courage and fortitude help

[womble]

The infantry pathfinding was no better this time either. I managed to blow pretty much all of the wire away and yet . . . the infantry continued to run all up around over and through. They pretty much went everywhere I DIDN'T tell them to go. Thankfully I only sent the Pioneers over. Only lost a couple of them . . . but I sure as heck wasn't going to send any of the other platoons through that impossible mess.

I can only reiterate what I've already said. When I forced a waypoint on nearly every action point except on the bridge itself my troops went where I told 'em. It was necessary to be excruciatingly careful with placing the waypoints though, since they'd plop down in some quite unexpected places if you had the view angle 'wrong', and it was very difficult to have them snap to the action points I actually wanted them to move to. I can't be certain, since I sent everything across split into teams, with, consequentially, each team's path being forced. I can imagine if you left your squads intact, you'd see a lot of 'independent-minded' teams taking a path that deviated markedly from the one you'd set, and at that point, it's possible that setting coercive numbers of waypoints would be counterproductive.

How did any of you guys manage to get your tanks to that other side?

1. Only have one tank near the beginning of the bridge at a time.
   
2. Set a Slow waypoint up to the bridge, just still on ground, making sure the tank's pointed dead straight along the bridge. You might want to use a Face, if you've had to squeeze past a mine or a conked out vehicle.
   
3. Set a Slow waypoint on 'land' at the far end of the bridge, as precisely opposite the centreline of the bridge roadbed as possible.
   

I didn't have a single problem getting the tanks to follow this path. I did have problems laying down the waypoints. Much fiddling with camera views and making sure they landed where I wanted them to be.

It seems like a pure luck thing to me. I truly believe I tried every possible pathing point. None of them worked.

The method above (not sure how to describe it better - happy to try and clarify if it's not working) worked every time for me.

How is something like this programmed . . . and why? Seems ridiculous to me.

The issues are, I believe, severalfold with this bridge on this map.

[*] First, you have alternate pathways that are more inviting. It's 'quicker' for an infantry elemant to 'Quick' back to the beginning of the bridge, cross the bridge and come down the other bank of the stream than it is to Quick through the swamp under the bridge. So any element that isn't 'on rails' wrt movement orders can choose a 'strange' movement path for, superficially, valid reasons.

[*] Having a bridge 'mired' in land isn't, I think, what the designers intended. It means that there are alternative locations for waypoints, vertically displaced. Usually, the potential waypoint positions that would be under the bridge would be impassable and could be discounted by the 'where do I snap the waypoint to?' algorithm.

[*]I don't know whether it's all bridges, but the bridge model on this map occupies a lot more volume as far as the mouse pointer is concerned than it seems to visually on the map. If you're at one end of the bridge, you can't click on anything over by the other end of the bridge. Ditto for acrossways. Its footprint seems to obscure some APs out to the side, too, from some angles.

[*]It's worth noting that if you try and move from one side to the other of the bridge, down in the muck, you will have to run round the bridge. Even though you can set waypoints (that appear to be) under the bridge (watch out for that if you meant to go over), you can't then walk the 8m to the next AP across without coming up, getting to one end of the bridge and going back down the other side.

Anyway, I do want to play out every campaign on the disk (for now) so I'll give this another try tomorrow night. I think I'll start up at the save where my tanks arrive. I'll just keep them on the banks of the river (unless someone can give me the cheat code to get across the river). I'll run those 105's over the hill and hope to kill the German FO. After that, I'll send the rest of the infantry over . . . if there's any time left.

Good luck! I really wouldn't bother sending the infantry over without the tanks. And killing the FO won't stop the TRP arty wasting your infantry in the vicinity of the bridge; they only need a spotter-eligible HQ alive for that. If you wing me a PM, I can send you a savegame showing the sort of waypoint-setting nonsense that I used to get troops through the mud, or tanks across the bridge. If you hammer the sandbagged positions and use all your 105s on the ridgeline, you might get a Tactical.

Totally lame way to get past this broken battle . . . but there doesn't seem to be any other option. (Good thing I'm not a game reviewer at this point. I would be giving it a 10 . . . as in "numba ten, da worst".)

