Campaigns

[Erik Springelkamp]

Dara O Briain expresses my issues with campaigns:

I love CM campaigns for the storyline, but I am not that good a player.

When I play through a campaign scenario I make costly mistakes, or sometimes I even don't know how to solve the problem at all.

(I do sometimes win them, I am not a complete moron).

So I restart the scenario, and try to avoid my previous errors, and then run into another disaster, and after a while I feel like I am doing work, and think: OK, I more or less know the situation here, I want to move on.

With NATO, there are only a few scenarios involving the Dutch, but I know there are a whole lot of beauties locked away in the campaign, that I will never reach, because I wast too many troops in the early battles.

I have been spending a good part of a weekend trying to do a perfect run of the first scenario, and then - bang - oh god, there is that RPG around the corner that blows up my Leopard, yes, now I remember from the first run.

[BlackMoria]

Are you playing WeGo or RT?

I have found that one can get better vehicle / troop placement (like hull down, etc) and better fire control by micromanaging matters in RT. Granted, not everyone plays RT or likes the work required by micromanaging individual vehicle / troop placements.

I play RT and I don't mind the level of micromanagement to get the level of precision I want. I have finished all campaigns with Total Victory as a result.

I have yet to try a campaign doing WeGo but my suspicions are that it is much harder because the lack of precision compared to RT and alot can happen in the one minute turn that you have can't react in a timely fashion to - like that BMP opening up on your troops 10 seconds into the turn, leaving you at the mercy of the tactical AI to handle your reactions for the remaining 50 secs.

My two cents.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, a perpetual problem with non-linear campaigns is that even when you play way (or especially if you play well) you don't experience every battle.

Erik, are you asking for the battles inside of a Campaign to be accessible as stand-alone battles?

Steve

[chaos49]

i would like to see campaign to be accessible as stand-alone battles.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Erik, are you asking for the battles inside of a Campaign to be accessible as stand-alone battles?

Yes and no, because it takes away from the immersion of a campaign. You see, I want to have my cake and eat it too :-)

I did bug out of two scenarios in the British campaign by taking an early cease fire, when I saw that I was in terrible trouble. So maybe that is a solution for some of the scenarios. It is cheating, and you don't win the battle, but at least you conserve your forces for a later task.

I think I want a cheat button, for when I think I tried enough.

It could be built into a scenario easily, by putting a little landmark called 'cheat' near your setup area, that gives you loads of VP's. But purists would probably object to a failed target when they play a perfect game.

[phil stanbridge]

I did bug out of two scenarios in the British campaign by taking an early cease fire, when I saw that I was in terrible trouble. So maybe that is a solution for some of the scenarios. It is cheating, and you don't win the battle, but at least you conserve your forces for a later task.

Correct me if I am wrong here but if you cease fire early although you conserve your initial force you may in fact lose artillery assets as a result following on, or certainly the probability of losing assets is a lot higher. I've tried this several times (although it may just be bad luck) but when cease firing early (resulted in a draw or a victory) I actually lost artillery assets the following mission. I lost all my 81mm and most of my heavy stuff in one mission which was a nightmare. I did post a thread about it some time ago, as I am not sure how it works.

[bodkin]

The campaigns seem to be getting harder with each new module, I'm finding some of the NATO missions a frustrating chore rather than enjoyable gaming.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I don't mind the scenarios being hard. I think they are very good.

With the NATO scenarios I usually get a minor defeat on too many friendly casualties.

I think that is a correct result, because I make errors one shouldn't make in the field.

But the friendly casualties are the worst kind of result for the rest of the campaign.

It is a feedback system: if you don't play perfectly, it gets even harder in the next battle.

[Childress]

I think that is a correct result, because I make errors one shouldn't make in the field.

The scenarios have made a quantum leap in quality over the past two years. My problem is impatience. Modern warfare, with its increased lethality, is much more punitive and unforgiving than WW2 battles so a tiny error in placement can ruin your day. It takes a different, maybe even anal-retentive, mind set.

An option to advance in a campaign after a defeat might be cool idea but at some expense to the ultimate score. Might be difficult to implement, tho.

As far as difficulty goes, I feel that most battles worth depicting in a game result from an error in enemy force assessment or unexpected events. A challenging or evenly matched battle results from error.

[Erwin]

"The campaigns seem to be getting harder with each new module, I'm finding some of the NATO missions a frustrating chore rather than enjoyable gaming."

I think that comes from the designers gaining experience in designing scenarios. But, I also think this is more "realistic" than the ridiculous US walkovers we experienced in the original CMSF game.

There are two communities here: "Those who see/want CM2 to be a realistic simulation"; and "Those who see CM2 as a superior entertainment game."

