Few problems

[jep]

I have noticed few problem with this game. I do hope that these problems will be adjusted / fixed when the new game engine will be released.

1) In quck battless artillery is lightly over priced. You can't expect arty to kill worth its price. Chess-like players seems to hate artillery, because they cannot control it. Also, airplanes are over prized with their ridiculously hight rarity (standard).

2) Game favous tanks over infanry. 2-4 squads equivalents single armor. Seriously? Add spotting problems and the infantry's poor anti-tank performance and you have a rather serious problem.

3) Infanry should be lighly more resilient. I like how CMBB infanry squad can (seemingly) take more punishment. Perharps the ai should know how to take cover when they are about to die. Usually squads would be saved if the AI were clever enought to escape deeper into forest when tank shoots back. This is problem with real time battles when I do not have time to micromanage everything.

4) Fortifications seems to be nearly useless because they are too expensive. I would buy light armor rather than machine gun bunker. This is not only QB related issue. Seriously!

Actually I would like to purchase house and use it as a bunker.

5) Something wong with AT-mines. Panther drives over two at-mines but only destroys them. Problem seems to be that they explode _after_ a tank has driven over them (move fast).

6) TACAI (?) should do better. I do not understand why suicidal light at-gun decides to shoot tiger.

Squad should know thow to move in house to minimize the impact when something serious shoot back. Soldiers are supposed to be invidual persons who do not make suicidal action even when I ask them to.

I believe this should be easily fixed by allowing the game engine to simulate the likely result before actually implementing my orders. If result seems to lead certain death, soldier should deny my orders. This would nicely simulate the common sense.

7) Panzerfaus (etc) should be usable from house. Certainly random elements (delay when searching a safe shooting position, cowering, penalties, accidents etc) would be needed, but it's weird that soldiers wont use at -weapons even if they are about to be killed by tank near the house. I would rather risk the backblast when enemy armor is about to shoot me.

8) Scenario designer should be allowed to allow player to purchase his own reserves. Campaigns would be more interesting if player would be able to choose how to use those X points. I believe this would be somewhat realistic as a commanding officer should have something to say.

9) Scenarios can be hard to play without turnbased mode. Scenario designer should be able to give realtime players more time.

10) Campaign should be multiplayer friedly. I know that BF does not want to use time to create a proper campaign, but it would be nice if human player would be able to take role of the AI in standard campaign. Who who cares about balance?

Just my opinions.

[c3k]

Some interesting points. Some have been discussed at length, before. Some not.

I have noticed few problem with this game. I do hope that these problems will be adjusted / fixed when the new game engine will be released.

1) In quck battless artillery is lightly over priced. You can't expect arty to kill worth its price. Chess-like players seems to hate artillery, because they cannot control it. Also, airplanes are over prized with their ridiculously hight rarity (standard).

QB pricing is a can o'worms. Honestly, it will never be "right". What is equivalent on attack is overpriced for defense. Similarly for open ground vs. woods. Air support has high rarity due to the rareness of air attack RIGHT THERE, RIGHT NOW. Usually it is ahead of, and separate from, ground forces. Lots of threads on that.

2) Game favous tanks over infanry. 2-4 squads equivalents single armor. Seriously? Add spotting problems and the infantry's poor anti-tank performance and you have a rather serious problem.

Spotting problems? (Referring to seemingly blind infantry? If so, discussed elsewhere.) Poor anti-tank performance? Well, yeah. It is WWII. I can only hope for early war modules/games where a friggin' Renault FT-17 will strike terror into masses of infantry! Armor plate is pretty good against infantry.

3) Infanry should be lighly more resilient. I like how CMBB infanry squad can (seemingly) take more punishment. Perharps the ai should know how to take cover when they are about to die. Usually squads would be saved if the AI were clever enought to escape deeper into forest when tank shoots back. This is problem with real time battles when I do not have time to micromanage everything.