Frankly, the whole campaign comes across as artificial and badly-conceived. I don't know what sort of river that bridge is supposed to be crossing, but a canal wouldn't flood the fields like that, and a river would very soon overtop the land under the bridge. And how did that land get higher than the general river bed anyway? It's all an artificial terrain construct to make the 'chokepoint' 'interesting' (it'd be boring if it were just a bridge, and a broken bridge over a muddy ditch would mean "no tanks past this point"). Personally, I like a little more realism in a map. I'm hoping the other campaigns are better.

[Fetchez la Vache]

If it helps at all, the one squad that I got across with no casualties was the very first one (under cover of darkness) that headed right along the riverbank hidden from view. Slow and it knackered them out. But after a few minutes rest, I could sprint them across to the patch of forest and thence up the right hand side behind the bocage. If was going to do this again I would send a whole platoon this way while the tanks played "bash the foxhole", the MMG's suppressing everything they can and the mortars dropping on everything else left over. And maybe wait for the 105 arty before pushing anything forward too much...

This is a perfectly do-able mission in my opinion. But you're probably gonna lose a lot of men if you do it without re-loading saves and prior knowledge. Again, not a problem in itself but I'd appreciate the warning before I start. :-)

[TheBlackHand]

Thanks guys, I will try ONCE more to get this right, although I have my doubts.

As for plotting, I did pretty much as Wombie . . . I think. I went to the top down view, zoomed in and painstaikingly plotted waypoints from all angles across the crossing, taking care to AVOID placing any waypoint directly on (or under) the bridge. I was able to put most of my waypoints within a few feet of each other. I figured this would give my tanks (and infantry) very specific instructions as to movement. I gave my tanks "move" orders. I will try "slow" instead. I gave my infantry "quick" and "move". Quick when exposed, Move when hidden. The tanks, without fail, moved out on to the bridge . . . or attempted to. This, despite having been given different paths. (Actually, I think there were only a few paths that the game would actually take . . . none of them were the actual path that any of the tanks took.) I had one tank that got to the top (entrance berm) of the bridge and simply wouldn't move at all, despite having been given the same path that another tank had been given. This non-moving (non immobilized or rattled) tank blocked the path for the tank that did attempt to take the same path. That tank was forced to move around the other, eventually bogging.

Bottom line . . . all of this nit-picky, PITA pathfinding is COMPLETE BULLSH*T.

It saps every last bit of "simulation" from the game. There is no way that I can rationalize this to make it fit into any sort of real-world scenario. Perhaps I might feel differently if the breifing had stated that the crossing was largely unworkable and that only a FOOL would actually try it with an armored vehicle. It would also have been nice if there had been some warning that the crossing was a virtual maze for infantry, no matter what the Pioneers did.

This sort of crap makes the game feel like a game. A poorly designed game. A Rubiks Cube in camouflage (and a few pieces missing). It sure looks good though. Yeah, it looks great. Looks.

I look forward to playing PBEM with CMx2, but till then, I sure as hell can't recommend the AI campaigns to anyone. Not this one anyhow . . . and not many of the others, from what I've read so far.

[TheBlackHand]

Well, I'm now officially done with this campaign. No more.

I tried working with just two tanks. I tried over the space of an hour to get them across the bridge area. It did not work.

Curiously, I had one tank that kept pausing and pausing and pausing. This began as the tank reached the bridge approach. Each pause was just two or three seconds long, then the tank would inch forward a foot or two, then pause again. When the turn would end, with the tank making no progress, I'd change his first waypoint. He'd still do the pause thing. Of course, he was pausing right on top of the TRP so eventually . . . you know what happened.

The other tank eventually made its way down into the creekbed. This was an extremely difficult operation that required numerous remaps. Half the time, I'd give him his half-dozen waypoints, then as soon as the turn started . . . no more waypoints. The tank just sat there. The waypoints that I plotted having magically disappeared. When he finally did start down the hill I was very excited because it looked for a second there like he was actually following my instructions . . . but . . . he made a 90 degree turn and went directly under the bridge . . . even though his waypoint was most certainly NOT under the bridge. He sat there for a turn or two, despite being given waypoints after each turn (ignored). He only began to creep out from under the bridge when I gave him a reverse command. He reversed for about five feet and . . . bogged. Soon after he bogged, the other tank took an artillery round right through the turret.

