Jump to content

Steve...Charles....Campaigns anyone?


Recommended Posts

I have posted reguarding this issue once before and got very little in the way of feedback. CM is the best tactical level WW2 game I have ever played and I feel confident that extended campaigns would only expand the impact of this game. The long term strategy and logistics required to command an organization (ie platoon, company, battalion..etc) over the period of weeks or even months on the Western front would greatly increase the depth of this game while making the single player aspect of gameplay infinitly more enjoyable. Personal command is completely addicting! Is there any reason why campaign gameplay has been left out? Is there any chance that it will be included in CM expansions or CM2? Does anyone else find they would like to see a more traditional campaign mode in CM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe if I wrote in sentance fragments,objected to usernames and players preferences, argued armor thinkness and projectile striking velocities and complained about the AI I could gain attention for this thread.

PS i forgot optics.

[This message has been edited by Dilger (edited 10-05-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pershing Predator

I'm amazed you have it down to fractions already.

And sure, it'd be nice to have the longer campaigns, but I think the Operations give you more than enough length. If anyone makes say... a 10 battle operation, i'd be more than happy. I'm not sure, based on how long a single battle can take in CM, that a multi-month campaign is best, unless you're really looking to take a sabbatical infront of your computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KwazyDog

Dilger to be honest this has been discussed in great length previously, which is possably why people are pretty much *talked out* on the subject smile.gif

Id suggest trying the search engine on this one and you should find out peoples opinions and reasoning from bts why it wasnt included.

Personally I find that operations are long enough for a single game, often taking some weeks to play against another human smile.gif Id rather see the programming effort go into other areas myself.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dilger, to get a response to your post you must make at least one reference to Hamsters.

i.e. Sgt Schutz never actually fought in the war. His autobiography 'Hamstertruppen',which catapulted him to fame is actually a compilation of first hand accounts of other Hamster veterens that Schutz (not his real name)collected and then published under his own alias.

Ok I will go back to the cesspool now, sorry for intruding.

------------------

Work is the curse of the drinking class.

[This message has been edited by Speedy (edited 08-30-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pillar

There are two campaigns for CM going right now!

The big one is starting soon, and that is the Combat Mission Meta Campaign. (See MadMatt's website)

combathq.thegamers.net

Then there is another campaign that is running as we speak called the Combat Mission Role Playing Game, which I run.

www.geocities.com/cmrpg/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Germanboy

Dilger, I have written the following for the FAQ while I was in Germany during the weekend, but have not yet had time to do some research on the board regarding the topic. It is all based on my memory, and that is growing faulty as I age day by day. I believe it mostly reflects BTS stance, but can not be sure.

If anybody has any comments, they are most welcome. I am not interested in a wholsale new debate on the issue, however. That is why the FAQ is being done after all.

Find it here: http://cm4mac.tripod.com/

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Written for FAQ (1st draft):

Campaigns in CMBO, absence of:

There have been repeated inquiries/demands by players of CMBO to include a campaign option into CMBO, similar to those found in other wargames. In the opinion of those players clamouring for the inclusion, such an option should include a possibility for units to grow in experience levels between battles, and they often want to keep a unit they have grown attached to. This would be welcome from a game immersion point of view because it would increase the connection between players and units at their command. It would also provide an additional, long-term focus in the players' minds, by giving them an incentive to keep the unit 'alive' over the course of the campaign to benefit from the increased experience of the unit.

BTS has decided to replace the campaign mode of other wargames with a new system of operations that is not unit but goal focussed. In an operation, the players are given one of various possible goals to attain, e.g. advance over a given distance, destroy a given number of enemies etc. These are intended to reflect the real-life goals given to commanders of either taking a piece of real estate or of attriting the enemies forces, or holding them in place while an important attack is undertaken elsewhere. BTS believes that this is a more realistic treatment of repeat combat on the level of fighting that CMBO represents than a campaign mode. They give their reasons in p.XX of the manual. The following discussion expands on the subject somewhat.

These are the three main reasons that CMBO does not have campaigns, they are explained in more detail below:

a) losses, extremely high, units were rebuilt with inexperienced men.

B) unit allocation, small units were not shifted in a campaign mode

c) experience, long exposure is counter-productive, very few men made it through a long stretch of fighting at the sharp end.