The former should be happy with the challenges. The latter (which includes me) share in your frustration when playing an entertainment game that feels like work.

Personally, I think the best approach is to set yourself your own win parameters, and try and attain that and not worry too much about what the system thinks. In Campaigns I have found that one can muddle thru by NOT trying to attain all objectives, but by suffering minimal (if any) casualties, while inflicting a lot.

[Perforator]

Personally, I think the best approach is to set yourself your own win parameters, and try and attain that and not worry too much about what the system thinks.

I think that is good advice Erwin. I prefer challenging scenarios where my opponent has the clear advantage, but one also has to keep in mind that in the real world plans and objectives are not a set in stone, they often change as the battle develops.

In reality if a company commander is incurring unacceptable losses because it turns out that the enemy has a stronger force than expected higher command will often call off the attack and allocate assets/reinforcements required to complete the mission with minimal losses.

I try my best to complete all objectives set out by the scenario designer but if my planning results in an unjustifiable amount of friendly casualties then I quit the scenario (Battalion Commanders orders) and accept that I have met my match, or, most usually, rethink my tactics and try again.

[noxnoctum]

The campaigns seem to be getting harder with each new module, I'm finding some of the NATO missions a frustrating chore rather than enjoyable gaming.

NO NO NO. THE HARDER THE BETTER I SAY!!!

I hate it so much when games are easy or even only moderately difficult. I recall the days of Raven Shield (actually replaying it now) where I would have to reformulate my plan about 10 times and maybe replay the action phase 30 times before I got through it without losing a team member... course I always played on the hardest difficulty.

[Lanzfeld]

I enjoy the challenge of a difficult battle for sure.

What I hate is when a scenario designer chooses to make a battle difficult by making enemy reenforcments appear on the map from unrealistic directions. Sometimes they do it right in your rear without any warning in the briefing. I doubt those T-72's could sneak up on you like that in this day and age. When this happens I get the feeling that the scenario designer is just running out of creativity.

[vincere]

I enjoy the challenge of a difficult battle for sure.

What I hate is when a scenario designer chooses to make a battle difficult by making enemy reenforcments appear on the map from unrealistic directions. Sometimes they do it right in your rear without any warning in the briefing. I doubt those T-72's could sneak up on you like that in this day and age. When this happens I get the feeling that the scenario designer is just running out of creativity.

Scenarios are generally very good, but I hate this too. And it can be equally bad news for Syria whan their tanks land on the map in the open. It'd be better if they land on map behind a dip or something.

Maybe if maps get larger then this will become less of an issue.

[Paper Tiger]

What I hate is when a scenario designer chooses to make a battle difficult by making enemy reenforcments appear on the map from unrealistic directions. Sometimes they do it right in your rear without any warning in the briefing. I doubt those T-72's could sneak up on you like that in this day and age. When this happens I get the feeling that the scenario designer is just running out of creativity.

Eek! Which campaign mission did this happen to you in? Or are you talking about scenarios in general?

[ChrisND]

I think one killer for people is not realizing their limits. You DON'T generally have to sacrifice half your force so that you can get every single objective in the battle to win, you can get by without fulfilling all of them. If you are having a tough go of it, just take what you can cheaply, safely inflict some casualties on the enemy force, and call it a day.

[Squirt]

To the forum, I would like to see the missions as stand alones. Let the users choose whether or not they want to proceed step by step through a campaign or accomplish individual missions.

[Alan8325]

What I hate is when a scenario designer chooses to make a battle difficult by making enemy reenforcments appear on the map from unrealistic directions. Sometimes they do it right in your rear without any warning in the briefing. I doubt those T-72's could sneak up on you like that in this day and age. When this happens I get the feeling that the scenario designer is just running out of creativity.

With the sizes of the maps I think it's sometimes unavoidable to have reinforcements just appear within view, or sometimes right next to, your own forces, especially later in the mission when you might have your forces spread around the map.

SPOILER

There is a mission in the British campaign where you must escort some LMTV trucks to the other side of the map and at a certain point enemy uncon reinforcements will appear on three sides of the map simultaneously. My plan for this mission was to go around the left side, opposite side of the road from the buildings, and at the exact time I had my LMTVs in the gully, protected from spg-9s and rpgs from above, several uncon vehicles suddenly appeared all around my trucks with an ensuing point-blank firefight.

[Euri]

I like the increased difficulty of the scenarios. But in my humble opinion, in order to pull them through without sustaining grave casulties one needs much more time on the clock...

[bodkin]

NO NO NO. THE HARDER THE BETTER I SAY!!!

