Bit disappointed with the MCDF.

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 3:36 am

Quite appart from having some technical problems with MCDF, I'm a bit disappointed with the whole concept. The whole force management aspect has been removed, it doesn't feel like playing a campaign at all, more like a series of scenarios.

Don't get me wrong, the scenarios themselves are extremely fun to play, but there is little "campaign feeling". Even the names of the leaders change and the kill scores are removed between battles - but that might be because of my technical problems?

Even if we want to keep the force composition historical, I think that could be done by limiting the choice of equipment to that available to the DAK in 1941, and you could even force the player to stay within category (tanks, infantry, armored cars, etc). The available equipment could be affected by the outcome of your battles: after some victories, you could get access to captured equipment for your core force, maybe the occasional Matilda?

And not being able to deploy my core force myself SUCKS! Deploying decides half the battle plan. Now you have to go with the preset deployment which severly limits your options. This is the worst part of the Mega-Campaign concept.

[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 3:40 am

Yogi, I had the same issue with not being able to pick core force as well. That is part of what makes a campaign fun - where to spend your points. I've gotten over it though. I see some advantages in doing it this way - the scenario designer has more control if he knows your core composition, and can therefore create a better scenario.

But given the choice, i'd choose to pick the core force.

Warrior · Post by **Warrior** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 3:46 am

I see your points, but all in all I'm still very glad I bought the Mega Campaign. **Even while it was in development we were told how it was going to be.** I, for one, don't like not being able to save in the middle of a battle, but there are reasons for everything. Overall, I think the Mega Campaign is great and can't wait to order the East Front version.

[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: Warrior ]

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 3:48 am

The way I see it is that this is a long, carefully crafted SPWAW experience. It isn't the same as your standard campaign... The Mega-Campaign is awesome, cause you can make decisions about which battles you play. As far as I can tell, my units do keep their kill counts between battles, but I feel like the cost of the CD (apart from unconditional support of matrix at this point) is worth it for the series of focused North Africa scenarios alone, not to mention the coolness of playing through the story of the North African Campaign with such detail...

Tomo

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 4:47 am

Perhaps an explanation of the purpose and intent of the Mega Campaign would help.

It was not meant to be another "campaign," where you could pick whatever forces you felt you might need.

Instead it is a type of "role playing" game, with as much history as we could cram into it except for some "hypothetical" situations, such as invading Tobruk Harbor, or the Raid on Malta.

The very reason we did not allow the purchase of units was to try to keep it within that framework. Thus a semi-historical kampfgruppe is chosen to represent the units of the Afrika Korps.

Another reason was so that we could keep the unit historical without bizarre choices of units that really did not fit the battles we wanted to include.

True, many might have picked just what was offered, but there are some that might have picked something entirely out of context thus mutilating the historical character we wanted to give to the game.

Mega Campaign is different. It may not be to the liking of all. That is true of the regular campaigns too.

Personally, I enjoy both very much, if they are well crafted and provide challenge and fun with a historical flavor.

Wild Bill

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 5:18 am

Yes as Bill points out, the Mega Campaign is designed to give you the feeling of being part of that epic struggle. You are stuck with the men and machines that are your Unit, and you assume your place in the line of battle as you r superiors have designated! You have the sort of challanges and restrictions that your counterpart in reality suffered under.

So, No, this is not your ordinary "campaign" where you can weild a magic sword and control all the details of force compositiona and placement....you have to decide teh sort of things more relevant to a Battalion commander: o I press on or wait for reinforcements,? DO I attempt eploit my victory or consolidate gains?

TO me its a much different and in many ways far more reqardig and insightful sort of campaign than hoping I have enough points to upgrade my PZIIIh's to PZIV F2's

Well done to Wild Bill, and look out for just as impressive an effort as we move East!

MacCready · Post by **MacCready** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 6:48 am

I like the mega campaign concept,it puts alot of pressure on the commander to obtain the set objectives.

If you like purchasing your forces ,just go back to the standard campaigns.

Cheers.

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 6:56 am

The mega-campaign conccept is sound,re-playable and above all enjoyable. Do more and don't change it.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 8:42 am

I just wish I had more dismounts!!

Tomo

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 9:04 am

I think that its like in real combat (though I've never been there), as an officer when you get to your unit your CO says; welcome LT, you go to 3rd Pltn and you get what they have. I think that this adds to the games realism.

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 10:29 am

Randy hit the nail slap on the head...bullseye.

The whole idea is you are assigned a command. You don't have the luxury of walking throught the division and saying, "I'll take these guys, and two of these tanks..."

No, you take what is there and make the best of it. There can't be a greater challenge than that. Mold your men into real warriors!

Develop them as they are with what they have.
Now there is the mark of a real commander!

And as far as wishing, what commander has not said before, in and after battle, "I wish I had..."

But again, you are to improvise and overcome Herr Oberst.

Rommel your commander did it. He expects the same from you

Wild Bill

ruxius · Post by **ruxius** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 2:24 pm

Good obs here..and I am very happy SPWAW can offer so a wide variety of different approaches :
We have :

WWII long campaign just the first step to practise (only for a first contact with campaign mentality )

Campaign generator as a better level of practising (more customizable options , campaigns also for minor nations..)