CMBO is designed to be a 'realistic' wargame within the constraints of what is currently possible. It does not claim to be 100% realistic. By abandoning the completely unrealistic campaign mode of other games, it has aimed to introduce more realism into wargaming. From a game perspective, having a campaign mode would be neat. From the perspective of realism in a game, this appears different.

a) losses: losses in infantry units in the ETO were high on both sides. Some US infantry divisions experienced turnover rates of personnel of 200+% of book-strength during the campaign, meaning that a division with a theoretical strength of 14,000 men would experience casualties of 28,000+men during a campaign lasting at most 300 days. The record is held by the 90th US ID, with 289% turnover in 305 days of fighting between landing in Normandy and the German surrender. Single companies (which are what most of us will command in CMBO scenarios) could experience losses of 60% or more in a single action. Replacements were usually green and had to be trained in the front-line. The US replacement system was one of the worst-performing parts of the US army in the ETO (Doubler 1993). For both the UK and Canada, manpower shortages became so serious that the UK had to break up experienced fighting units in Normandy to provide replacements, while Canada faced a serious political crisis almost toppling the government over the question of whether conscripts should be send to serve overseas (Delaforce, 1997 and Stacey 1948).

The brunt of the losses was born by the infantry batallions, which made up about 45% of the manpower of a division but incurred 70% of the losses. The expectation that a unit would advance in experience is therefore fallacious, because often companies lost valuable experience in the form of vets in a fight, to see these replaced with green men. XX in 'Roll me over' relates how he was the only man left in his platoon after 90 days of fighting out of those who made up the unit in the Ardennes.

Another factor in this were the disproportionately high losses of junior leaders. The ethos of leading from the front, and the enemy strategy of picking out the officers and NCOs first led to serious leadership problems, and the replacement of experienced leaders (if indeed they made it long enough) with 90-day wonders.

B) unit allocation: on the level of CMBO, units simply were not transferred between different theatres or even sectors of the front. So for example starting a campaign in Normandy with a UK company or batallion (the largest units CMBO represents), and then using that unit to continue to fight in the Vosges or in the Ardennes is unrealistic. Rarely if ever were units smaller than divisions transferred between different theatres.

c) experience: long exposure to a fighting environment does not necessarily help to become better at fighting. While some basic rules are picked up fast (it is a bad idea to smoke at night), long exposure blunts nerves and the continuous stress of the battlefield takes its toll. In the US Army, the experience was that the most a soldier could go for was 200 days. After that he would either be a danger to himself or to his comrades because he no longer cared for anything. This phenomenon is known as battle exhaustion. Very often soldiers did not make it that far. Keith Jones made it through 64 days in Normandy, the 6 Batallion Duke of Wellington Regiment was broken up after only three hard fights in Normandy because it had ceased to funciton as a unit and had become a group of individuals.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------

Andreas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mortiis

Im with abbott on this. I play games to have fun , period. Operations are fun but the short duration of these ops doesnt leave enough time to become familiar with your force. Even just the option to link ops with your same forces would be ideal, realistic or not, Im willing to sacrifice some reality for the sake of increasing the FUN factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think BTS could think about a mecanics to simulate a true campaign mode.

I think about something like linkage of scenarios in a branch tree campaigns. The reinforcements, enemy resistence and other parameters could be altered according previous scenario results.... but I'm only a player that love CM.

I think Steve and Charles are very smart and will develop something superp in CM2 smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thanks to all...and Kwazydog for responding to both posts. Germanboy your response was exactly the type of info I was after and I agree with the realism argument to a point. I do realize the turnover rate was high...Stephen Ambrose points out that for American divisions from D-Day to Bulge, replacment rates were as high as 200%. However, the Company and Battalion commanders within most of these divisions remained unchanged, as turnover rates were not equivilent for officers ( which is effectively our role as players in this game). As Mortiis said, and I think this is the ultimate argument here... It would be FUN to actually deal with longterm command and that includes trying to maintain an potent fighting unit in spite of high losses. Its the longterm challenge I'm after, not just the adrenaline rush of blowing up a tank. And of course the feeling that, however unrealistic, that our actions on the battlefeild impact the outcome of the war.

