Combat Mission Fortress Italy

[LongBlade]

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.

[Bison]

I haven't played either of those ones yet.  I fire one up this evening and give it a go.

[LongBlade]

Cool. I'll be interested to hear what you think.

[Bismarck]

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.

[LongBlade]

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?

[Bison]

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. 

[LongBlade]

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.

[Bison]

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/

[Bison]

Double post...uh...ummm...I've got nothing. 

GO VIKINGS!

[TheCommandTent]

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

[LongBlade]

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.

[Bison]

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.

[LongBlade]

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.

[Con]

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

[panzerde]

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.