Combat Mission x1 Operation style campaigns?

[evancv2011]

One thing that i have always missed about CM 1 that was left out of CM 2 was the Operations.

 

Is it possible to recreate battles like this using the scenario editor in CM 2???

[ASL Veteran]

Short answer?  No.

[Fenris]

Yeah, we've been told no, never.  Apparently no one liked them...???

 

Which is a shame IMO as they were better at representing how battles played out in real life than the short 30-120 minute all out struggles we tend to have now.

 

 

-F

[kohlenklau]

There are several places you can go to fight in such a campaign of CM PBEM battles as a narrative military operation against real human opponents.

Another guy does the maps between battles and leaves that KO'd Sherman there, adds craters, knocks down a building, etc.

Casualties are tracked and your unit is modified. PM me if you are interested. I know the bouncer and can get you in...

[Warts 'n' all]

I was disappointed not to have the old-style operations too, as I really enjoyed them first time around. 

[ChappyCanuck]

Operations in CM X 1 rocked.  I remember one that a friend of mine and I played - took a year and a half to finish. It was a member-created campaign representing the 12th SS and 21st Panzer counterattack against the Canadians in Normandy...D-Day + 1. Wicked campaign. Loved it. Miss it.

[ChappyCanuck]

There are several places you can go to fight in such a campaign of CM PBEM battles as a narrative military operation against real human opponents.

Another guy does the maps between battles and leaves that KO'd Sherman there, adds craters, knocks down a building, etc.

Casualties are tracked and your unit is modified. PM me if you are interested. I know the bouncer and can get you in...

 

Interesting!  I have played two of these campaigns in the past (both CM x 1) where there was a "Dungeon Master" who created and maintained the operation.  There was a chain of command of many players on each side...the overall commander of each side plotted the operational movement of units. When units collided, a battle was created and the unit commanders would then play out the battles.  Casualties and supplies were recorded.  Great fun. I miss that.

 

Could you tell me, Kohlenklau,  about this group of yours?

[A Canadian Cat]

On of our forum members is working on just such a thing for CM2x. Check out this thread: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/116709-seeking-one-pair-of-pbem-players-to-playtest/

I am sure once he has things worked out he will write up a summary of his experiences and help more people make them.

Right @sfhand

[sfhand]

Even though the thread Ian linked is labeled for one pair of play testers it would be great to have more... interested parties should post there interest there and we can get you set up.

[Skinfaxi]

What's the difference between the campaigns of CM1 and CM2?

[Fenris]

With regard to CM1 they were called operations and were essentially a complete battle played out on a single map with the fighting broken up into a number of engagements (up to 10) happening over a relatively short period of time, like up to 24 hours or so, depends on how it was setup, it included the chance of night ops.  So one operation might consist of six 45 minute fire fights on a largish map with the front line adjusting on the map depending on the ending positions of each side.  IIRC the map state and destroyed vehicles etc were all retained over the course of the battle and you'd get some resupply and reinforcements happening during the lulls between fighting.

 

As I mentioned above I really don't like that this feature was dropped.  To me, from what I've read, this far more along the lines of how real battles played out.  With scenerioes we have now we get just the single firefights and don't have the option to simulate multiple attacks and counter attacks with fighting over an objective flaring up then dying down many times over the course of a day which happened basically all the time.

 

 

-F

Edited February 3, 2015 by Fenris

[ChappyCanuck]

With regard to CM1 they were called operations and were essentially a complete battle played out on a single map with the fighting broken up into a number of engagements (up to 10) happening over a relatively short period of time, like up to 24 hours or so, depends on how it was setup, it included the chance of night ops.  So one operation might consist of six 45 minute fire fights on a largish map with the front line adjusting on the map depending on the ending positions of each side.  IIRC the map state and destroyed vehicles etc were all retained over the course of the battle and you'd get some resupply and reinforcements happening during the lulls between fighting.

 

As I mentioned above I really don't like that this feature was dropped.  To me, from what I've read, this far more along the lines of how real battles played out.  With scenerioes we have now we get just the single firefights and don't have the option to simulate multiple attacks and counter attacks with fighting over an objective flaring up then dying down many times over the course of a day which happened basically all the time.