Campaigns provide for logistic considerations which are ultimately the deciding factor in war. What is truely UNREALISTIC is, playing the German side and throwing in all your units to achieve victory locations on a particular battlefeild. Germany was fighting a defensive war in '44-'45 with limited resources. Careful attention was required in determining were the resources were allocated. Campaigns require you to fight a battle with considerations for the next battle.

THANKS

[This message has been edited by Dilger (edited 09-23-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Even if a realistic campaign model is out of the question for BTS, I think a map of the theatre showing the battlefield location would be a good idea. When I play a historical scenario, there is no feel for where in the world you are.

Also, perhaps OOB for the entire theatre could be included so that you know you are fighting with a particular unit rather than the generic units that are currently used.

I think this would improve the historical flavor of the game and also perhaps provide the personal attachment to the troops that campaigns provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a simple dos based hex map with an excel type database could function for campaigners the trick would be getting the battles created with the proper units and terrain automatically. Unfortunatley I do not have w00t programming skillz, CM owns me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can make a campain for u if I would be able to figure out what the losses were during the game. I would need Combat mission to dump the losses to the file or at least show them clearly on the screen

(I have done campains before - I got some experience)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dilger:

I wonder if any new members feel as strongly about this subject as I?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blast from the past smile.gif

You should considering joining CMMC at jbailey@resolutecapital.com Willing bodies are always welcome. It is a bit of a long-term commitment though, but it is done better than it could ever be implemented in the game. Just ask any of the participants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My very first post was on this topic (campaigns and medals). I mentioned that before CMBO, I enjoyed playing West Front. I really like the campaigns that can be played and the promotions that you and your units can earn... However, not long after having posted that first post of mine and aside of a few supporting comments, I was quickly exposed to the now infamous negative vibes that seem to have affected good people like Manx and Tiger.

Overall, BTS has explained in great detail why they feel that campaigns and promotions are not included in the CMBO model, and I respect and understand their rationale. However, personally, I would still like built-in linked campaigns like those in West Front. Alas, you can't have everything... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Love campaigns. It all started with Panzer General...

ahh those were the days. Every great wargame now includes campaigns. In my opinion most of them are totally unrealistic, but they sure are fun!

I can think of several ways to implement a FUN and even semi-realistic way to do campaign games in CM. I think BTS' real position is that it is too much work when interest is limited.

Well, if interest is limited, why does ALMOST EVERY GAME RELEASED, whether it be wargame, roleplaying, shoot'em up, whatever have a campaign element? Because gamers WANT campaign games, and wargamers are no exception.

I can think of no more realistic reason to keep troops alive than by campaign games. Suddenly withdrawels heve purpose. Camapigns are fun and they CAN BE realistic. Especially in a setting like East Front, where units saw action for months.

I read yesterday in "Panzer Leader" that on August 18th, Guderian commented that (IIRC) 17th Panzer division had seen action EVERY day since June 22. Now, division scale is large, but it is made up of battalions that also saw such action.

My idea of a campaign game would be where you controlled (either) a division or re-inforced battalion, and before each battle you would allocater which troops would fight and which would stay in reserve. It could be your "force pool" and you spend points out of it like in a regular battle.

Experience is touchy but not impossible. Upgrades are another touchy but possible thing.

People who say campaigns are unrealistic have never seen or even thought of a way they can be done better. I am not talking about fighting in every engagement, about "winning the war", not about rising to the level of a division of crack troops, nor about taking a PzII all the way up to Panther II. I just want a string of battles fought by the same unit over a period of time not limited to one single map.

Incidentally, Steve commented a while back that if someone could come up with a way to do campaign games that involved exporting battle results into a text file, and auto-starting battles by something called "command line run" he would not be opposed to including those features. Sadly, no one seems to have the knowledge or desire to take the bull by the horns and explain to him how these two functions:

1.) Battle Results Exported Text file

2.) Command Line Run

...how these two functions could make a "front end" campaign game possible. It is, however, good to know that BTS is still (somewhat) open to the idea.