At that point I loudly swore at the game designers once again and gave up.

Did ANYONE at Battlefront actually play this battle before foisting it on the public?

Do all of the campaigns have similar, impassible/impossible roadblocks?

[dakuth]

Well, I'm now officially done with this campaign. No more.

I tried working with just two tanks. I tried over the space of an hour to get them across the bridge area. It did not work.

Curiously, I had one tank that kept pausing and pausing and pausing. This began as the tank reached the bridge approach. Each pause was just two or three seconds long, then the tank would inch forward a foot or two, then pause again. When the turn would end, with the tank making no progress, I'd change his first waypoint. He'd still do the pause thing. Of course, he was pausing right on top of the TRP so eventually . . . you know what happened.

The other tank eventually made its way down into the creekbed. This was an extremely difficult operation that required numerous remaps. Half the time, I'd give him his half-dozen waypoints, then as soon as the turn started . . . no more waypoints. The tank just sat there. The waypoints that I plotted having magically disappeared. When he finally did start down the hill I was very excited because it looked for a second there like he was actually following my instructions . . . but . . . he made a 90 degree turn and went directly under the bridge . . . even though his waypoint was most certainly NOT under the bridge. He sat there for a turn or two, despite being given waypoints after each turn (ignored). He only began to creep out from under the bridge when I gave him a reverse command. He reversed for about five feet and . . . bogged. Soon after he bogged, the other tank took an artillery round right through the turret.

At that point I loudly swore at the game designers once again and gave up.

Did ANYONE at Battlefront actually play this battle before foisting it on the public?

Do all of the campaigns have similar, impassible/impossible roadblocks?

Well, I know you probably don't want to give it ANOTHER go... I did work out the foibles with the bridge. A lot of it had to do with the camera angle. (i.e. if I want a waypoint on THAT side of the river I need to move the camera over there, then flip it 180 degrees so I can place it from this POV. Much like the "tricks" with place waypoints near hedgelines. It always snaps to "this" side.)

ANYWAY. One way point just this side of the bridge, one on THAT side, and I had 4 tanks cross in column formation (well, except for one that bogged on the road leading up to it, and the second that blew up on the bridge.) You will not be able to order a tank down into the swampy area. He's no doubt following your waypoints, finding the terrain impassable so it replotting it to the only sane path - over the bridge.

So - I'd give them a less precise series of orders, and they are definitely going to have to go over the bridge.

Once you have the bridge, just drop all your arty on the suspected locations - the foxholes and hill. Then call a cease fire. Hopefully that'll be enough to get you on to the next map with one objective captured and some german casulties. You don't have to actually "win" to procede through the campaign. I'm pretty sure that's the point of the mission - to force most people to play through the second hill mission, and for a small percentage of people to succeed and skip ahead.

i.e. the mission is designed for you to fail, or tie.

[TheBlackHand]

Noted . . . but I'm seriously done with it.

This mission was a major fail, in more ways than one.

[womble]

Well, I'm now officially done with this campaign. No more.

Huh? You can get through the mission with just the bridge and the damage your HE does. This map is the only one with such exacting maneuvering requirements.

I tried working with just two tanks. I tried over the space of an hour to get them across the bridge area.

But not across the bridge.

It did not work.

Even if you'd managed to force them down into the muck, they would just have bogged. The drivers were trying to save you from your own error.

Do all of the campaigns have similar, impassible/impossible roadblocks?

Certainly the rest of this campaign doesn't. It's not particularly credible in the way it's set up, which saps the enjoyment of the tactical situations considerably, but "School" is the only scenario that's so tough to get past a certain point, just from a mechanical point of view.

One nice, straight, Slow movement leg across the bridge worked every time I tried it. A total of a dozen tanks over three restarts.

[JonS]

I don't know what sort of river that bridge is supposed to be crossing, but a canal wouldn't flood the fields like that, and a river would very soon overtop the land under the bridge. And how did that land get higher than the general river bed anyway? It's all an artificial terrain construct to make the 'chokepoint' 'interesting' (it'd be boring if it were just a bridge, and a broken bridge over a muddy ditch would mean "no tanks past this point"). Personally, I like a little more realism in a map

http://maps.google.com/?ll=49.341175,-1.548643&spn=0.041439,0.106859&t=h&z=14

[womble]

http://maps.google.com/?ll=49.341175,-1.548643&spn=0.041439,0.106859&t=h&z=14

What am I supposed to be looking at? The realism?