 

 

-F

Fenris, I could not agree with you more. To me, the old operations (CM x 1) were the absolute best thing in CM.  Without doubt. And when I purchased CMBN a few years back, I was extremely surprised and majorly disappointed that they were/are not with us any longer

[vincere]

With regard to CM1 they were called operations and were essentially a complete battle played out on a single map with the fighting broken up into a number of engagements (up to 10) happening over a relatively short period of time, like up to 24 hours or so, depends on how it was setup, it included the chance of night ops.  So one operation might consist of six 45 minute fire fights on a largish map with the front line adjusting on the map depending on the ending positions of each side.  IIRC the map state and destroyed vehicles etc were all retained over the course of the battle and you'd get some resupply and reinforcements happening during the lulls between fighting.

 

As I mentioned above I really don't like that this feature was dropped.  To me, from what I've read, this far more along the lines of how real battles played out.  With scenerioes we have now we get just the single firefights and don't have the option to simulate multiple attacks and counter attacks with fighting over an objective flaring up then dying down many times over the course of a day which happened basically all the time.

 

 

-F

Yeah, I can only scratch my head and think they heard the grog complaints and made the wrong conclusions. Regressing to linear instead of improving it. I could be wrong, but imagine the core would like more dynamic campaigns. It's one of those that keep being asked here, and I note that games with a similar tactical level tend to have evolved or have similar requests for dynamic campaigns.

[Skinfaxi]

And what does the CM2 system differently? IIRC it also carries over the units between the battles.

 

With scenerioes we have now we get just the single firefights and don't have the option to simulate multiple attacks and counter attacks with fighting over an objective flaring up then dying down many times over the course of a day which happened basically all the time.

Why? Isn't it the same?

Edited February 3, 2015 by Skinfaxi

[Fenris]

CM2 campaigns take your core force over multiple, separate engagements each on a different map over the course over a period of time.  CM1 ops are multiple engagements on a single map within a day or two tracking your progress over that map from fight to fight.

 

 

-F

Edited February 3, 2015 by Fenris

[ASL Veteran]

The main problem with the old Operation system was that the game had to draw the new front lines between battles and the game never did a very good job of it. 

[Skinfaxi]

"Separate engagements" - does that mean separate engagements are connected with a core force which is transferred from one to the next, but the engagements do not share the same battlefield?

Does that mean that the campaigns in the Normandy big bundle do not model whole battles? With whole battle I mean for example attacking a village with first: recon, after a few hours an attack, based on the intel from the previous engagement, then potential counterattacks, repeated attacks, pocketing,... - no?!

Edited February 4, 2015 by Skinfaxi

[Skinfaxi]

The main problem with the old Operation system was that the game had to draw the new front lines between battles and the game never did a very good job of it. 

Frontlines are needed for what?

[ASL Veteran]

Frontlines are needed for what?

You are getting confused.  I was addressing the 'Operations' that were essentially the old 'Campaign' system in the first game series, also referred to as CMx1.  I think those games are still available on the BFC main website and are referred to as CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK.  The battles all happened on the same map, although the entire map wasn't necessarily visible all at one time.  When a battle ended, the game drew a 'front line' on the current map based upon the positions of your forces at the end of a battle and default friendly set up zones were created based upon how the new front line was drawn.  The forces were continuous between battles, although each side could get reinforcements in the period between battles.  None of that applies to the current series of games.  That all only applies to the CMx1 series of games.

 

The current series of games, also known as CMx2, has an entirely different campaign system.  With CMx2 campaigns a player is given a 'core force' that fights in every battle as well as some form of 'extra' forces that the campaign designer may or may not add to any individual battle within the series of battles that make up the campaign as a whole.  The 'extra' forces do not carry over from one battle to another.  Each battle in the series of battles that comprise the campaign are played on different maps as separate battles.  Even if a designer decided to use the same map for two battles the map would still be new - as in exactly as the designer put the map into the campaign.  No battle damage or destroyed vehicles etc. carry over from battle to battle.

