I'm looking for a bit of help with this game.
I have to say I'm struggling to really enjoy it. I see it has all the requisite parts and I like how they come together. But somehow it's not quite as enjoyable as I am hoping it to be.
Eventually I am hoping to write a review about it but I am not comfortable discussing a game before I have a solid understanding of what I like and don't like about it. And right now I'm not exactly sure why I don't love the game and that makes me very uncomfortable.
I *think* it may be the scenario design.
In many tactical wargames there is generally very little time before you make contact with the enemy. But in Fortress Italy it seems that I am moving across half the map before I make contact.
My preference is to move my troops cautiously - either in Hunt mode or Slow until they make contact. But that generally sees them exhausted before they make contact. The alternative is to move them with the Move order, but that's generally used for when you don't think you'll make contact. So what gives here? It's like I have to play a mission twice - the first time to find where the enemy is, then the second time to leisurely walk my troops to a point just before contact and then order them to a more conservative movement order.
Any thoughts on this? What am I missing?
Quote from: LongBlade on September 06, 2012, 08:45:52 AM
I'm looking for a bit of help with this game.
I have to say I'm struggling to really enjoy it. I see it has all the requisite parts and I like how they come together. But somehow it's not quite as enjoyable as I am hoping it to be.
Eventually I am hoping to write a review about it but I am not comfortable discussing a game before I have a solid understanding of what I like and don't like about it. And right now I'm not exactly sure why I don't love the game and that makes me very uncomfortable.
I *think* it may be the scenario design.
In many tactical wargames there is generally very little time before you make contact with the enemy. But in Fortress Italy it seems that I am moving across half the map before I make contact.
My preference is to move my troops cautiously - either in Hunt mode or Slow until they make contact. But that generally sees them exhausted before they make contact. The alternative is to move them with the Move order, but that's generally used for when you don't think you'll make contact. So what gives here? It's like I have to play a mission twice - the first time to find where the enemy is, then the second time to leisurely walk my troops to a point just before contact and then order them to a more conservative movement order.
Any thoughts on this? What am I missing?
I haven't played CM:FI, but in CMBN:CWF I play in real time since you can set out your forces and just let them roll as long as you have scouts and overwatch and check to see your communications and artillery spotting is working from time to time. Then when the first enemy comes into view I pause the game and give new sets of orders. When I was playing a lot, I modified the scenarios to give the AI more options and variable appearances.
But, it still works (at least in real time) to have a flexible deployment while advancing and then progressively alter it as you spot the enemy.
LB...how to you feel about CMBN and CWF?
With CMx1 there seemed to be two primary types of players. Board gamers and Arcade gamers. Maybe some in between. The A's like quick contact and big action, the B's like big maps with lots of manouvering.
CMx2 added relative sighting, script AI and real time. Some of the scenario designers may still be trying to make CMx1 type play work in CMx2.
Either try a different scenario and/or try real time.
Quote from: junk2drive on September 06, 2012, 09:23:27 AM
With CMx1 there seemed to be two primary types of players. Board gamers and Arcade gamers. Maybe some in between. The A's like quick contact and big action, the B's like big maps with lots of manouvering.
CMx2 added relative sighting, script AI and real time. Some of the scenario designers may still be trying to make CMx1 type play work in CMx2.
Either try a different scenario and/or try real time.
Interesting observations.
I have been playing in real time. With CMx1 I played mostly turn-based, but with this generation it is much easier for me to coordinate troops in real time than turn-by-turn. I'm not sure why, but there it is.
I will try some more scenarios. So far I've only played two.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on September 06, 2012, 09:16:19 AM
LB...how to you feel about CMBN and CWF?
I didn't play either of them.
Well slow movement is for short distances so if you are moving for an extended distance and time in this manner, you will exhaust your troops. Very realistic. Do a low crawl for 20 meters and you feel it, especially with gear. The hunt movement is the correct choice if you "think" there is enemy in the treeline or you are having a squad clear an area. It should not tire your troops, but puts them in a position to react to fire quicker. Use slow if you "know" there is an enemy and you want to try and sneak a squad or team into position.
