Campaigns and Reinforcements

[Erwin]

A great feature in CM1 was enabling a campaign designer to specify Battalion, Regimental and Divisional Reserves. 

If the player was doing poorly, levels of reserve reinforcements would be (IIRC) automatically released.  When a loss might cause the campaign to end and force the player the replay the mission, this reinforcement feature enabled the player the complete the mission but at a cost of Victory Points.

There is nothing worse that having to replay a mission since the surprise elements are often no longer there.  Wondered if there is any chance this feature might reappear in future CM2 iterations. Perhaps give the player the option of calling for reinforcements at the cost of points (or a reduced level of victory at the end of the campaign)..

[CarlWAW]

WOW! How the hell can features like that (or persistent map damage to name another one) be removed?!? Hard to believe that the old version had that.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd guess because of the effort involved in building the vastly more sophisticated CM2 game engine.  It was a cool feature and I would like to see it return in the future, but personally I'd much prefer to get persistent map damage back first, it makes such a huge difference to the feeling of involvement, especially on big urban maps (See those ruins over there.....I made those!).

Edited October 20, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Erwin]

No doubt persistent map damage would help create better campaigns.  But plz let's not forget the auto or player controlled reinforcement feature we had in CM1.  It worked well to keep one in the game when one screwed up.  Many newbies and even experienced players like myself find it annoying when a single small error in CM2 can cost one the battle, and often the campaign ends.  It is a game after all.  It should be the player's choice whether to call on reinforcements in order to continue the battle vs having to replay it - sometimes multiple times.

[Combatintman]

28 minutes ago, Erwin said:

No doubt persistent map damage would help create better campaigns.  But plz let's not forget the auto or player controlled reinforcement feature we had in CM1.  It worked well to keep one in the game when one screwed up.  Many newbies and even experienced players like myself find it annoying when a single small error in CM2 can cost one the battle, and often the campaign ends.  It is a game after all.  It should be the player's choice whether to call on reinforcements in order to continue the battle vs having to replay it - sometimes multiple times.

Except that was never a feature in CM1 Operations. Reserves were set by the designer to arrive in slots according to time or other specified triggers or as part of a reinforcement pool slot. Reinforcement pool reserves required casualty trigger conditions to be met before they would arrive so the only control the player had on their arrival was to be sufficiently hopeless to hit the casualty trigger. If the designer did not specify reserves in the battalion or regimental pools then the player got nothing until they had suffered very heavy casualties thus triggering the division reserve pool (CMAK Manual pages 149-150 refer).

[Erwin]

Yes, that's why I was suggesting that if ever implemented in CM2, that the reinforcements be via a voluntary request by the player rather than automatic. 

But, even automatic reinforcement as in CM1 would be helpful.  As an experienced player I would much rather win a Campaign battle with reduced Victory Level, than lose the battle, have the Campaign abruptly end and be forced to replay one or more missions (having the surprises exposed and now knowing what to do) just to get to the next mission. 

[Sailor Malan2]

On 10/20/2017 at 8:19 AM, CarlWAW said:

WOW! How the hell can features like that (or persistent map damage to name another one) be removed?!? Hard to believe that the old version had that.

Because they weren't 'removed', they were not included in the new engine. Your statement implies effort was used to degrade the game, but in reality it was a choice of where to put it to best improve the game...

[CarlWAW]

1 hour ago, Sailor Malan2 said:

Because they weren't 'removed', they were not included in the new engine. Your statement implies effort was used to degrade the game, but in reality it was a choice of where to put it to best improve the game...

If a customer works with, for example AutoCAD and the developer rebuilds the engine from one version to the next and in the new product a feature is no longer available, for the customer its like the feature was removed.

Every development process is a question of choosing priorities. Otherwise we would have one software program in the whole world, that would do everything...

Edited October 21, 2017 by CarlWAW

[Erwin]

One needs to remember that while the concept of CM1 is shared with CM2, CM2 is a completely new game product, not what is normally called a "new version" of software. 

However, some features of CM1 were wonderful and it would be great to see some of them in CM2 eventually.

[Sailor Malan2]

21 hours ago, CarlWAW said:

If a customer works with, for example AutoCAD and the developer rebuilds the engine from one version to the next and in the new product a feature is no longer available, for the customer its like the feature was removed.

Every development process is a question of choosing priorities. Otherwise we would have one software program in the whole world, that would do everything...