 

I hope that clears up any misunderstandings you may have between the two systems.  If you don't own any games in the CMx1 series then you would be unfamiliar with the old campaign system, thus this discussion wouldn't have much meaning for you.

Edited February 4, 2015 by ASL Veteran

[Skinfaxi]

Thanks a lot ASL!

 

 

Each battle in the series of battles that comprise the campaign are played on different maps as separate battles.  Even if a designer decided to use the same map for two battles the map would still be new - as in exactly as the designer put the map into the campaign.  No battle damage or destroyed vehicles etc. carry over from battle to battle.

The CURRENT - not the old system - cannot portray the attack on heavyly defended locations, fortified defenses or battles of attrition? What is the CMx2 campaign-system simulating, if not time consuming or attritional engagements or difficult tactical tasks?

[ASL Veteran]

Thanks a lot ASL!

 

The CURRENT - not the old system - cannot portray the attack on heavyly defended locations, fortified defenses or battles of attrition? What is the CMx2 campaign-system simulating, if not time consuming or attritional engagements or difficult tactical tasks?

The current system can portray attacks on defended locations.  It just has to do it in the time space of a single battle that's all.  Whether you succeed or fail in that battle the next battle in the series of battles will be on a different map or perhaps, depending upon the designer's intent, the campaign could come to an end.  The current campaign system is a series of battles in different locations that could represent actions over the course of several days or even weeks if that is the designer's intent.  The old system entirely consisted of multiple battles taking place in the same location over several hours or perhaps a couple of days, but the battle represented was essentially a static engagement.  Both styles have their place, but given the type of actions that were characteristic of WW2 combat the old system would be better for something like Stalingrad whereas the new system fits better with - say Kampfgruppe Peiper and his advance during the battle of the Bulge.

[Skinfaxi]

Things are becoming much clearer, thanks! So the current campaigns are a consecutive sequence of individual, around 1-2 hour long engagements. The player has no control over the forces he wants to apply or hold back, there is no pool of forces. What he player has available, he should use.

The recon tasks before an engagement are mostly done and the player has at least a rough guess what he can expect. The strenght of the player's forces versus the enemy forces are predetermined by the designers. The player does not have to find out on his own, if maybe a waaay to strong enemy is waiting, or that a given order is so easy, that much more could be achieved.

So if the player is given the order to attack, it's an attack battle. If he is given the task to defend, it's a defend battle and he knows the enemy will come. Is that correct?

 

If that's correct then I am a bit disappointed now, because I had hopes that CM was much more realistic than all the rest out there. But this campaign system very much sounds like typical action-shooter storytelling.

 

I had hoped that the Market Garden module would allow me to experience what happens when the player can expect one thing but suddenly he is facing something completely different. But if all the action happens within two hours, there can't be much time or place for surprises. That's where all games suck: the map size, the briefings all that gives so much additonal information, that with some experience the player knows, what he can expect in the remaining time.

 

What I still don't get: the frontlines that didn't work in CM1 and therefore that old campaign system was completely eliminated. If I understand it correctly there are deployment locations for arriving new units, yes? And units can share weapons and ammo. Trucks can carry ammo, too. Why the need to draw frontlines?

Shouldn't it be up to the player to take care for open supply routes to his units? Or the decision to withdraw the units from the MLR, if the supply is not possible? If a player can't get the ammo to the front, then this should result in tactical consequences.

 

Wouldn't the old system PLUS the current system be much superior?

Example:

Campaign: US division moves to X and destroys Y

 

After advancing and one or two small skrimishes, a river is blocking the advance with a bridge.

Order: take this bridge.

Player advances on map torwards the bridge. He recons and notices, the bridge is heavily defended. Player decides that an attack was suicide and decides on his own to cancel the attack, call for reinforcements and wait. After a few hours or the next day he starts the attack. But the attack stalls and the player, instead of slaugherting his units, decides another attack on the next day is necessary. But this time with air support he calls for the next day. The next day: rain! Attack with or without air support? Player decides on his own to wait until the rain stops. At the evening the rain stops the next battle is offered. Now the player must decide for or against a night attack. The night game is loaded, but the player decides to wait for the next day. But he uses the night battle to sneek some of his units forward to better locations.