I think the scenarios are designed pretty realistic in the sense that they don't reward a pixel blitz to contact and beyond. Do it and your troops will be cut down quickly. It forces you to plan and move in a manner that takes advantage of troop types and terrain. Some of the contact setup is pretty easy to determine, based soley on "if I was the enemy what would I do?" See a hill at standoff distance with trees where you would put a sniper, machine gun or mortar unit? Chances are there is one there. So plan your movements to that location. Most of the time that means you can use some quick movement to cross the space and get into positon to start the clearing process. I'll pick a couple of squads to split a scout team off of and do the "conservative" movement out first. The remaining units I'll quick/move to follow behind. Usually at least two turns if you are playing turn based. I find that gives me ample time to redirect troops to contact and keep my units in command radius to effectively bring hell onto my enemy's positions or die in a valiant effort to execute a poor plan.
Now all that being said. It is not uncommon for me to have to play a scenario several times to learn it. Usually I'll start the game and look at my units, scroll around the map, give some movement orders to time distances and maybe make contact. I form a basic plan and restart the game and execute the plan. So I'd say your experience is pretty normal. It what attracts me to the game. Its not all guns blazing all the time combat.
I also think that we have been trained by many games to get into the action immediately with little thought outside of the initial setup. The exciting part is the gun fight and I can understand why dev's would focus on it, but the reality is most combat is setting up and waiting.
Send out your scouts and grab OP positions. Be ready to sacrifice your point men.
I think this topic actually raises a wider more general issue...real war is NEVER fun (unless you're a complete psychopath). Seriously, its either totally boring, totally tedious or totally terrifying. The more realistic a game models it, the less enjoyable it should, theoretically, be. Perhaps this is the reason why some people do not like CMBN? Because in some ways, its authentic...
First of all, I want to thank you for validating my experience with the game. My following comments aren't intended to be confontrational with you, but rather to discuss my perspective as I try to get a handle on a review for this game. Normally I don't like to discuss my gaming experiences ahead of time for a review, but in this case I'm dealing with a highly respected wargaming company and a highly respected wargaming franchise and I want to be 100% sure I understand what I'm looking at.
Quote from: Bison on September 06, 2012, 09:39:05 AM
It is not uncommon for me to have to play a scenario several times to learn it. Usually I'll start the game and look at my units, scroll around the map, give some movement orders to time distances and maybe make contact. I form a basic plan and restart the game and execute the plan. So I'd say your experience is pretty normal. It what attracts me to the game. Its not all guns blazing all the time combat.
That is my problem with the game. Playing a scenario several times feels like cheating to me. Being a lifelong civilian I realize I'm not a pro, but generally speaking I approach scenarios as if they were in the real world - you don't get do-overs. And for me, the problem with Fortress Italy is that it requires this do-over process in order to win. It isn't just using your units successfully or properly - it's walking around blind, getting chewed up, then going back and playing the game again until you figure it out. So it becomes less of a wargame and more of a puzzle. And I don't like puzzles much.
Now maybe that's how it works in the real world. I'm more comfortable playing wargames with lots of armor than I am an infantry guru. So although I consider myself a decent wargamer I will make allowances for the fact that my understanding of infantry tactics can always use improvement.
QuoteI also think that we have been trained by many games to get into the action immediately with little thought outside of the initial setup. The exciting part is the gun fight and I can understand why dev's would focus on it, but the reality is most combat is setting up and waiting.
This is a good observation. Yes, we are often placed in situations where we're about to lock horns.
Where I'm struggling with this game is in finding the line between what I think ought to be right versus what is realistically sound. No wargame is a perfect simulation, but I guess what I'm trying to determine is whether it is a failure on my part to adequately use infantry correctly, or whether it is a failure of scenario design to create a proper infantry simulation.
Frankly it could be a mix of both, but reading how you (
Bison) play scenarios multiple times before cracking them open leads me to believe that maybe it isn't just me that is the problem (though I could be part of it).
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on September 06, 2012, 09:56:15 AM
I think this topic actually raises a wider more general issue...real war is NEVER fun (unless you're a complete psychopath). Seriously, its either totally boring, totally tedious or totally terrifying. The more realistic a game models it, the less enjoyable it should, theoretically, be. Perhaps this is the reason why some people do not like CMBN? Because in some ways, its authentic...
Agreed.