[TheBlackHand]

Aha . . . I thought they were supposed to go everywhere BUT the bridge (I also thought that they would be at great risk of bogging, but that it was a necessary risk).

It didn't look to me as though the tanks could actully fit across the bridge so I assumed it was not even possible to send them via that route.

I seem to have missed your instruction about how to get them across.

I heard this:

When I forced a waypoint on nearly every action point except on the bridge itself my troops went where I told 'em.

Now I see it.

1.Only have one tank near the beginning of the bridge at a time.

2.Set a Slow waypoint up to the bridge, just still on ground, making sure the tank's pointed dead straight along the bridge. You might want to use a Face, if you've had to squeeze past a mine or a conked out vehicle.

3.Set a Slow waypoint on 'land' at the far end of the bridge, as precisely opposite the centreline of the bridge roadbed as possible.

So . . . I will actually give that a try since it is the one method I never used.

Yes, I must be a masochist.

[Agua]

Blackhand:

Are you trying to run the tanks through the swamp? I'm at a loss as to why you are having such complete cluster!@#$ with those tanks. Long move orders from wherever you start them with one waypoint on this side of the bridge (on the road), then one more waypoint on the other side of the bridge (on the road), then one more hard to the right to clear the road for all the follow on tanks.

When plotting these moves, I played in real time and gave the complete set of waypoints to each tank individually so as to allow them ample time / space to clear the bridge. There wasn't anything funky happening with the pathing, it was just as if it were a road.

[womble]

Hopefully you've had a little more joy with "School" this time around, Blackhand

Me, I've been struggling to get to grips with the enemy in the final mission "La Haye du Puits". I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to ask whether I'm actually supposed to get the 3rd platoon of L Coy and the Battalion mortars... I think L-3 isn't included because it's not available as a subformation from L-actual, but the briefing says I get 6 by 81mm mortars, and I've got 2, off-board ones. Plus the platoon HQ on-map. It's 40 minutes in now, and the other 4 are nowhere to be seen. Do they turn up eventually?

I'll save the rant about the cess pit of disorganisation that you're handed for another time. It's just a wonder the Americans managed to take any ground at all...

[herr_oberst]

Blackhand:

Are you trying to run the tanks through the swamp? I'm at a loss as to why you are having such complete cluster!@#$ with those tanks. Long move orders from wherever you start them with one waypoint on this side of the bridge (on the road), then one more waypoint on the other side of the bridge (on the road), then one more hard to the right to clear the road for all the follow on tanks..

Agreed. I plot a waypoint on the road right before the bridge, then one on the opposite side past the bridge. Column formation with a good four 'tank lengths' between units so they dont all start/stop, and I've moved all four across in a single turn (WeGo player here).

The squishies I route to the right of the bridge right down at the waterline around to the right. Break the squads into teams and space them a bit so they don't bunch too tightly and smoke 'em if you got 'em to provide some cover from directed fire (and possibly save yourself from a TRP surprise).

I like this battle because it is such a challenge. Attacking it again tonight - yes I have lost almost two whole platoons to my bad timing on one go, and I have lost 3 of my 4 tanks when I advanced too quickly in the open on another go. But live and learn, and improve. PaperTiger makes some incredibly good maps and battles.

Over Hill, Down Dale was a piece of cake compared to this (replayed that one last night to see if I've learned anything, and pulled a 1000 to 10 Total Victory w/8 killed, 7 wounded, no armor/vehicle losses). I still suck at getting my MGs into good positions, but have learned to slow down a bit and be more careful about positioning and, shocker, combined arms, 'cause he positions the OpFor exceedingly well.

[Erwin]

This has been a fascinating discussion.

But, the main thing I have learned is that posters must make it clear if they are playing in RT or WEGO as it makes a HUGE difference to what you do and how to achive goals.

[DavidFields]

I am not sure why people are so irate at School. Or this campaign--which I am finding spectacular. Granted, maybe a warning at the beginning of the campaign about the difficulty could be warented--but those who post on this forum have this forum to find out plenty of info about it ahead of time.