The battle next day offers the promised air support. With the reinforcements and the air support the attack is successful and the bridge is taken with minimum losses.

 

Then the bridge-episode is finished, the game calculates the result of this "campaign" within the master campaign as if it was one battle and the campaign system advances to the next battle. This could be even another CM1-campaign or a single battle.

Why eliminate a good system, when the synthesis would offer the best from both?

Edited February 4, 2015 by Skinfaxi

[ASL Veteran]

What I still don't get: the frontlines that didn't work in CM1 and therefore that old campaign system was completely eliminated. If I understand it correctly there are deployment locations for arriving new units, yes? And units can share weapons and ammo. Trucks can carry ammo, too. Why the need to draw frontlines?

Shouldn't it be up to the player to take care for open supply routes to his units? Or the decision to withdraw the units from the MLR, if the supply is not possible? If a player can't get the ammo to the front, then this should result in tactical consequences.

 

 

It is not possible from a coding standpoint to combine both systems.  The old system isn't even under consideration for implementation so while we can all dream of things that might come, the old system isn't going to be returning any time soon if ever.  With the new system you do have a core force that can be whittled down as you fight battles so you do need to be careful with the core forces, but any additional forces can be destroyed without consequence.  You do not have any manual control over your force though, so if that was what you were driving at then no - the player has no control over their forces.

 

Since the first campaign structure operated entirely on a single map, unless a player managed to capture everything on the map in the first battle there would still be map areas remaining under enemy control.  Your troops might be scattered over various parts of the map - perhaps some in a church down the road, and others in a house a few hundred meters away.  Ideally the front line could be drawn such that most friendly forces end up in contiguous set up zones.  Under most circumstances these set up zones would ideally snake across the map as needed to encompass friendly troops as necessary.  Some friendly troops might also end up in isolated pockets separated from the main friendly set up zone by an enemy set up zone.  The problem was that the game wasn't smart enough to create such complicated set up zones and the set up zones typically ended up as a straight line that cut across the map with a few smallish bumps or bulges in the line.  Many of your troops who were in advanced locations would then be forced back into the friendly set up zone so you, as the player, would lose ground because of the way the game created the set up zones.

[Skinfaxi]

It is not possible from a coding standpoint to combine both systems.

Interesting. Why is that?

[womble]

It is, however, possible to produce an ersatz version of the scenario you describe.

Example:

Campaign: US division moves to X and destroys Y

 

After advancing and one or two small skrimishes...

Normal scenarios, chained to happen regardless of outcomes: even if a skirmish went badly, the other elements of the operation would dislocate the defense and force the supposedly victorious defenders to withdraw. However, the different levels of damage done, or not done, to the defenders and the attackers can be preserved and ammo expenditure made permanent, since you can have "core forces" for each side, and if you don't give them resupply and reinforcement, they'll be down men and bullets in the next fight in which they appear.

..a river is blocking the advance with a bridge.

Order: take this bridge.

Player advances on map torwards the bridge. He recons and notices, the bridge is heavily defended.

Scenario 3: a recon scenario. Victory based on OPs scouted and "Spotting" victory conditions rather than forces destroyed or territory held.

Player decides that an attack was suicide and decides on his own to cancel the attack, call for reinforcements and wait.

If reinforcements are an option, Scen 4 can be a "decision" scenario, where the player gets to choose to call for reinforcements, or not, which would branch the campaign for the next section.

Or Scen 4 can be the attack, and losing the attack (which could mean just not starting it and Ceasefiring on T1) means that Scen 4a gets called instead of Scen 5. 4a is:

After a few hours or the next day he starts the attack.

This could follow further iterations, so if:

...the attack stalls and the player, instead of slaugherting his units, decides another attack on the next day is necessary....

Losing Scenario 4a leads to Scenario 4a1, which is the same thing:

...But this time with air support he calls for the next day...

And the defenders have had chance to dig in, get some armour support and resupply.

...Apparently I'm only allowed to chop your post into so many chunks. More to follow...