Hoffnung feedback 2nd scenario (SPOILERS)

[Erwin]

(WEGO Warrior) Completed the 2nd scenario and it was as much fun as the first, and quite different. Game auto ended with a few turns left. Won a Tactical Victory, but I thought I did better and have no idea what the US did to get a 500 point bonus.

Issues: I chose earlier to concentrate my forces and go for the village rather than the woods scenario. However, the 2nd inf company was wasted. While I used all the armor for support, the 2nd company was basically left sitting in the rear while 1 Co did the entire job. I don't think the map is large enuff for 2 companies of inf and I would have probably suffered unnecessary casualties just cos there would be so many extra targets for the US.

It may be wiser to split ones forces when one is asked. However, due to excessive bogging of the armor, it would be a lot harder to win with half the number of tanks.

Re Bogging... Caution: One can QUICK move wheeled vehicles all over the place in wet conditions and I don't recall ever seeing one bog. Tanks, esp German on the other hand, bog and get immobilized so often that you would think that nations would have abandoned tracked vehicle designs and converted everything to wheeled vehicles since in CMBN they can safely speed anywhere in any wet condition. I use SLOW almost all the time now with armor, and there still seems to be a 30% chance of bogging/immobilization in any damp/wet conditions even on roads.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

(WEGO Warrior) Completed the 2nd scenario and it was as much fun as the first, and quite different. Game auto ended with a few turns left. Won a Tactical Victory, but I thought I did better and have no idea what the US did to get a 500 point bonus.

Re: Tactical Victory: in this campaign, don't worry about the level of victory. I think the best you can do in any scenario is Tactical Victory, so consider that a Total Victory for yourself!

Re: Enemy Bonus: The "Bonus" Parameter is a points bonus that that side gets regardless of what happens in the game. It's an easy way to set up what the player needs to to get a win: get enough points over 500 and you win it!

Issues: I chose earlier to concentrate my forces and go for the village rather than the woods scenario. However, the 2nd inf company was wasted. While I used all the armor for support, the 2nd company was basically left sitting in the rear while 1 Co did the entire job. I don't think the map is large enuff for 2 companies of inf and I would have probably suffered unnecessary casualties just cos there would be so many extra targets for the US.

Good to know. If you stay concentrated, you can expect a wee bit of overkill.

It may be wiser to split ones forces when one is asked. However, due to excessive bogging of the armor, it would be a lot harder to win with half the number of tanks.

Interesting perspective!

Re Bogging... Caution: One can QUICK move wheeled vehicles all over the place in wet conditions and I don't recall ever seeing one bog. Tanks, esp German on the other hand, bog and get immobilized so often that you would think that nations would have abandoned tracked vehicle designs and converted everything to wheeled vehicles since in CMBN they can safely speed anywhere in any wet condition. I use SLOW almost all the time now with armor, and there still seems to be a 30% chance of bogging/immobilization in any damp/wet conditions even on roads.

Interesting--I didn't experience very much trouble with bogging during my playtesting, and I mostly used "FAST." I suspect the bogging mechanics may need looking into if the wheeled vehicles are better about avoiding bogging than the tracked vehicles.

Thanks for the feedback, Erwin!

[TheVulture]

Interesting--I didn't experience very much trouble with bogging during my playtesting, and I mostly used "FAST." I suspect the bogging mechanics may need looking into if the wheeled vehicles are better about avoiding bogging than the tracked vehicles.

Thanks for the feedback, Erwin!

Well it's not the case that any tracked vehicle should bog less than any wheeled vehicle. Just that any given vehicle will do better with tracks than with wheels. The wheeled vehicles in these scenarios are trucks (light, especially when unloaded) and PSW 234 recon cars (8 wheels, pretty light, designed for maneouverability). The tracked vehicles are Pz IVs and Panthers - pretty heavy beasts. I'd wager that a Panther would bog an awful lot faster if it had 4 wheels rather than tracks...

Back in CMBB days there was some debate about whether 'slow' moves were an improvement or not. The suspicion was that while 'slow' gave you fewer boggings and immobilisations per turn that 'fast', you actually ended up with more boggings per unit distance travelled, and so to get from A to B, a fast move would actually give you the greatest chance of getting there unbogged.

I can't remember what the testing on that showed though.

But as I've mentioned elsewhere, my first time through the campaign I lost 6 tanks to bogging, and 1 to enemy fire before I admitted defeat. It was a big problem...

[Erwin]

The other issue is that as in the first scenario there seems only one reasonable plan to follow. I used engineers to blast vehicular holes in the bocage on the right flank and sent a couple Co platoons and 2 Panther and 2 MkIV's towards the large buildings to the right - expecting them to be defended. They were surprisingly not. (I suggest placing at least an MG, sniper, AT team or squad in those large buildings if only to slow down the German player.)

But once again, only having one clearly superior axis of advance limits replayability.

I did send my recon units to check out the left flank approach and as I feared it was easily covered by an AT gun which promptly KO'd a Puma. Two or three 81 mortar attacks on the gun failed to KO it which wasted time and shells - most irritating even when shells were landing a few feet away from the gun. So, in the end, direct tank fire accounted for all 3 of the guns. After that I was able to move a Panther and PzIV supported by a squad along the left flank simply to deal with the enemy mortars behind the church and infantry in that area.

Lost maybe 10 casualties and a Puma vs 50+ US plus 3 ATG's and a couple mortars. Given the fact that I didn't not use Co 2 at all, I wonder if I should have chosen the SPLIT forces option earlier.

BTW: "The suspicion was that while 'slow' gave you fewer boggings and immobilisations per turn that 'fast', you actually ended up with more boggings per unit distance travelled, and so to get from A to B, a fast move would actually give you the greatest chance of getting there unbogged." I find this untenable as a simulation of RL since tracked vehicles were created largely to move through the mud etc where wheeled vehicles bogged regularly.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

The other issue is that as in the first scenario there seems only one reasonable plan to follow. I used engineers to blast vehicular holes in the bocage on the right flank and sent a couple Co platoons and 2 Panther and 2 MkIV's towards the large buildings to the right - expecting them to be defended. They were surprisingly not. (I suggest placing at least an MG, sniper, AT team or squad in those large buildings if only to slow down the German player.)

But once again, only having one clearly superior axis of advance limits replayability.

Heh, just like in the first mission, this wasn't the route I used when playtesting . . . there is another one.

[Erwin]

Well, I am sure one can try any route. The one I chose happened to be maybe too easy. I would always defend the flanks as a defender, and in this case it was easy to roll up the US left flank (German R flank).

[Erwin]

One problem I have with this campaign (as the ground is wet) is that bogging and immobilization of armor is the BIGGEST problem. The tanks bog/immobilize very quickly, and it's completely unrealistic to have to move them FAST because the "bogging/meter" ratio is lower. If they keep bogging/immobilizing at this rate I will have hardly any armor left in two more scenarios.

There is something quite wrong when wheeled vehicles can be driven with abandon across open fields and thru woods at QUICK and nothing ever seems to happen to them, while at the halfway point armor moving SLOW has already bogged 2 tanks. The whole point of tracked vehicles is that they could go where wheeled vehicles could not in muddy conditions especially.

If we got them back in the next scenario it would be acceptable, but I just don't believe this rate of immobilization reflects RL.