Your analogy is flawed. Windows 10 doesn't have all the features of previous versions. They don't all count as 'removed'.

CM2 is a completely different product from CM. And software programming/development all takes time. What feature from CM2 would you be prepared to sacrifice (in an alternate history) to get campaign reserves? Personally I have a list of things I would like added, not things I would sacrifice for a relatively specialised campaign feature (that would probably not be used, or would cut the number of campaigns because they would take longer to design)

[CarlWAW]

2 hours ago, Sailor Malan2 said:

Your analogy is flawed. Windows 10 doesn't have all the features of previous versions. They don't all count as 'removed'.

No, ofcourse not! They are still there. I am so sorry for calling a half empty glass not a full glass.

This is becoming silly.

Quote

CM2 is a completely different product from CM.

Software development is a TRANSPARENT process to the customer.

How many parts of the software can be reused or not, how many parts are new in a new revision of a car is not of interest for the customer. It is of interest for the producer.

Do you understand there are inherently different interests of customers and of producers?

Example? Price. The producer wants the highest possible price, the customer the lowest possible price. The market is where they meet and creates the equilibrium.

I am confident you are clever enough to expand the example on other aspects...

Edited October 22, 2017 by CarlWAW

[sburke]

3 hours ago, CarlWAW said:

This is becoming silly.

I think it started down that path once you started posting.  Cause and effect kind of thing.  I am confident you can expand on this in other ways.

My friend got divorced.  His first wife was blonde.  His new fiancée is brunette.  His blonde feature got removed and he is upset.

[General Jack Ripper]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 3:19 AM, CarlWAW said:

WOW! How the hell can features like that (or persistent map damage to name another one) be removed?!? Hard to believe that the old version had that.

They weren't "removed" because CM1 and CM2 are completely different games, based on completely different engine, code, software, and execution.

Once upon a time, craters were only 2D IMAGES pasted onto the map where and when they happened. It's easy to code and execute a persistent "damage" like that, because all you need is the X and Y coordinates, and the decal type. It's only 3 variables per crater.

However, a full 3D deformation of a terrain mesh, is a completely different thing entirely, and something tells me you know this perfectly well!

I would add a choice invective here, but thankfully I haven't started drinking yet.

[General Jack Ripper]

On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 7:03 AM, CarlWAW said:

This is becoming silly.

Your entire presence on this forum seems to qualify as such.

[Ithikial_AU]

On 22/10/2017 at 7:03 PM, CarlWAW said:

Software development is a TRANSPARENT process to the customer.

How many parts of the software can be reused or not, how many parts are new in a new revision of a car is not of interest for the customer. It is of interest for the producer.

Do you understand there are inherently different interests of customers and of producers?

Example? Price. The producer wants the highest possible price, the customer the lowest possible price. The market is where they meet and creates the equilibrium.

No business is fully transparent to the customer - especially privately owned firms. The customer 99% of the time doesn't give a damn about how the good or service is produced as long as they pay what they feel is a fair price and it meets their expectations. (There's a reason so may different marketing and research firms exist to help big corporations work this difficult equation out). Don't believe me? Many people will (rightfully) be outraged about the working conditions they see reported in clothing sweatshops across parts of Asia... and then they see a new sweater being sold for $10 at a local store and buy it without reading where it's made. They buy it because it's A) it's cheap, B ) it keeps them warm and looks nice.

Most of us have no idea how software development occurs or in this case the guts of how the CM engine works and the amount labour required by BF for updates and new content. Most of BF's customers will look at the product and weigh up in their mind if the asking price looks good and if the product meets their expectations. The fact BF are still in business and don't have to lower their prices within months of release like a Call of Duty (or any other AAA title) being sold via Steam, it's pretty safe to say they have enough customers thinking they are doing a good job.

++++

Bringing this topic back on topic. It is still possible in the editor to reflect the different levels of reinforcemetns from Battallion/Regiment etc, however it is fully in the hands of the designer to determine when they should occur. The designer needs to be very confident in the state of the players forces as they go down different pathways of a campaign based on previous win's and losses. Having victory points assigned to reflect friendly casualties can be a big help in this regard and prevents the player being awarded a "Total Victory" for taking all the terrain based objectives but losing 80% of their forces in the process. The designer should in this case still push the player down the 'loss' track and apply reinforcements in this instance as it's doubtful what's left of the player's force could do much more in future missions.

