Panzers Marsch Campaign request for help

[ss11955]

1st mission- reached 4 obj. OK and returned and exited OK--only 350 of 1000 pts. secured? Need help on how to SPOT enemy units ? Thanks. Jim

[Pak40]

**Spoilers**

It's not a mission that's critical to win in the campaign. If you are able to spot enough enemy locations then you benefit from seeing where certain fortifications are located for next battle. If you gain enough points to "win" the battle then you get to play an "easier" version of 2nd mission.

I was not able to get enough points to get the easier version. The 1st mission is very hard because you're ordered to probe enemy lines at night with just a few infantry and several vehicles, which in my opinion, is the exact wrong way to probe at night. You are given too few infantry to probe in force and the vehicles aren't exactly stealthy. Anyway, I think the campaign designers purposely made this a hard battle to win - so don't fret too much on it.

[Sublime]

What I do is leave the vehicles in place. I have all the crews dismount. I select one crew with one soldier to hit the VL spots. But the rest of the troops I take on the on the right, (if you're facing the american lines, using the road bisecting them in half) cross the road that runs along the front, and have them creep up the hedge bordering the big field in front of the farm. With short cover arcs they eventually spot a lot of American infantry. Then I have them open fire, kill some Ami's and run for it. Also useful because you see their front lines - which get airburst 150mm next morning

[winkelried]

What I do is leave the vehicles in place. I have all the crews dismount. I select one crew with one soldier to hit the VL spots. But the rest of the troops I take on the on the right, (if you're facing the american lines, using the road bisecting them in half) cross the road that runs along the front, and have them creep up the hedge bordering the big field in front of the farm. With short cover arcs they eventually spot a lot of American infantry. Then I have them open fire, kill some Ami's and run for it. Also useful because you see their front lines - which get airburst 150mm next morning

I basically did the same - works perfectly - just be careful that your crews don't get dropped. recon at night is ok - hunt with a very small cover arc so your guys remain stealthy - worked some times.

[ss11955]

What I do is leave the vehicles in place. I have all the crews dismount. I select one crew with one soldier to hit the VL spots. But the rest of the troops I take on the on the right, (if you're facing the american lines, using the road bisecting them in half) cross the road that runs along the front, and have them creep up the hedge bordering the big field in front of the farm. With short cover arcs they eventually spot a lot of American infantry. Then I have them open fire, kill some Ami's and run for it. Also useful because you see their front lines - which get airburst 150mm next morning

THANK YOU "Sublime" and "Winkelried"---Can't wait to try it!!!!!!!!!! Jim

[Pak40]

Hey guys,

I'm not knocking the way you all play campaigns, to each his own. But, if I may suggest playing out the campaign the way the designers intended. If, after every battle you lose, you load a saved game in order to win it, then you're basically cheating yourself out of re-playability. Campaigns have branching paths of battles depending on how well or bad you do. If you only play the "winning" path every time then you're not really getting the full experience of the campaigns.

I suggest you play the campaigns out with losses and all. Then at a later date you can replay the campaign. The second time you play it you'll probably win all or most of the battles anyway, but you'll also probably get to play some different battles giving you a different experience. Just a suggestion.

[Erwin]

It's useful to save games at intervals so you can go back to that point and try for a different result to get to the alternative scenarios. (Hint: It's usually easier to get a "Lose" result.)

[Pak40]

It's useful to save games at intervals so you can go back to that point and try for a different result to get to the alternative scenarios. (Hint: It's usually easier to get a "Lose" result.)

Usually. I'm not knocking the saves because the game saves automatically after each battle anyway. Just suggesting that the attitude that "I must win every battle" isn't the best way to experience the campaigns (IMO).

[ss11955]

Hey guys,

I'm not knocking the way you all play campaigns, to each his own. But, if I may suggest playing out the campaign the way the designers intended. If, after every battle you lose, you load a saved game in order to win it, then you're basically cheating yourself out of re-playability. Campaigns have branching paths of battles depending on how well or bad you do. If you only play the "winning" path every time then you're not really getting the full experience of the campaigns.

I suggest you play the campaigns out with losses and all. Then at a later date you can replay the campaign. The second time you play it you'll probably win all or most of the battles anyway, but you'll also probably get to play some different battles giving you a different experience. Just a suggestion.

question---if you "lose" a battle(mission) is the next one "easier" or "more difficult" Thanks.

[JyriErik]

question---if you "lose" a battle(mission) is the next one "easier" or "more difficult" Thanks.

That depends on the campaign. Not sure about this campaign, but i know that the Road to Mountecourt campaign winning at least one mission makes the nezt mission easier (and you have to win other missions to advance at all). That said, from what I can tell, the biggest effect in Panzers Marsch for the next scenario is your losses will affect what you have available for later missions.

Jyri

[Pak40]

question---if you "lose" a battle(mission) is the next one "easier" or "more difficult" Thanks.

