Anyone missing CMx1-style campaigns?

[Steiner14]

H1nd,
how can telling a story be more important than being able to simulate the different phases of battles?

The current system can not simulate realistic recon or the impact of it to plan a good or bad attack.
It can not simulate the impact of continued attacking/defending the same area.
It can not simulate the preservation of forces.
It can not simulate the wear and tear.
It can not simulate reinforcements and supply.
It can not simulate the impact of losing time and a digging in enemy.
It can not simulate the importance of the cover of the night for preparing positions or re-positioning.
It can not simulate the impact of drastic weather changes on a given situation.

The static system of CMx1 (ofcourse with the improvements of the CMx2 engine) would allow to simulate things like this:

The defender:
This is our MLR. It is your task to hold it. We don't know how strong the enemy is and what he is planning. Radio intercepts indicate that possibly something big is being planned.
Reinforcements for our division are on the way and are expected to arrive no sooner than in seven to ten days.


The attacker:
Your task will be to break through the enemy's defense and take village x and hill y which will allow us to close the street beween A and B. For this task you will be receiving rolling reinforcements for the next days.

Now, in most scenarios the setup is already telling half of the story. Which is logical, because only one single phase of the battle is portrayed and the recon has taken place already and everything is ready.

But a big static campaign could easily consist of 10 day and 9 night scenarios while the amount of work for the designer would probably not be much bigger than for a campaign with two scenarios now, because the tactical burden what, when and where to place units, which must take place at the beginning of every scenario now, and the necessity for the designer to deal with a map for each scenario, would be transferred as part of the tactical challenge to the player, respectively would be taken over by the engine, since everything would be taken over from the previous scenario.

Gameplay:
Instead that scenario designers waste most of their time on maps, and finding a setup and testing the balance, with static campaigns they could concentrate on modelling the course of the battle, the overall amount of forces and how they want them distributed over time for each side.

Receiving reinforcements would no longer be always a matter of minutes but of days and supply problems could be something the player must actively deal with, for example at night (supply trucks could offer some great possiblities to model that tactical problem, too).

After a night or during night scenarios the defending side even could receive a certain amount of additional foxholes or even trenches - therefore make the defender dig in over time.

The designer could make the weather change over days and the player experiencing what it means when everything turns into mud or snow.

And still enough possibilities to tell a story, but with a big advantage: it could be the story of a real battle.
The map's status, the buildings, the forces, their positions and status being saved and transferred over to the next scenario: therefore a better feeling for continuity should be the result compared with the "core force" concept and some storytelling to glue comepletely separate scenarios together.