Combat Mission Fortress Italy

[LongBlade]

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?

[MengJiao]

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.

[Jarhead0331]

LB...how to you feel about CMBN and CWF?

[junk2drive]

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.

[LongBlade]

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.

[LongBlade]

LB...how to you feel about CMBN and CWF?

I didn't play either of them.

[Bison]

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.

[Bismarck]

Send out your scouts and grab OP positions. Be ready to sacrifice your point men.

[Jarhead0331]

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...

[LongBlade]

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.

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.

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.

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).

[LongBlade]

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.

[Bison]

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. 

[MengJiao]

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.

[Bismarck]

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.

[Bison]

Also what scenario are you playing LB?