But to read how Bison has to play a scenario several times over before he can beat it leads me to a conclusion that it isn't about competent infantry command, but rather solving a puzzle.
I may not be an infantry guru, but there *are* guys out there who are quite good. My question has a couple of dimensions: do I suck at infantry tactics? Is my experience typical of other gamers'? Do you need to be an infantry guru to play Fortress Italy competently (i.e. being able to win most of the time on the first go)?
Those are the questions I'd like answered before I write a review of this game.
To be honest. I consider my first game a recon of my status, the terrain and troops mostly. I don't think you have to play it several times to enjoy the game, but you will usually have to play it a few times to "win" the scenario. Not so much because the game is a puzzle like some other games where you are matching chits and math calculations to your advantage, but because there are so many considerations and avenues to approach and "win" the scenario.
I do think that infantry focused combat is much slower to develop. It has to be to preserve your troops. And frankly in a WW2 game, your armor too. The setup is the strategy part of the game, because once you make contact generally you are in a do or die situation and micromanaging your troops generally causes more issues. Unless you are in an open field and need to pull back for example, but generally you anticipate contact so you are setuping as best as you can given the situation. It's getting into position where the tactical strategy comes into play. How do I setup a machine gun in that house? Ok. I need to cover fire my mmg movement. How do I do that to best cover all angles of the approach? Holy shit! There's a sniper in the house down the road!!!! OK. Now what? Take cover and figure out how to take out the sniper.
Quote from: LongBlade on September 06, 2012, 09:58:01 AM
That is my problem with the game. Playing a scenario several times feels like cheating to me.
You're forgetting that in real life it is possible to blunder into the enemy and get beaten. Playing a scenario multiple times
is not a case of "in real life a particular enemy in a particular position is only encountered once and only in a
militarily perfect way and the game fails to show that" but rather -- given the
game is a simulation, the multiple times represent different possible sets of events -- not necesarily
one played fair and one by cheating, but simply different sets of things that could happen.
I agree, that when you know where the enemy is before the battle starts, that takes some of the fun out of the game, BUT
the AI can be varied (or you can play against other players -- I never do, but that's just me) and then the multiple possibilities
aspect of the game comes back to keep you guessing.
So at worst, blundering into the enemy is one possible outcome and (not necessarily cheating, but with a different approach)
having a good idea where they are leads to different sets of possible outcomes.
You can also try different approaches even once you know where the enemy is. This isn't necessarily cheating. it can be viewed
as simulating different approaches to a situation.
Winning does not necessarily equate to fun. Ask yourself if the game bores you or doesn't work like advertised. Is the interface bad? Are the scenarios unreasonable?
Of, playing a scenario might not help; the AI can change.
Also what scenario are you playing LB?
Quote from: Bison on September 06, 2012, 10:52:09 AM
Also what scenario are you playing LB?
Catch a Tiger and Casa Nostra.
I did like Catch a Tiger but even playing through twice I lost. Not that I have to win all the time, but generally speaking I'm a pretty good wargamer and I usually don't get my butt handed to me on a regular basis on medium difficulty settings. This is different, but I don't think it's because of poor gameplay on my part. The scenarios really seem to require multiple playthroughs and that bothers me.
I haven't played either of those ones yet. I fire one up this evening and give it a go.
Cool. I'll be interested to hear what you think.
Quote from: LongBlade on September 06, 2012, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: Bison on September 06, 2012, 10:52:09 AM
Also what scenario are you playing LB?
Catch a Tiger and Casa Nostra.
I did like Catch a Tiger but even playing through twice I lost. Not that I have to win all the time, but generally speaking I'm a pretty good wargamer and I usually don't get my butt handed to me on a regular basis on medium difficulty settings. This is different, but I don't think it's because of poor gameplay on my part. The scenarios really seem to require multiple playthroughs and that bothers me.
OTOH, when I pay $50 and whip thru the scenarios quick, I feel cheated. Playing several times is good.
Quote from: Bismarck on September 06, 2012, 11:09:33 AM
OTOH, when I pay $50 and whip thru the scenarios quick, I feel cheated. Playing several times is good.
That's a fair point and raises an interesting question: is it reasonable to expect to win a wargame scenario without having played it before?