The secret to getting this 'right'? Plan, plan, plan, plan and then plan some more. Having a flow chart drawn showing each of the scenarios you plan to build for your campaign and how the player reaches each of them is a big help. Designing your campaign OOB in detail in it's own file (something you'll need to do anyway for a campaign) needs to be done with a very precise level of detail. (There's a reason some people around here call those who have made a campaign mad. ) I've also found writing the (first draft) briefings up front can help work out the general situation you as a deisgner expect the player to be in when reaching this scenario they are about to fight.

I also created a 'Victory Point' calculator to help designers mess around with Victory Conditions and objectives and test the varied different outcomes players could potentially achieve.

http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=4236

Hope that's a start.

[CarlWAW]

Transparent in a technical sense = not visible to the customer!

Edited October 26, 2017 by CarlWAW

[Sgt.Squarehead]

12 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

The secret to getting this 'right'? Plan, plan, plan, plan and then plan some more. Having a flow chart drawn showing each of the scenarios you plan to build for your campaign and how the player reaches each of them is a big help. Designing your campaign OOB in detail in it's own file (something you'll need to do anyway for a campaign) needs to be done with a very precise level of detail. (There's a reason some people around here call those who have made a campaign mad. ) I've also found writing the (first draft) briefings up front can help work out the general situation you as a deisgner expect the player to be in when reaching this scenario they are about to fight.

I'm in the process of discovering this the hard way! 

Do you know of a comprehensive guide to the ins & outs of campaign scripting?

[Ithikial_AU]

10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'm in the process of discovering this the hard way! 

Do you know of a comprehensive guide to the ins & outs of campaign scripting?

If you use Mad Mike's campaign extraction tool it should generate the campaign script text file you can edit as a template for your own campaign. Otherwise PM me in the near future with an email and I'll see if I can dig out the one I created for Lions of Carpiquet. It's pretty self explanatory once you get the hang of it. Formating became more a problem than the values.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Ithikial_AU

[IICptMillerII]

1 hour ago, Ithikial_AU said:

If you use Mad Mike's campaign extraction tool it should generate the campaign script text file you can edit as a template for your own campaign.

It does? Mine doesn't seem to do this. I'm using the v2 (latest) campaign extractor from the FGM download page here: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=5186

This is what I get after running the extractor program: 

This is the scenario folder:
 

Am I missing something, or is it not giving me the campaign script file?

[Ithikial_AU]

3 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

It does? Mine doesn't seem to do this. I'm using the v2 (latest) campaign extractor from the FGM download page here: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=5186

This is what I get after running the extractor program: 

This is the scenario folder:
 

Am I missing something, or is it not giving me the campaign script file?

Um... it's been a while I may have been mistaken.

[A Canadian Cat]

It does not create a script file but it does extract the information you can use to create one. Check out http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/BattleForNormandy/Campaigns/Amiens Tonight.html and notice between the tree diagram and the scenario table you can derive a campaign script.

However the core units are "lost" because they are not preserved in the final .cam file. I say lost in quotes because you could probably reverse engineer what was core by looking at all the scenarios and then create a core file and then go scenario by scenario deleting units and adding them back from the core file making sure they get reassigned to the right groups and are redeployed the same as the original. But that could be a very large amount of work.

[IICptMillerII]

Ahh ok. I was playing around with the campaign script and compiler in the CM editor and found it really isn't that hard to do. Once you have a working template to go off of, its quite easy to plug in the right values. Having Notepad++ helps as well. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Cheers guys, I'll have another look at it. 

[Combatintman]

On ‎23‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:47 AM, sburke said:

I think it started down that path once you started posting.  Cause and effect kind of thing.  I am confident you can expand on this in other ways.

My friend got divorced.  His first wife was blonde.  His new fiancée is brunette.  His blonde feature got removed and he is upset.

Surely there's a blonde mod out there?

I must admit that since I was 'upgraded; to the 50+ version of the life engine, my wife (despite being veteran herself and she always plays on iron mode ) seems to have plenty of C2 issues at night time .

[Erwin]

here it is: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=BLONDE+MOD&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif3t7OkpjXAhUhDMAKHe2KCJEQvwUIOSgA&biw=1100&bih=960&dpr=1#imgrc=Bw5xy2n-sYmvsM:&spf=1509359617459