I am just a routine BFC customer. At the risk of being repetative:

1. School is meant, I believe, to be lost or tied. Blast a bunch of germans with artillery (it seems almost to be a training tutorial for artillery.) Blast a few things with your tanks (without crossing the stream). Get a few people to the bridge to take that objective. (If you want to be a bit gamey, don't even send the engineers--so they don't get wacked by the TRP.)

2. Go to University. This almost seems like a tutorial for how to cross a bridge. The unaccosted crossing is done as is standard with CM1: plot waypoint before and after the bridge. AFVs on slow-- or, maybe move. That actually seems to me a realistic tactic for crossing a bridge in/near combat. There could be debris on the bridge, you don't want to run over your own people, and accidently rolling into a hole or off the bridge would likely ruin your whole day.

3. After taking the Long Way Around (possible movie title), past a very tactical Bumper Cars (could be renamed Flank Them! Flank them!), I am at Ridge, and the Field of Doom (TM--as a previous poster has noted) appears, very early on, as possibly a Walk in the Park (franchises still available). If true, that is likely due to Casualties Inflicted being more than Casualties Taken (medals and/or congressional investigations pending).

Since I am on vacation, I have not been able to confirm over the past week that Ridge is now doable. (The things we sacrifice for family harmony! ....fortunately I was able to borrow my sisters computer to check the forums....shush, if you are anywhere near OBX, keep that quiet)

All this is to say, to rage against School is, respectfully, missing the point, I think--teaching us to lose, or at least not win, so as to showcase the branching Operations system.

[Can't imagine trying to post in a non-native language. Kudos to those that attempt it.]

[WEGO]

[Agua]

3. After taking the Long Way Around (possible movie title), past a very tactical Bumper Cars (could be renamed Flank Them! Flank them!), I am at Ridge, and the Field of Doom (TM--as a previous poster has noted) appears, very early on, as possibly a Walk in the Park (franchises still available). If true, that is likely due to Casualties Inflicted being more than Casualties Taken (medals and/or congressional investigations pending).

Since I am on vacation, I have not been able to confirm over the past week that Ridge is now doable.

[WEGO]

Be sure and tell us how that works out.

[TheBlackHand]

I solved it, with the help from the guys on this forum. The battle was playable after understanding that the ONLY way to get tanks across that bridge was to plot a straight line directly across it.

My major beef was that it took numerous tries and hundreds of curses to figure that out.

The infantry moved over the bridge very smoothly too, but only after the tanks/artillery had suppressed everything else. Trying to wade them through the muck is a waste of time and men (dozens will probably die from the arty).

If you lose one tank on the bridge or too near the approach, you will probably lose or tie. I lost one "immobilized" tank to a mine on the far end of the bridge, but the following tanks had room to move around him. (Next time I'd have the pioneers blast directly across the bridge approaches, if possible.)

It should have been mentioned, somehow, that there was only ONE way over/across the chokepoint (ie. the bridge). Replaying the game over and over because you can't find the "key" feels . . . gamey.

At least the following battle is soooo easy that it lets off a bit of the steam that you've built up during this one.

[womble]

I am not sure why people are so irate at School.

There are a number of reasons.

1. That danged bridge. It's not that we have to cross a bridge under devastating fire, it's that the presented alternative requires some seriously ball-breaking view selection to do 'right'. It's the way the bridge is embedded in the terrain.

2. Once again, the REMFs have been busy Fing their Ms and the artillery is late, late, late. It's not like this hasn't been a planned attack or anything. And at least the engineers are at the front of the column for this engagement.

3. You can force a surrender with just tanks and indirect HE, so long as you keep your infantry very well hidden.

4. The hydrography of the map makes no sense. It is there purely to force the attacker to act in certain ways.

In summary, it's a gamey map which tries to teach a gamey "lesson" that can be beaten by gamey (i.e. not using your infantry) tactics. Or by sheer determination to not let the pathing algorithms beat you. What lesson does that teach?

1. School is meant, I believe, to be lost or tied.

I'm sure it is. A good campaign design would therefore make that result a 'win' by the allocation of appropriate victory conditions. Scenarios that lie to you about 'expected results' are no better than scenarios that lie to you about expected opposition or assigned forces.