Quote from: LongBlade on September 06, 2012, 11:24:24 AM
Quote from: Bismarck on September 06, 2012, 11:09:33 AM
OTOH, when I pay $50 and whip thru the scenarios quick, I feel cheated. Playing several times is good.
That's a fair point and raises an interesting question: is it reasonable to expect to win a wargame scenario without having played it before?
Not if the game is worth it price in salt.
Quote from: Bison on September 06, 2012, 11:28:11 AM
Not if the game is worth it price in salt.
Hmmm.
I can't tell you how many wargames I play where I win scenarios on the first go. It feels like I'm cheating if I have to play the game to figure out where the units are and then play again to try and beat them.
Sure. But how quickly do you tire of a game that there is not tactical counterweight to you by your AI opponent? /cough/ Fields of Glory /cough/
Double post...uh...ummm...I've got nothing.
GO VIKINGS!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthesportdigest.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FMinnesota-Vikings-logo.jpg&hash=b3f4c2a5cb145b482cbc496a26dcd9c480cef991)
Very interesting thread LB as I have been experiencing alot of the same things you mentioned.
Good points by everyone else to consider. The only thing I would add would be to wonder if your experience would change were you to play a PBEM against an actual human and not the AI?
I posted this in the screenshot thread but I figured I would post it here again. I did find one effective way to deal with enemy when they are met in the field of battle. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTnp6uICass
Quote from: TheCommandTent on September 06, 2012, 06:23:27 PM
The only thing I would add would be to wonder if your experience would change were you to play a PBEM against an actual human and not the AI?
I don't think so because there is a lot of uncertainty as to when you make contact with the enemy.
Maybe I'm not trusting the friendly AI enough to take cover when they're moving under a standard Move order. But I have been ingrained to move guys in these scenarios using a Hunt or Slow and I am reluctant to have them just mosey down the way when we know we're going to get into contact at some point in the near future. Call me crazy, but that just seems odd, regardless of whether I win or lose a scenario.
My other question also remains unanswered - can these scenarios be consistently beaten on a first pass by someone who has never seen them before? While I can understand the replayability factor, I am not satisfied with a game that requires me to learn the special solution rather than using sound doctrine. I'm not convinced that's 100% the case here, but that's what my gut is telling me. And how that question is answered will mean the difference between a game being a wargame and a game just being a game with a war veneer and a puzzle solution.
I think you can beat them first time go at beginner levels. But at the more advanced levels there are bonuses that kick in and with the uncertainty of the map, it makes it much more difficult to do so. I'm sure someone who plays Combat Misson exclusively could do it, but not a casual player. I think there are aspects to the how the engines works that need to be fully understood to take full advantage of them. Its not that the game is a puzzle any more than any other wargame, they all are to some extent. Sound tactics do work, but there are so many factors that have a say in how the tactics work out in the end that even a doctrinally sound plan will fail. Its the whole adapt to the situation thingy and don't get stuck on what doctrine says.
Quote from: Bison on September 06, 2012, 07:32:34 PM
I think you can beat them first time go at beginner levels. But at the more advanced levels there are bonuses that kick in and with the uncertainty of the map, it makes it much more difficult to do so. I'm sure someone who plays Combat Misson exclusively could do it, but not a casual player. I think there are aspects to the how the engines works that need to be fully understood to take full advantage of them. Its not that the game is a puzzle any more than any other wargame, they all are to some extent. Sound tactics do work, but there are so many factors that have a say in how the tactics work out in the end that even a doctrinally sound plan will fail. Its the whole adapt to the situation thingy and don't get stuck on what doctrine says.
That's what I wanted to hear.
Like I said, I could get better with the game. But I have lingering suspicions that something else might be at work. I'll start discounting that theory and give this some more time.
Just my 2 cents
This is a game and as such there is abstractions that take place. Real world tactics will be rewarded but it is impossible to provide you the real life inputs you would get if you were standing in a field with scopes looking at various types of cover and getting ready to order troops and men that you have trained with to go into certain harms way. Your decision making loop will be different by necessity. Following orders timing and spotting will all be abstracted to a certain degree from reality.