CMBB squad took "hits" which you couldn't see. Here, you see it all. Real Time (RT) has an issue if you have too many squads to control. Try WeGo. It may not be for you, since you're totally out of control for a full minute, but it's something different. But, yeah, there's been talk about squads which seemingly do suicidal moves, like stopping where YOU know they'll die. They may not know about that particular enemy.

4) Fortifications seems to be nearly useless because they are too expensive. I would buy light armor rather than machine gun bunker. This is not only QB related issue. Seriously!

Actually I would like to purchase house and use it as a bunker.

Well, other than in QB's when are you worried about purchase price?

As for QB costs, see my first response.

5) Something wong with AT-mines. Panther drives over two at-mines but only destroys them. Problem seems to be that they explode _after_ a tank has driven over them (move fast).

This is new. Do you have a savegame? (I assume not, if RealTime is your favored mode of play.) Are you SURE they weren't anti-personnel mines?

6) TACAI (?) should do better. I do not understand why suicidal light at-gun decides to shoot tiger.

Squad should know thow to move in house to minimize the impact when something serious shoot back. Soldiers are supposed to be invidual persons who do not make suicidal action even when I ask them to.

I believe this should be easily fixed by allowing the game engine to simulate the likely result before actually implementing my orders. If result seems to lead certain death, soldier should deny my orders. This would nicely simulate the common sense.

Well, why should the game countermand YOUR orders? I mean, you're asking for it to follow your command when it will lead to a "good" outcome (as you define "good"), but to override your command when it will not. I wish I had something like that in real life.

7) Panzerfaus (etc) should be usable from house. Certainly random elements (delay when searching a safe shooting position, cowering, penalties, accidents etc) would be needed, but it's weird that soldiers wont use at -weapons even if they are about to be killed by tank near the house. I would rather risk the backblast when enemy armor is about to shoot me.

Often discussed. British PIAT's are your friend in built-up fighting. Peaking around corners is something posited as a solution.

8) Scenario designer should be allowed to allow player to purchase his own reserves. Campaigns would be more interesting if player would be able to choose how to use those X points. I believe this would be somewhat realistic as a commanding officer should have something to say.

Not really. It depends at which level you stop the game from simulating command. "Major! You will attack the enemy with your battalion at 0600. You MUST gain control of the village by 0730. Now, look around the division and let me know which units you want." Um, not in real life.

However, it is an interesting idea for a campaign design to incorporate variable forces, as chosen by the player. Soemthing cool to think about.

9) Scenarios can be hard to play without turnbased mode. Scenario designer should be able to give realtime players more time.

If this happens to you frequently, before you play a scenario, open it in the editor and add a few hours to the time. (Or have someone else do it for you, so you don't see something you don't want to.) Or, use the PAUSE function while playing RT.

Of course, having a "add x minutes" toggle at a cost in points would be fun, as well.

10) Campaign should be multiplayer friedly. I know that BF does not want to use time to create a proper campaign, but it would be nice if human player would be able to take role of the AI in standard campaign. Who who cares about balance?

Just my opinions.

Other than the cheap shot with "proper campaign", you've touched on something a lot of folks would like. Yeah, I don't care about balance, but after 10 battles with the balance getting more and more skewed, it may get difficult to gin up the enthusiasm to play the next battle.

If the first battle goes to the "red", then the second battle will start skewed to "red". This feedback loop continues, ad infinitum. The solution is to play battles with no feedback. That would be separate battles, not a campaign.

Ken

[poesel]

1) BFC won't discuss QB prices. Please search the forum relevant threads.

2) that depends heavily on the situation. Also see 1)

3) reaction to threats could/should be a bit better (mortars, tanks). Play WEGO if you don't like micromanagement

4) see 1) For scenarios its the designers choice or historical

5) please test and/or read other thread that just popped up

6) which orders did you give your gun?

