Canadian (and Dutch) Campaigns bugs

[Erwin]

Have won the first Canadian mission despite the engineers having no satchel charges. Have to decide whether to go on or wait for a fix. Is there a subsequent scenario in the campaign that definitely needs satchel charges, or does the bug simply make the rest of the Campaign a bit more challenging but playable.

Also, the briefing states that arty and air assets are shared with company D which appears in the 2nd scenario. I did see that my arty ammo was appropriately depleted after the first mission. But the helicopter ammo seems to have been completely resupplied. Is this also a bug, or is air ammo resupplied between missions?

Ditto, re the Dutch Campaign. Is it playable as is, or should one wait for a fix?

[Jonny(FGM)]

Personally I didn't find the C2 bug much of a problem in the dutch campaign, You tend to be limited to a single platoon so communications outside of the platoon are not quite so vital

[Paper Tiger]

I would wait for the fix.

Core Air units get fully resupplied between missions regardless of the resupply settings in the campaign script.

[Erwin]

Okiedokie PT, esp since you're one of my favorite designers. What's the ETA?

Also, I suggest that it's made clear in the briefing that air will be resupplied - currently it reads that neither will be resupplied.

I was unnecessarily economical with my use of air - trying to save it (as I did my arty) for Company D's effort. Probably cost me a couple casualties that pushed me over the 10% limit and reduced my win to "Minor."

[Paper Tiger]

What's the ETA?

Nice try .

The plan was to have the first three missions in the Canadian campaign share the same artillery and air assets as they all take place within a very short span of time and pracitically side by side.. However, the air assets got fully supplied between missions regardless of the parameters I set in the campaign script. The artillery units don't get resupplied between missions though until later in the day.

[Battlefront.com]

The fix will be available very soon. Final stages of testing already under way.

Steve

[Waaarg]

That is great news.

[Erwin]

"However, the air assets got fully supplied between missions regardless of the parameters I set in the campaign script."

No problemo. But, plz make this clear in the briefings as it's rather important.

[Dietrich]

Doesn't it make sense that an air asset would be rearmed before each sortie?

Why would an AH-64D, for instance, not be restocked with Hellfires and 30mm ammo before its next sortie, even if it had fired only a couple of Hellfires and a few cannon bursts?

If an F-16 flew a CAS sortie and dropped two of its four loaded GBUs, would it be sent out on another such sortie the next day or even later that same day with just the two GBUs left over from the previous one?

[Boche]

Doesn't it make sense that an air asset would be rearmed before each sortie?

Why would an AH-64D, for instance, not be restocked with Hellfires and 30mm ammo before its next sortie, even if it had fired only a couple of Hellfires and a few cannon bursts?

If an F-16 flew a CAS sortie and dropped two of its four loaded GBUs, would it be sent out on another such sortie the next day or even later that same day with just the two GBUs left over from the previous one?

in theory, the 3 missions are taking place at the same time (or about) so it was designed that all 3 missions share the same support at the time

[Dietrich]

in theory, the 3 missions are taking place at the same time (or about) so it was designed that all 3 missions share the same support at the time

Is it in according with modern air support tasking practice that just two Apaches would be assigned to provide CAS to a mechanized battalion battlegroup? Or would it be more likely that two or more pairs of Apaches would be tasked to cover the various sections of the AO? Granted, the PPCLI battlegroup's AO is a small-ish city, which could, I suppose, be covered by just two gunships, but would they really be tasked to cover one element of the battlegroup for a limited time and use only a certain percentage of their loadout, then shift their support to another element in an adjacent area?

(Note: This is in no way meant as criticism toward or disrespect of the designer of the campaign or of the scenarios thereof.) If the air assets in each of the three near-simultaneous missions were intended to simulate, say, two Apaches covering one company's AO, then moving on to another's AO, perhaps the ammo levels of the Apaches could be set low, to reflect how the air assets would have only a limited amount of ammo to use in support of each ground unit. If the three missions' air assets were meant to simulate more than one pair of Apaches operating near-simultaneously, then perhaps their ammo levels could be set to full. Tis an idea, anyway.