Human designed campaigns -the best possible level of fun before MEgacd...historical design and a director's cut..
A little more freedom than MEgacd.you can choice your units even constraints are
limited only to rarity factors...

MEGACD the actual best level ...
You described well its charachteristics...

Congratulations !
We can never say this game may be boring if boring means to do always the same thing !

and scenarios..
now Megac as a new concept of playing..

These approach

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 3:40 pm

Again, my main objection is that my forces are predeployed in each scenario. This is not realistic and leaves me basicly as the executor of a premade plan - with all the forces deployed and their formation objectives set.

But even if the player does not get to pick his core force (and this is OK by me), there should be some force management in handling replacements.

Let me give you an example: say you loose a few PzKpfw-IIIe tanks in one scenario. As it is, they will just be replaced. It would be more interesting if there was some alternatives - do I use my limited replacement points to substitute them for PzII's? Or do I soldier on with what I have, hoping that I will eventually be able to replace them with brand new Pz-III's? Or can I perhaps commander a few disabled Crusaders into DAK service?

Wehrmacht outfits were rarely at establishment strenght. The resulting scrounging and the need to preserve forces (because there might not BE any replacements to be had - at all!) could only add to the realsim and flavour of the Mega-Campaign.

Panzer Capta · Post by **Panzer Capta** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 7:40 pm

In war, as in life, it is rare that we can pick and choose the tools to help us achieve our goals and objectives. We have to work with what is given to us. This requires improvision and foresight......and this is how we improve as individuals (or as field commanders).

Panzer Captain

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 8:14 pm

While very pleased with the Mega Campaign, i have to agree with Yogi on this. Even if we can't pick core force (realistic and fine with me), not being able to deploy causes one of two things, either you go with a plan that is picked for you (because of lack of turns), or you spend three turns driving your forces into position. Force mamagement is also a fun part of the game, and it would be very interesting to get a limited/historical choice including captured equipment.

Also, loosing tanks in MCNA isn't as big a problem as in regular campaigns - i get full TOE regardless of outcome in previous game, and my crews seem to keeps their same experience, even if they were all killed. They do seem to loose a little moral, but that is all.

If given a choice, i'd pick my core force and deployment in the MC.

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 10:14 pm

To respond to Yogi's objection of pre-disposition of troops, I must in part disagree.

In some instances we were forced to pre-dispose troops, especially in Raiding, amphibious assault and other unique scenarios.

The second factor was that defensive scenarios required some key initial placements before the scenario begins.

In MEs, Advances and Assaults the offensive side is often placed out of the line of fire, by formation but with room and time for the human player to realign his forces before attacking ... or he can go ahead with the current setup.

Finally, the majority of gamers out there do not want to spend 4-8 turns lining up there troops, which does take some time.

Now I know you are stating your personal preference and that is fine. No problem or objection to you doing so.

I just want it understood why we do what we do sometimes. Again, a Mega Campaign is different. It has to be. It's uniqueness is appealing to a lot of folks and not so appealing to some.

I do wish we could grant every wish, make every game the best for every player, but there are just too many variables to consider to do that.

Your post is a good one, Yogi, and you certainly have the right to let us know your feelings. In fact, I appreciate it very much.

Wild Bill

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 10:16 pm

As far as the MC goes, I don't agree that we should be able to pick replacements, but I do most strongly agree that we should be able to set the objectives and deployment ourselves. If the units were given more orders as default for each turn, or there were more turns itself, it would do much to improve it.

I'm not saying that MC should immitate the regular campaigns, but in the regular ones you have the 'minimum' of 30 turns, alongside being able to deploy yourself. It's rather a shock to have predetermined objectives and probably a slew of mines to clear. If I ever get around to playing the MC, that is once I'm comfortable with how the new version works, it looks as though the only possible remedy is to use tons of smoke, and perhaps that will be lacking (those Italian SGIIIB looking things might be good for something afterall).

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Wed Jul 25, 2001 12:40 am

Do all the units get replenished after every battle? I thought I saw some of my PzIII's start destroyed in a battle before...

I don't know tho.

Tomo

SAMWolf · Post by **SAMWolf** » Wed Jul 25, 2001 12:57 am

Originally posted by Tombstone:
Do all the units get replenished after every battle? I thought I saw some of my PzIII's start destroyed in a battle before...

I don't know tho.

Tomo

Having my SdKfz 222's replaced with SdKfz 221's between Battle 1 and Battle 2 was a disappointment.

I prefer the 20mm gun on the 222 for getting out of trouble over just the MG on the 221.

dfsrusa · Post by **dfsrusa** » Wed Jul 25, 2001 5:45 am

It would be nice to be able to deploy your units by yourself, but I fully understand the reasons why it is the way it is. In most cases I have spent the first few turns repositioning my units, as it seems that simply marching forward from the start place would be a good way to quickly find a permanent home in North Africa. I have been able to do this mainly because I have been playing the MC with CC off. I started with the raiding scenarios, which really are better with it off. I usually play with it on and like it, but I justify having it off by saying these are highly motivated troops with a lot of initiative.

It seems that my units are retaining their kills and experience.

Scot Stephenson