3. After taking the Long Way Around (possible movie title), past a very tactical Bumper Cars (could be renamed Flank Them! Flank them!)...

Bumper Cars is probably the best scenario I've seen in the campaign. However, flanking the Germans is too easy. I'd lost 1 man to a mine and another to a firefight with a Sniper team because I was bored and lazy, by the time the first 2 deep right positions had been overrun. The 'good bit' came just after that, and I'll not spoiler it. Mostly, like the 'recon pull' scenario, Bumper Cars was a lesson in driving. Unlike the recon pull scenario, it was an overlong lesson in driving.

I am at Ridge, and the Field of Doom (TM--as a previous poster has noted) appears, very early on, as possibly a Walk in the Park (franchises still available). If true, that is likely due to Casualties Inflicted being more than Casualties Taken (medals and/or congressional investigations pending).

If you spot the trick in Ridge, it is, indeed, a walk in the park, and you might come out of it with enough ammo for le Haye. If you don't spot the trick, the fact that your engineers come through pretty much last, and your Regimental commander has sent TDs to an infantry fight will be pretty telling. And I will take the liberty of warning you that in the "don't expect to incorporate any replacements before we go into le Hay" part of the briefing "replacements" includes replacement bullets. A fair briefing would mention this lack of opportunity for resupply.

All this is to say, to rage against School is, respectfully, missing the point, I think--teaching us to lose, or at least not win, so as to showcase the branching Operations system.

Frankly, that's hooey. Or if it's true, it's a cruddy way to go about it, guaranteed to mask our wonderment at this marvellous new development in bitterness and bile.

[rkyfat]

I also got stuck in this. Took out the AT guns with mortars and for the whole mission kept my artillery focussed on the hill with mortars on the various foxholes. Still did'nt work as everytime I got men over the bridge german artillery sent them scuttling back like a wounded dog. With 10 minutes to spare and just about to restart, in a last ditch attempt I sent a tank up the right hand side under cover of smoke, mortars, artillery and MG fire. I then realised that about half the icons I had been firing at were actually dead and the other half quickly broke as soon as my tank opened fire. My artillery had annihilated the bunkers and MGs on the hill which I had bombarded for most of the mission and got a total victory with about 1 min to spare with my men joyously rinning up the hill to victory. Played WEGO by the way and oh boy did I love every minute of it even though the victory was'nt exactly the masterpiece I planned! But my tank was the hero of the day in what has to be remembered as the best damned game I have had on CMBN since I bought it. I nearly wet myself!

[JonS]

4. The hydrography of the map makes no sense. It is there purely to force the attacker to act in certain ways.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=49.341175,-1.548643&spn=0.041439,0.106859&t=h&z=14

[womble]

http://maps.google.com/?ll=49.341175,-1.548643&spn=0.041439,0.106859&t=h&z=14

Dear Jon. There's no watercourse there. No canal, no river. Yes it's marshy, but infantry can cross marsh at any point. They don't have to funnel along through a choke point. A cuaseway across a marshy bit I can believe. Can you explain to me how a river manages to lie like it is in the scenario (rather than quickly ovetopping the hump under the bridge)? Can you explain how the hump under the bridge that's damming the river is formed? Usually water runs deep under bridges because they constrain the channel and this is definitely a soft bottom... And why there's no pool above the dam?

Or, if it's a canal (which wouldn't necessarily make a little waterfall at the bridge), can you explain how the fields got flooded?

[TheVulture]

Dear Jon. There's no watercourse there. No canal, no river.

Yes there is. Marshy ground around a river. The only quirk of the CM map is the marshy ground around the bridge, but that works in the attacker's advantage since it gives them more options.

[JonS]

There's no watercourse there. No canal, no river.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=49.341175,-1.548643&spn=0.040153,0.076647&z=14

[womble]

http://maps.google.com/?ll=49.341175,-1.548643&spn=0.040153,0.076647&z=14

What-ever. So it's a river. A river that floods one day and has zero flow the next? In Normandy.

Bull.

[Paper Tiger]

herr oberst

PaperTiger makes some incredibly good maps and battles.

Not in this campaign, he didn't I believe Sergei is responsible for the School/University missions.