I, for one, certainly didn't mind having fully loaded Apaches available for CAS in the Canadian campaign's first two missions!

[Boche]

I dont know about Apache doctrine

[Paper Tiger]

Something for you guys to bear in mind is that the NATO campaigns were designed and largely playtested while Alpha and Beta testing were still going on. Issues like the Canadians not having demo charges and core air units being fully resupplied between missions were observed and reported and would get fixed in time, or not. I'd have to say that I never played any Canadian campaign mission with demo charges because they didn't go in until very late in the day - and then they came out again

Regarding the air support being shared, I too am glad that the Apaches have their full ammo load-out in each mission. I find they're more fun to use in game than heavy artillery.

Dietrich:

Is it in according with modern air support tasking practice that just two Apaches would be assigned to provide CAS to a mechanized battalion battlegroup? Or would it be more likely that two or more pairs of Apaches would be tasked to cover the various sections of the AO? Granted, the PPCLI battlegroup's AO is a small-ish city, which could, I suppose, be covered by just two gunships, but would they really be tasked to cover one element of the battlegroup for a limited time and use only a certain percentage of their loadout, then shift their support to another element in an adjacent area?

I didn't know that. Nobody brought that up while we were developing the campaign. I just liked the idea of having the player have to manage these assets in the early part of the campaign. It seemed like a cool idea. Bloody amateurs I'll keep that in mind if I ever get round to doing another CMSF campaign.

BTW, I put you in charge of one of the German PzGren Companies. Did you notice? The other company is led by (Klaus) Fischer whom I played a game of ASL by email with. ASL KG Pieper - Panthers in the Mist. He was the German and he slaughtered me. Made a big impression on me at the time.

[Dietrich]

Nobody brought that up while we were developing the campaign. I just liked the idea of having the player have to manage these assets in the early part of the campaign. It seemed like a cool idea. Bloody amateurs I'll keep that in mind if I ever get round to doing another CMSF campaign.

What I was wondering about was the likelihood of a Canadian mechanized battlegroup being tasked with a multi-pronged attack on a small city but being provided only two gunships for CAS, especially when the same two gunships have to support two or more of the prongs in quick succession. Not that I'm knowledgeable about circa-2008 CAS tasking practice (that's why I'm asking all these questions, actually), but I reckon two gunships could conceivably cover such an area (i.e., the PPCLI BG's AO) but would lack sufficient firepower to effectively support the multiple ground elements therein.

In short, what I'm saying is that it sounds more plausible to me that each of the prongs would get its own CAS, even if each element of CAS was just one gunship.

That said, I imagine there would be times when a gunship pair would provide CAS to one ground unit and then get routed to the vicinity of an adjacent unit while they still have a worthwhile amount of fuel and ammo left. But wouldn't that more likely be the case on an ad hoc basis? Assuming the assets are available, wouldn't multiple CAS elements be tasked to simultaneously fly in support of multiple ground elements? And if only two gunships were available for assignment to the PPCLI BG, wouldn't they more likely be assigned together to the element of the BG which was reckoned most in need of CAS?

BTW, I put you in charge of one of the German PzGren Companies. Did you notice?

Dankeschön, mein Herr. Yeah, I saw the name in a couple scenarios (in the campaign and otherwise), but I didn't whether it was by design or not. =P

[Erwin]

Couldn't one also say the same re the arty? Given the time lag to FFE, other task forces would be severely hamstrung if they had to wait for other fire missions to complete. Methinks we're reading too much into this GAME. It seems like the designer's intention was simply to make us economize our fire support (plz correct me if I am wrong PT).

All I ask for is that it's made clear in the briefing as to which support will be resupplied and which won't. If one knew there was no reason to be economical in scenario 1 with the air support it would make a difference. (I like to use "light" ordinance on the areas that provide points for no damage as it at least clears away units on rooftops.)

Otherwise the 1st scenario was lots of fun. And I was happy to continue with the bugs in place. But, since PT recommends that we wait for the patch before playing either the Dutch or Canadian campaigns I am twiddling thumbs here.

I suppose I could play the German Campaign. That is bug free, yes?