Also WWII was very bloody in terms of todays conflicts (not to say modern warfare isn't bloody but there has not been a real clash of two well matched modern armies on a battlefield since the 70's I am guessing). The abstraction of the game extends to the feeling that you should be able to get through the mission with zero casualties. Add in the fact that a scenario is going to try and make it interesting by setting you up. A good designer will try and put you into a mismatch and force you into poor and terrible choices. These existed in the real world as well but many times could be negated by pulling back and letting the arty pound the living daylights out of the position you needed to take. That does not make for a fun game.
So I would not put too much stock in saying that you are only Patton-like if you can win a decisive victory the first time you play a tactical wargame scenario like CMBN.
As an aside it would be interesting to put real military commanders Majors etc into a scenario cold with no fore knowledge and see how they do. I think they would have very similar results to us armchair generals.
Con
Certainly I beat a lot of CM scenarios on Veteran with a single play through. I can beat some on Elite with a single play through, but usually with higher casualties than I'd like. I'll often end up replaying a scenario not so much to win, but just to see if I can decrease casualties.
I find that the CM games at higher difficulty levels are really unforgiving of even small mistakes. Too often I tend to get focused on a small tactical issue ("if I just move this tank up a bit further I can get that enemy APC" that blinds me to the fact that I'm doing something that's not a great idea in the larger scheme of things. With difficult scenarios, that's costly.
I'm about to sit down for my fifth or sixth straight night playing through a particular CM:SF scenario. I've restarted this at least four or five times. Not so much because I'm using the restarts to scout out enemy positions, but rather to train myself to be a better tactician, and to stop doing things like getting micro-focused and sending armor into a built-up area without support.
I just started playing on Elite a couple of weeks ago, and it feels just like when I first started playing on Veteran. I replayed a couple of scenarios to death, until I stopped making the mistakes that got my pixeltruppen killed. After that, I won a lot of scenarios on Veteran the first time through.
Having said that, I find that I really, really enjoying playing through the scenario multiple times. For me, winning is cool, but I really love the learning I get but trying different things.
I find that the CM games aren't the only games like this. Tiller's Squad Battles can be just as unforgiving and require multiple play throughs.
Isn't it that in real life, soldiers will do rehearsals before the actual mission? Treat your several run throughs as rehearsals. :) [Or maybe this is just for special forces and not WW2 grunts].
I only play CMx2 games in real time. Why? Because I'm not satisfied with the AI of your own troops. Sometimes they will not react properly (as trained) when left alone. At least in real time, I just let them march on in normal mode. Pause the game immediately when we make contact and react accordingly. Also easier to time and coordinate bounding overwatch.
Does anyone know how the different difficulty levels affect the AI. I.E. bonuses etc?
I've been struggling with this game too. It reminds me of when CMBN first came out the AI would kick my butt royaly, it always spotted my troops first and then the one shot hit would occur( the Cats chasing Dogs scenario was the worst). The result was I played paranoid, barely creeping forward and then having to rush to complete the vic. condition before the turns ran out. After a while and the first good patch came out, I got better and now usually play on the Warrior level and win mostly. CMFI I'm having the same problems, the AI always sees me first and then usually kills my forces with some incredibly accurate shooting. The Cosa Nostra scen. I won after dropping the difficulity down to Veteran but only barely and only after the Italians, who were suppossed to be poor costal infantry, fought like lions and after plastering the target building with mortars and mmg's and then crawling forward. The scen. went well past the turn limit. I think this game will improve significantly after a patch or two. Now it feels more difficult than CMBN.
You guys both make valid points and I fall somewhere in between.
I don't expect to lose nothing. However, I'm getting my head handed to me even at the easy level. That normally doesn't happen. Clearly I have more to learn about the game.
That said, I find it strange that little of my previous experience is helping me here. I've wargamed a long time. Fortress Italy is a different game. I guess I'm going to have to dig deeper to discover more of how it works.
For an edge of your seat moment by moment AAR go here:
http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=62660 (http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=62660)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on September 06, 2012, 09:56:15 AM
I think this topic actually raises a wider more general issue...real war is NEVER fun (unless you're a complete psychopath). Seriously, its either totally boring, totally tedious or totally terrifying. The more realistic a game models it, the less enjoyable it should, theoretically, be. Perhaps this is the reason why some people do not like CMBN? Because in some ways, its authentic...
Excellent point - I always raise it in the "realism" discussions about FPSs.
Sorry to go OT, but it just leaped out at me.