Doug Beman Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 When players build campaigns of linked battles, do they have to manually construct the forces for each side, each battle? If I'm building a scenario intended for single player (since I don't have a home connection) can I construct both sides' forces (or dole out points) for the initial battle, and then have the AI engine use whatever points I give it (or it earns) between battles to rebuild/upgrade for the next battle? (like in CC3) Or, do I have to go into each battle and "script in" the forces available for the AI player? Hope the question makes sense. I'm just curious about how much research I'm going to have to do for the battles I wanna build. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Campaigns aren't just linked battles A, B, C. Instead you create a very large battle map and give each side initial forces. You can also specify reinforcements (which can have random arrival times). Then you play out a battle. The map used is a smaller piece of the full campaign map - centered on your current location. In the battle you might advance or get pushed back. Between battles, your men resupply, refit, treat the lightly wounded, recover knocked-out vehicles, etc. Reinforcements may arrive. Then the next battle begins - where you left off! (Though you can reposition somewhat, especially at night). So it really gives you continuity through a series of engagements. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PatB_TGN Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Is it possible for one to save the information from the last series of events (battles, scenarios) and carry this information over to another map (full scenario)? This would, of course, open the door for miniature campaigns. I fully know the casualty rate suffered by all combat units was extremely high. But being able to track organizations through an entire operation (i.e. Cobra) would be interesting. Sort of like the 101st from Normandy to the Ardennes. Massive campaigns would be fashioned by players out of the labors of love for the game itself. So long as a continual basis of extension was an integral part of the engine,’campaign’ settings could be used. Getting attached to an ‘organization’ or ‘leader’ makes people (myself especially) in-tuned with the unit itself. Thus, the relationship between game and player is heightened. BTS is obviously aware of many of the other types of campaigns offered throughout the years in computer wargaming. The scope of CM is microscopic when compared to the entire war. But there exists a fascination by many people to be ‘a part/portion’ of the conflict. Campaigns in themselves allow these sorts of players to track/participate with the events of the war. The draw back (there is always at least one) is that many players would want to see ahistorical and hypothetical results. Perhaps this is a constituting reason not to have a ‘campaign’ setting. Most non-grognards might baulk when they witness the massive amount of casualties a combat unit is likely to encounter. This is no myth. It’s a reality. Unfortunately, a campaign setting might tailor the players into thinking they can get by with 15% casualties. Whereas most of the combat Divisions of world war two suffered in excess of 100%. Hrm, food for thought. -Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Patrick, We thought long and hard about this, and we don't think that a war style campaign is a good thing to add, so we don't support it per se. However, you could make up 5 campaigns using the same historical formation and settings. The results from one would not be carried over to the next, but the feeling would be nearly the same. This is because leaders from Cobra would most likely not either be alive or with their same units (and almost certainly not their same rank!) for the next battle. The more time inbetween battles, the more likely that nobody will be the same. And forget about equipment loads, since those changed DAILY. In fact, very few units were ever at more than one or two major battles during the ETO, so even this is a stretch. Their parent division might have been at more, but at the low level they could have sat on the flank for one battle, then got wiped out in the next, or stunted in the first 1/2 hour of combat and withdrawn later in the day. Also the parent unit could have been 400miles away from the next big battle you are thinking of doing. The short of is that it is very unrealistic historically, a bitch to program, and VERY time consuming play wise. A decent sized campaign might take you several weeks to complete, depending on how much personal time you have to burn. So a 5 or 6 battle super campaign is realistically going to take you the better part of a year (assuming you play other scenarios and games, plus have a life ). On top of that, VERY few people want to play a single anything for that long. Therefore, it isn't something we are interested on doing. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lokesa Posted May 30, 1999 Share Posted May 30, 1999 A life??? but gaming is my life really though, you say "assuming you play other scenarios and games" I tend to find a good game and play only that game for time periods which vary as to how much I enjoy it. So if CM is what I'm hoping it to be, it'll probably be the only game I'll be playing for a while. Plus I'm the type that thinks cool, with my girlfriend out of town I can go sleepless for the next three days playing my favorite game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 31, 1999 Share Posted May 31, 1999 Don't worry Lokesa, there will be plenty in CM to keep you VERY busy until the next one comes out My point is that not only is an über campaign historically impossible to do, but that adding 1 year of playbility for *each* über campaign, to a game that probably has 3-4 years of playability already built in, is pretty pointless to us. Ahistorical + lots of coding time + negligable value = a undesirable feature The feeling of angst and caring for your troops from battle to battle will be much better served in the campaign structure we have developed. Personally, I can't wait to sink my teeth into one! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted June 1, 1999 Share Posted June 1, 1999 I have a few more questions on the campaign system because a few points are still not clear to me (speak slllooowwwllyy... ) - after making the big map, how is the position and size of individual battle maps determined? Are they pre-assigned by the author? - Does every battle map have to have local victory locations or is one set of VLs somewhere in the middle of the big map sufficient? If there are no local VLs, how is the end of a battle determined, i.e. at which point do you switch to another map? Do you have to exit your troops from a mapedge in order to advance/retreat? Is there a time limit for a battle, after which there is a break and the next battle starts? - What do you mean with being able to "relocate" troops between scenarios? Will there be a certain radius within which you can move your troops from the point they were at the end of the scenario? If reinforcements arrive - can they be placed on the map in between battles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhet Posted June 1, 1999 Share Posted June 1, 1999 and is there a way for the computer to determine if replacement troops and/or reinforcements are warrented or not? Lets take Caan for example. Say the Axis player is very skilled and the Allied player is not so good. The Germans are holding Caan and the Brits are taking horrendus casulties. Can the computer determine (with aids previously determined by the scenario designer) which units only need replacements versus units that need additional support to take an objective? After all, the OKW would never send reinforcements to an area that is holding well and taking relatively light casulties. For that matter Monty would have poured everything he had (and almost did ) into taking such a vital position. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-01-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 1, 1999 Share Posted June 1, 1999 I'm waiting to hear back from Charles about some specifics, but I am going to take a stab at things because he is quite busy right now (always is, but EXTRA busy at the moment ). Campaigns have been coded, but I haven't had time to play one yet, so I don't know what actually went in. So please bear in mind that some of this might be a little off and/or vague... Each new battle map is cut out of the larger map based on a predetermined size made by the campaign designer. I call this the "cookie cutter". However, the placement of the cookie cutter is determined by the attacker's progress and the defender's final positions. If the defender runs off the map there will be a large jump further towards the end of the big map. If the defender only looses 1/3 of what he had before, then the map will only advance 1/3. Defender takes ground back, the cookie cutter is moved BACKWARDS towards the starting position. So on and so on. There will only be VLs at the end of the map (I think). The attacker's objective is to get to the end, so everything in the way is automatically important or not important depending. As sated above, the map will move according to where the defender's forces are. All troops have the ability to relocate, but the closer they are to the enemy the more restricted this will be. So if a couple of your units were locking horns with someone at the end of a battle, you might only be able to relocate 20m away or so (don't know the specifics yet!). Also, guns will not be allowed to relocate unless you assign a transport to them. One transport and 5 guns, you get to move only one gun. An incentive to keep your soft skin vehicles alive, no? Reinforcements come at designated real world times (i.e. 1400, 0800, etc). Battles start at specific real world times based on how the previous battle went and other factors. If you have reinforcements arrive in between battles you will be able to deploy them for the next battle. The designer decides who gets reinforcements and how much. The player can opt to turn down or defer reinforcements when they arrive if desired. Doing this gives the player more victory points and avoids risking said reinforcements, which would count against victory points. This is to dissuade players from always tossing in the kitchen sink even when it isn't necessary. If you really DON'T need reinforcements, you are better off not taking them. I'm not sure, but the benefits might be different based on nationality. Replacements are also determined by the designer. These are automatic and can not be turned down. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts