Hoffnung Campaign 3rd scenario *SPOILERS*

[Erwin]

A different character to the first two as there are no engineers. So, the tanks can't find innovative ways across the map, but are forced to use roads and obvious openings that can (and are) covered by ATG's.

Combined with my fear of frequent bogging and immobilization as the ground continues to be wet, this turned out to be much more of an infantry-centric attack. That also resulted in about the same inf casualties as the first two scenarios added together - about 20 KIA + WIA.

But again, won a Tactical Victory even after all US surrendered around 12 minutes to go. This lack of victory levels that mean anything... Is that a design issue, or does the game system make it hard/impossible to provide meaningful victory levels?

Note: At start of 4th scenario briefing says that one will have "four 234/1's plus 3 Pumas," but I only got two 234/1's (plus 3 Pumas).

[Field Marshal Blücher]

But again, won a Tactical Victory even after all US surrendered around 12 minutes to go. This lack of victory levels that mean anything... Is that a design issue, or does the game system make it hard/impossible to provide meaningful victory levels?

No, that's mostly a design issue. Honestly I just didn't think it was that big of a deal.

Note: At start of 4th scenario briefing says that one will have "four 234/1's plus 3 Pumas," but I only got two 234/1's (plus 3 Pumas).

Have you lost two 234/1s? There should be four there.

[Erwin]

No it's not a biggy. It's just strange to always get the same "Tactical Victory" result. I do miss that in CM1 the level of victory seemed to (usually) have a direct reference to performance in the scenario.

Possibly thru bogging/immobilization in earlier scenarios I lost 2x234/1's. But, your briefing maybe should be edited to allow for the fact that one won't get the full complement of whatever due to losses in prior scenarios.

I just received my reinforcements and I am down to 3 Panthers and 2 Pz IV's. None of the tanks have been KIA, all but one were immobilized by wet terrain in prior scenarios, (one lost 2 crew).

I really recommend changing the weather to "Dry" for your otherwise xnt and fun campaign as losing so many units to conditions beyond my control and despite my very best efforts to use roads etc. is frustrating/irritating and not conducive to gameplay value/enjoyment.

(I suppose you could rationalize it and say that the losses are due to Allied ground attack aircraft, but then why not have aircraft?)

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Possibly thru bogging/immobilization in earlier scenarios I lost 2x234/1's. But, your briefing maybe should be edited to allow for the fact that one won't get the full complement of whatever due to losses in prior scenarios.

Noted. That should definitely have said "2 sections of" instead of "4."

I just received my reinforcements and I am down to 3 Panthers and 2 Pz IV's. None of the tanks have been KIA, all but one were immobilized by wet terrain in prior scenarios, (one lost 2 crew).

I really recommend changing the weather to "Dry" for your otherwise xnt and fun campaign as losing so many units to conditions beyond my control and despite my very best efforts to use roads etc. is frustrating/irritating and not conducive to gameplay value/enjoyment.

(I suppose you could rationalize it and say that the losses are due to Allied ground attack aircraft, but then why not have aircraft?)

I'm just so sorry to hear about all of the trouble you're having with bogging. I didn't have nearly as many problems when I playtested it, and none of my beta testers mentioned it as a major problem either. I honestly don't know what to say. Screwed by the random number generator? Or was I lucky? :confused:

[Erwin]

I read elsewhere that it's better to move tanks QUICK rather than SLOW as the "bogging to distance traveled ratio" is better that way.

But, that seems so counter-intuitive/unrealistic that I have not been able to bring myself to do that. It seems realistic that tanks move slowly and carefully to lessen bogging. Certainly there is less chance of damage to the tracks if tanks move SLOW through gates/fences - that seems realistic.

Out of curiosity can you poll your testers to find out how they moved their armor? On or off road and what speed?

BTW: Why did you eliminate the engineers (at least for the 3rd and 4th scenarios I have played)? I know my engineers were alive and even had a couple charges left after the 2nd scenario.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Out of curiosity can you poll your testers to find out how they moved their armor? On or off road and what speed?

Hmm, I lost most of their usernames. I can tell you what I did though: 99% of the time I used FAST move. I don't think I ever moved them SLOW, QUICK, or NORMAL, and I maybe used HUNT and REVERSE for the remaining 1%.

BTW: Why did you eliminate the engineers (at least for the 3rd and 4th scenarios I have played)? I know my engineers were alive and even had a couple charges left after the 2nd scenario.

You didn't split your forces, right? In that case I did it because the terrain was more open, and less in need of engineers. Your mileage may vary. I honestly never used engineers to blast holes for tanks in my playtesting, only infantry.