Anyone missing CMx1-style campaigns?

[Steiner14]

It is actually quite possible to build a campaign such as you describe in cmx2 as well. Only thing that is missing is the dynamic carry over of troop positions and battle damage.

This "only thing" is the main aspect of a real battle. Men are getting tired, if they cannot sleep. A building giving cover is being shot down. Units where they would be needed, are not there. And much more. All that can't be modelled, because the player's tactical input is eliminated at the next scenario.

Example of recon in campaign can be seen in the stock german campaign of CM:BN where you will need to recon US frontline and the success will give you an advantage in the next mission where you will actually get to attack the place. I would love to see this more in current campaigns but the feature is there it is just not utilized.

It can't model it, because in reality, the positions that are won, are becoming the base for the next action. But it takes time, they need to be supplied. Counterattack?

With the current system the scenario designer guesses what could have happened. That's not a substitute to what really happened.
There is not even a possibility to judge the tactical situation and transfer it over to the next battle. Everything is judged only by victory conditions.
The phases of a real battle are not developing along victory conditions and therefore cannot be judged by them.

You will have to take into consideration that the current system does allow branching campaigns so technically if the designer so wants, he can set say 3 different objectives and depending on the outcome (player manages to capture either 1,2,3 or zero obectives and all the permutations of the two and one out of three objectives taken) the campaign will branch into next scenario that reflects the players success or failure. Now ofc this is massive amount of effort but done in small enough pieces it could work in reasonable scale.

I know what you mean. If we put the huge amount of work aside, it still doesn't model the phases of a battle. It only can show, what the designer believes is the most probable outcome, judged by victory conditions. Even the placement of units is lost. Probably the most important tactical aspect.

But to judge that the current engine cannot portray a drawn out battle with dynamic progress is wrong. It is simply not utilized, most likely because the majority of the players are happy with the new style linear (or slightly branching campaigns) but there is nothing stopping you or me from doing such a campaign.

Model the following: this is your MLR. We know nothing about the enemy. Find out where he is, find a weak spot. If you have found a weak spot, move your units into their attack areas.
Organize regimental and divisional artillery and air support for X time.
The night before x time heavy rain sets in.
At x time it still rains and doesn't allow any support from above.
The tanks suddenly are placed in mud.
The enemy is digging in with every hour you wait. Expected to receive reinforcements soon.
What do you do?

All the tactical decisions during one phase of a battle, that are affecting the next phase, are impossible to model with the CMx2 system.
Additionally the CMx1 model would allow to build such a "campaign" with ease, because the designer mostly only needs to care about the conditions, while the players need to take care of the tactical problems - not the designer!
The designer just throws the tactical problem at the players and they must cope with them.
The labor for the designer was probably less than like building two scenarios, but the result could be a campaign with ten or twenty battles, dynamically evolving over time.

Similarly your argument that the current system cannot represent changing weather and day and night conditions is plain wrong. It can.

The key is not changing conditions. Everything can be changed from scenario to scenario with a story. The key is the impact of TACTICAL DECISIONS BY THE PLAYER, in a changing environment. And to model that the unit placement and sometimes their supply must be conserved and carried over to the next phase and may not be replaced by new scenarios.

Placing a tank at a certain spot, can decide if an attack the next day can be successfully denied.
Moving the HMG positions during night can decide if the barrage next day goes into empty foxholes.

And I think probably the biggest flaw of the CMx2 system is the following:
Only the DESIGNER decides, while he builds the campaign, what is tactically important in his opinion, NOT the players.
The two systems compare like guiding sheeples from A to B, compared with giving humans a task and decide the outcome after some time.

The most important issue I think is that the game mechanics and most importantly the "human player factor" makes the combat in CM in general happen faster than it would in real life.

This is the old story told on battlefront forums for many years now. It doesn't become true, if it is repeated all the time, to cover up or excuse the flawed CMx2 system, which is not suited to model the evolution of a battle.
The reason why things usually are playing so much faster, is that
1. Only a certain phase of a battle is portrayed, a culmination phase, while the preparation phase or the phase after the attack is excluded.
2. Because of this contraint players keep moving their units under fire most of the time. If players would use the hunt command then suddenly units would stop moving if enemy was present. The pace would change dramatically. But for using the hunt command, there often is not enough time. It doesn't educate the players torwards a tactical thinking that spans over two hours.

THis is why we have scenarios where 12 hours battles are compressed to mere two hours.

I'm sure we have 12 hour battles compressed into 2 hours, because there is no possibility to model the different phases of a battle.
It's not possible to stop the advance because units have low ammo and wait for supply during night.

What is the reason for time pressure? Balance. To make it not too easy for the attacker to have all the time. Why ist that? Because in reality the defender in the next phase would probably receive some kind of support.
And nobody says that campaigns must be huge. The CMx1 model would allow to spread single scenario battles, even tiny ones, into two or three phases. Instead of one 90 minute battle, it could consist of 30 minutes of recon during night, 10 minutes maneuver during night and 50 minutes of the main attack during the next day.
The huge difference: it is the player who must find a solution to the problem, the player places his units according to the information he gatehred, instead of the scenario designer guiding everything and already telling half the story by the setup and force composition.

At one hand the current system creates artificial time pressure where it can be unrealistic, while for other battle phases it could be too much time. Many important and interesting tactical phases cannot be modelled at all. Is it possible to get enough troops there, without being spotted?

To me it's obvious that the static CMx1 system would be the solution. But it would also expand the variety of battles tremendously, while it would make the design process for campaigns way, way easier and faster.