Panzer Leader, campaign lover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dilger:

First, thanks to all...and Kwazydog for responding to both posts. Germanboy your response was exactly the type of info I was after and I agree with the realism argument to a point. I do realize the turnover rate was high...Stephen Ambrose points out that for American divisions from D-Day to Bulge, replacment rates were as high as 200%. However, the Company and Battalion commanders within most of these divisions remained unchanged, as turnover rates were not equivilent for officers ( which is effectively our role as players in this game). As Mortiis said, and I think this is the ultimate argument here... It would be FUN to actually deal with longterm command and that includes trying to maintain an potent fighting unit in spite of high losses. Its the longterm challenge I'm after, not just the adrenaline rush of blowing up a tank. And of course the feeling that, however unrealistic, that our actions on the battlefeild impact the outcome of the war.

Campaigns provide for logistic considerations which are ultimately the deciding factor in war. What is truely UNREALISTIC is, playing the German side and throwing in all your units to achieve victory locations on a particular battlefeild. Germany was fighting a defensive war in '44-'45 with limited resources. Careful attention was required in determining were the resources were allocated. Campaigns require you to fight a battle with considerations for the next battle.

THANKS

[This message has been edited by Dilger (edited 09-23-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi

Try this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019910

and see the responses to this post of mine if you want to see how to really tick some people off.....

(Not me I was never that emotionally investing in the topic, but posted with zeal and passion regarding the issue, clearly stateing my opinion anyway, and boy did I HEAR about it in the replies.)

aka_tom_w Posts:

What ever happened to the standard line:

"You'll get killed" ???

Perhaps I'm not in the minority but I would like to propose that the campaign game suggestion does

little more than facilitate the dreams and wishes of all those fans of the Third Reich that would like to

believe that if Hilter had not royally screwed up, the war would have been won by the Germans and those

same folks are only to happy to show how they as the German commander(s) would have won the war.

(in the East anyway in the suggested Campaign Game in CMBB )

The ONLY campaign game that Should realistically work would be one where it would be impossible to win

as the Germans, (given ALL realistic settings and historical maps and troops, yeah yeah I KNOW, the

Real fun is in the "what If" scenario's where the Germans can take over the world )

The entire premise of the campaign game is based on winning, and CONTINUING to win every time you

meet the enemy on the battle field. This notion turns the great historical WWII simulator (to be) CMBB,

into something akin to a video game that has "boards" or screen sections with the "boss" monster bady

(whatever) at the end of it to be over come, so you can move on to the next "board".

I strongly believe this notion has NO place in CMBB.

I also believe that units SHOULD not gain experience from a single battle and move on to the next. In

virtually all Meeting Engagements against a skilled human player that I have ever played there is not

enough units (men or machines) left fit and healthy to continue on EITHER side to make any sense of a

"campaign".

I now realize this viewpoint may be in the minority, but I WHOLLY and completely disagree with the

suggestion that it is realistic for either the Germans to win a campaign game or for units to gain

experience after only one battle.

Again the One Line Refrain:

YOU'LL DIE BEFORE YOU GAIN ENOUGH EXPERIENCE

(I'm sounding more and More like a GROG every Day

Oh MY GOD!!)

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definition of a grog -

grog (grawg) - noun - (1) One who delights in irrelevant and trivial technical details, esp. regarding military equipment and weaponry. (2) Any of a class of individuals engaging in wargaming because thye believe it is 'realistic.' (3) One who enjoys belittling and degrading others who desire a wargame contain something 'just for fun.' SEE ALSO: whiner. geek, sad sack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

You should considering joining CMMC at jbailey@resolutecapital.com Willing bodies are always welcome. It is a bit of a long-term commitment though, but it is done better than it could ever be implemented in the game. Just ask any of the participants.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you get jbailey@resolutecapital.com to return your email. I sent off to him about a week ago and have heard nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Definition of a grog -

grog (grawg) - noun - (1) One who delights in irrelevant and trivial technical details, esp. regarding military equipment and weaponry. (2) Any of a class of individuals engaging in wargaming because thye believe it is 'realistic.' (3) One who enjoys belittling and degrading others who desire a wargame contain something 'just for fun.' SEE ALSO: whiner. geek, sad sack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha!!! "Grog" is instead properly defined as the swill that served as a "liquor ration" for British seamen in the Age of Sail; one part of rum diluted into several parts of water (probably varied from ship to ship).

Uh-oh, I nitpicked your definition. Thereby, I am a "grog"? :eek:

Well, I am a certain kind of a grognard; the kind that even Steve Grammont professed as being also. ;) I'd point you to a reference thread, but the search routine isn't working for me now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...