V1.03 -The Downside

[K K Rossokolski]

Nobody asked me, but...
is the name of an often acerbic, usually iconoclastic comment section in the “Proceedings of the US Naval Institute”. (A journal well worth reading for anyone interested in military affairs).

Firstly I wish to express my esteem and congratulations for the effort and time put in by those involved in the birth of V1.03. But, like any work of art, the final product is not flawless, and in my curmudgeonly way I will try to list these issues. I am not setting out to deliberately offend, but to state my belief that V1.03 has ventured into areas beyond CS capabilities, with results that are often bizarre.

Naval units*.
The manual says…... “Keep in mind that the Campaign Series is a land-based warfare game system and does not model naval fighting very well”. It didn’t get that right…….I modeled sea combat better in my bath when I was a kid. At least my little submarine could be made to submerge!!!! I suggest CS already had sufficient capability to simulate naval support for land ops - off board arty, landing craft etc do the job very well. The added “naval units” contribute nothing new to the land battle, so why have them, even if they are excellent simulation? But the highly complex matter of ship capability simulation is reduced here to the crudest parameter of gun power. A cruiser, with perhaps 4” of armour on the turret faces and a 3” belt has the same defence value(19) as a battleship with say 15” and 12” respectively. A surfaced submarine (effectively a sitting duck) with a defence value of 25!!!!!^. In my view, such a poorly conceived and executed “simulation” detracts from our wonderful game. And, if one believes CS has an educational role, it casts a laughably simplistic shadow over a very complex business.
There are, I am sure, good naval warfare simulations around. Leave sea warfare to them.
* I am not talking about the new boat and ferry capabilities which are long needed and appear well executed .
^ Neat attack too…I have set up a little test scen…my Heinkel bomber was shot down by a sub at a range of 19 hex.. Not bad for a torpedo across the grass!

Air units.
I like the arty spotter, as long as it is not overdone. The guidance of one unit per Div is good. I like the on board air capability, although the aircraft choice does not indicate great knowledge of the subject (the US A-26, iconed as a P-51 early Mustang, was in fact a twin engine attack aircraft entering service only late in WWII.(It saw much useage in Vietnam) But the airfield aeroplanes*………..a target range of 100 hex for an aeroplane sitting on the airfield????[/b] …..As our sailors say "C’mon Chief, hit me don’t sh*t me!!" An aircraft on an airfield is totally helpless if unmanned, and almost so even if manned and started up. It certainly can’t drop a load of bombs or fire its machine guns on/at a target 25 km away. If someone suggested we simulate a new tank to have similar magical qualities he would, rightly, be laughed out of town. Leave this sort of stuff to the Fantasy people…it does not belong in the Blitz.
* I could find no reference to these in the new Manual

That said, the idea of static unarmed aircraft, with neither movement nor attack values, at an airfield defended, not by themselves, but by adjacent troop units has some appeal as an “atmosphere creator,” scenery addition and points bank for the opposition.

These additions do nothing to enhance the CS game, indeed the amateur result in these areas has the potential to lower its’ standing for realistic land warfare simulation. We have, as a club, argued for years about ways to enhance the realism of the assault, yet V1.03 contains stuff that is laughably unrealistic. This stuff should be ditched, in the case of the naval units, and rethought in the case of some of the air stuff, where necessary calling on expertise that we have available. I acknowledge that the things in question will not appear in games unless put there. But the mere presence within the CS orbats of units which CANNOT be reasonably simulated by this game system, or are inadequately thought through, is both unnecessary indicative of a less than thorough approach to development and should thus be discontinued.