are done in such a way that you can't 'exploit' them by cheating the system, by adding extra units, as fun as that would be to do on occasion. Besides, Afghanistan isn't a separate module, it's a completely separate game.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[phil stanbridge]

Well each to their own Adam - you are right on one aspect - there definitely aren't enough single missions. The thing is, in my opinion anyway, this game plays so different to SF that I actually don't mind the fact it 'feels' smaller. It's much more 'niche' and the battles are very focussed. I'm sure in due course there will be more missions available, providing of course the game doesn't get lost inbetween the much larger NATO and Normandy. That's my concern anyway.

I adore the campaigns and their semi dynamic nature. But I haven't even started the Afghanistan one yet. I'm still getting to grips with the different units. I disagree that the AI sucks - on more than one occasion I've been seriously owned by the AI in both campaign and single missions and I consider myself a veteran player of the series. There's a pretty large learning curve involved. I think there's a reasonable amount of replayability with the campaign as it doesn't follow the same plan every time - plus there is a certain amount of human input required. I can't think of any other game without the same problems.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request