I hate it so much when games are easy or even only moderately difficult. I recall the days of Raven Shield (actually replaying it now) where I would have to reformulate my plan about 10 times and maybe replay the action phase 30 times before I got through it without losing a team member... course I always played on the hardest difficulty.

Yeah good for you, but I'm not saying I have a problem with difficulty, playing a game that assures easy victories is not rewarding.

How that difficulty is managed by the scenario designer is the question. I played all the CMx1 titles before I played CMSF and it may be just my personal taste and the modern setting but getting a defeat in a mission where you've caused 150 enemy casualties and achieved all objectives to your 20 casualties dosen't make for great gaming experience in my opinion.

I'm not specifically talking about the official missions that come with the game/modules here, but I'm finding CMSF less fun nowadays with constant reloads because a squad got shot up by a well planned trap the scenario designer has placed to cause casualties but you know that's going get you over your friendly casualty limit. I have played some great CMSF scenarios that have been really enjoyable in the past.

I prefer a scenario of tactical choices so if you go down the wrong path and cop a bloody nose you re-evaluate the situation and try to secure the objectives through different tactics. Not reload and start again or even worse quit the mission to minimise losses which is not even gaming.

I think I'll cope better with CMBN.

[Paper Tiger]

Trust me, Bodkin, I understand how you feel. I bought CMSF because I loved CMBB so much and I figured that Modern Era would tide me over nicely while I was waiting for the first WW2 title to arrive. I didn't really like the way that BLUE could steam-roller over RED so easily though and one particular experience with an M1 SEPS surviving 12+ consecutive hits from a platoon of AT-14 teams while it wiped said teams out pretty much finished the BLUE v RED experience for me. So I turned to RED v RED, as you know, for a very long time afterwards. Now that really hit the spot for me. (No casualty restrictions in either 'Hasrabit' or 'Dinas'). So much so that it took getting invited onto the Beta team to get me back into playing BLUE v RED.

I got in in time for work starting on the Brit module scenarios and I quickly rediscovered why I disliked BLUE v RED. The solution I came up with (or more accurately, the wheel I re-invented as others came up with it before me - FMB and Normal Dude) was to restrict the casualties that BLUE could sustain in the course of a mission. Right or wrong, I'm sorry but that's pretty much the only way I could find to make BLUE v RED challenging and fun for me to play. It's you guy's collective bad luck that BFC asked me to do the campaigns for the NATO module

Anyways, I am hard at work on my first WW2 campaign and I have to say that I am glad, glad, glad! not to have to rely on enforcing tight casualty limits to present the Allies with a challenge. Of course, I think you'll find you'll be very mindful of sacrificing your core forces to get wins in WW2.

[Euri]

Having casualty restrictions is the only way to make Blue vs red scenarios challenging.

More to that, it also realistic because, for public opinion in western democracies the death of soldiers (even a few) sent away from home has a strong political impact. And this is reflected on on victory conditions because "minimal casualties" becomes a mission objective on itself - together with all other objectives.

[Erwin]

I loved Dinas and Hasrabit, (well still am loving em) for exactly the reasons you outline PT.

However, I hope all designers appreciate that it's great to have a MIXTURE of hard and less hard scenarios, otherwise playing can turn into work, and I have literally gotten headaches from some scenarios. Variety is the spice...

[Paper Tiger]

Interesting point. I have to confess that I find it very hard to make easy scenarios. Probably because I spend so much time working on my maps, I feel that the player should spend a proportionate length of time playing on it. I intended several NATO missions to be easy. How successful I was in doing so, I'll let you judge, so here is a quick list of the intentional 'easy' ones:

German Campaign

The Borders are Burning

Ghost Towns

Canadian Campaign

Storming the Gatehouse

Suburban Hell

Sound of the Guns

BTW, if I were to ask the question, 'which, in your opinion, is the most difficult campaign mission you've played?' I'd expect to get quite a few 'Objective Pooh from the USMC Campaign' answers. That is one of the most notoriously difficult, but fun, missions to play. As a result, it got discussed and discussed. Now, some of us scenario designers (not all though - George Mc immediately springs to mind) have egos that need a bit of stroking from time to time. We'd all like to produce the next 'Pooh' and have our mission discussed in a similar fashion. Easy missions tend not to get played or discussed nearly so often. So I'd blame 'Pooh' and Sgt Muhammed (I think he was the author of that legendary work, but if I'm wrong, my humblest apologies to the author) for the increased difficulty of campaign missions.

[Hairy Pie]

I've not played any of the campaign's yet. I've got all the modules and there's enough single missions to keep me going for month's (I'm on about my eighth attempt at the Brit Cain and Able mission!) Think of them as training exercises

But I do like the idea of a steadily increasing learning curve through the campaign's.