As JyriErik mentioned, it completely is up to the campaign designer. They have the ability to make semi-dynamic campaigns. Ie, all the battles are pre-made but your success/failure will determine which is the next battle played.

There is a really cool tool for download in the repository that will break down all of the campaigns' battles and how they're linked. LINK

[Paper Tiger]

In many cases, losing a mission will send you to a variant of the original mission or even a whole new one. I usually punish players who lose missions in some logical way in my campaigns and the more missions you lose, the more the penalties accumulate until you are eventually ejected from the campaign. 'USMC Gung Ho!' is a good example of this when losses mean that you will not receive additional support in subsequent missions. However, I have been known to punish players who win every mission by giving them a tougher opponent to face in the next mission ('The Road to Dinas' was the first campaign to feature this)

It's up to the player to decide if he wants to win every mission or to suck the loss up, accept the consequences of his loss and follow the story. I prefer the latter but I suspect that I am in the minority here.

[Sublime]

Usually. I'm not knocking the saves because the game saves automatically after each battle anyway. Just suggesting that the attitude that "I must win every battle" isn't the best way to experience the campaigns (IMO).

Actually I only got this wealth of experience because I play CMBN too much. When I play campaigns I dont do reloads or anything, I take my casualties as is etc etc. Unless I lose the campaign. Then I refight the whole battle. All this experience comes from playing Road to Montebourg 3 times, and Panzers Marsch 3 times. It helped there was no other German campaigns.

I prefer campaigns GREATLY to other modes of play...

[Erwin]

"punish players who win every mission by giving them a tougher opponent to face in the next mission ('The Road to Dinas' was the first campaign to feature this)"

And I thought that was a really good idea, since the whole point is to maintain a level of entertaining challenge for whatever skill-level the player may have.

In terms of variety, it is nice to have easy "restful" scenarios amidst the hard ones. But, it's horrible when scenarios just get easier and easier thru a campaign, or if due to bad losses in one scenario you end up three scenarios later and realize that you no longer have the units to continue with, and you have to restart and replay a whole bunch of the same scenarios.

[Pak40]

In many cases, losing a mission will send you to a variant of the original mission or even a whole new one. I usually punish players who lose missions in some logical way in my campaigns and the more missions you lose, the more the penalties accumulate until you are eventually ejected from the campaign. 'USMC Gung Ho!' is a good example of this when losses mean that you will not receive additional support in subsequent missions. However, I have been known to punish players who win every mission by giving them a tougher opponent to face in the next mission ('The Road to Dinas' was the first campaign to feature this)

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with successive losses resulting in penalizing the player. A good CO should realize when his units need additional help to get the job done. I.e., if Company A has failed twice to take a hill, then the Battalion C.O. is not likely to send them up a 3rd time without additional assets. Just doesn't make sense.

However, I do like the idea that if the player keeps winning that it should get tougher for him. After all, everyone likes a challenge more than a cake walk.

[winkelried]

But, it's horrible ... if due to bad losses in one scenario you end up three scenarios later and realize that you no longer have the units to continue with, and you have to restart and replay a whole bunch of the same scenarios.

i think the campaign designer should warn you about - or at least give some hints in the briefing - what could happen, but in the end, this brings things close to reality. economy of force is one of the key aspects of military leadership. btw i currently work on a campaign, where this aspect is pretty important. it will be important that the commander even choses to retreat (exit & lose a battle) so that he conserves his forces in the face of a superior enemy - "to fight another day".

[Erwin]

Be sure to warn us. We have been conditioned to think in games that there is always a way to win.

[Paper Tiger]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with successive losses resulting in penalizing the player. A good CO should realize when his units need additional help to get the job done. I.e., if Company A has failed twice to take a hill, then the Battalion C.O. is not likely to send them up a 3rd time without additional assets. Just doesn't make sense.

However, I do like the idea that if the player keeps winning that it should get tougher for him. After all, everyone likes a challenge more than a cake walk.

All good points. Just wait and see what the Commonwealth module brings But let's not derail a thread about help for the German campaign.

[Sublime]

And with that I have to put in my final point about the Panzers Marsch campaign. Whether you drive home your attacks or conserve your men - you're heading for disaster. Non fanatic German officers at the time, and almost anyone with a grasp of the history of the Battle for Normandy knows any German counterattack is doomed to get plastered with fire, if not immediately then soon.

The best advice is try to slog through so your objectives are met so your families arent victims of the 'Sippenhaft' and save as many of your soldiers as possible for the defense of the Reich!

[ss11955]

Thank you "Sublime" ,"Paper Tiger","Erwin","winkelried","Pak40" and the other Gamers who offered info,advice etc. Much appreciated !!! The more i get into this game ,the more i appreciate efforts of the Designers. Too bad WW2 games seem to be on the way out--i think they-- (WW2) and Middle Ages PC games --(Total War ) are superb !!!!! Jim