Avoid the word 'easy' - this is more complicated than you think

7) search the forum - highly discussed topic

8) yes, that would be nice. OTOH you can open the scenario and change it to you liking

9) change the scenario to your needs

10) yes, that would be nice

Edit: ninja'ed by c3k

[Vanir Ausf B]

1) In quck battless artillery is lightly over priced. You can't expect arty to kill worth its price. Chess-like players seems to hate artillery, because they cannot control it. Also, airplanes are over prized with their ridiculously hight rarity (standard).

Given the highly (and I think a-historically) lethal and flexible nature of artillery in the game I'm not so sure about that. Killing potential is certainly a factor, but when I buy a battalion of infantry I don't do so expecting them to kill an equivalent number of enemy troops.

2) Game favous tanks over infanry. 2-4 squads equivalents single armor. Seriously? Add spotting problems and the infantry's poor anti-tank performance and you have a rather serious problem.

This is true. Armor and artillery are both more dangerous than in the CMx1 games, but infantry seems more vulnerable and less capable.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1391031&highlight=bail#post1391031

3) Infanry should be lighly more resilient. I like how CMBB infanry squad can (seemingly) take more punishment. Perharps the ai should know how to take cover when they are about to die. Usually squads would be saved if the AI were clever enought to escape deeper into forest when tank shoots back. This is problem with real time battles when I do not have time to micromanage everything.

Yep, Jep. It's not clear if it's a cover issue or a weapons effects issue, but small to medium caliber HE that was primarily used for suppression historically is very lethal in CMx2.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=106702&highlight=mortar+test&page=19

4) Fortifications seems to be nearly useless because they are too expensive. I would buy light armor rather than machine gun bunker. This is not only QB related issue. Seriously!

Actually I would like to purchase house and use it as a bunker.

5) Something wong with AT-mines. Panther drives over two at-mines but only destroys them. Problem seems to be that they explode _after_ a tank has driven over them (move fast).

As for the QB pricing, I haven't used them much, but their usefulness tends to be more situational than most other units. So a small number of well-placed minefields could be worth a lot, but if you are looking to make historically accurate belts of them backed by long stretches of barbed wire that is not feasible. It was the same way in the CMx1 games.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=27948

If AT mines are detonating too late to affect fast moving vehicles that would be a bug.

6) TACAI (?) should do better. I do not understand why suicidal light at-gun decides to shoot tiger.

The game does mostly leave it up to the player to know what can kill what and to decide when to chance it. I'm fine with this, but there needs to be a better way for players not familiar with the technical details of WW2 weapons and armor to make an informed decision. Fortunately BFC has recognized this and is planning a feature that will work somewhat like the CMx1 tooltip that would tell you what the odds of a kill were.

Squad should know thow to move in house to minimize the impact when something serious shoot back. Soldiers are supposed to be invidual persons who do not make suicidal action even when I ask them to.

I believe this should be easily fixed by allowing the game engine to simulate the likely result before actually implementing my orders. If result seems to lead certain death, soldier should deny my orders. This would nicely simulate the common sense.

I think they actually do this pretty well most of the time if you don't shackle them with covered arcs.

7) Panzerfaus (etc) should be usable from house. Certainly random elements (delay when searching a safe shooting position, cowering, penalties, accidents etc) would be needed, but it's weird that soldiers wont use at -weapons even if they are about to be killed by tank near the house. I would rather risk the backblast when enemy armor is about to shoot me.

+10

[jep]

There is probably little point in discussing about quick battless. Still, I consider this somewhat important issue. Killing potential is important factor because no body buys crap units. Rarely used unit equals less to choose from (which in turn hurts replayability). Well, actually I do not think there is too much problems to fix. I personally would like to see that people chooces to use more infanry without implementing house rules (2-4 squads should not equivalent single armor), but this is only my personal opinion.

Not really. It depends at which level you stop the game from simulating command. "Major! You will attack the enemy with your battalion at 0600. You MUST gain control of the village by 0730. Now, look around the division and let me know which units you want." Um, not in real life.

However, it is an interesting idea for a campaign design to incorporate variable forces, as chosen by the player. Soemthing cool to think about.

I thought that batalion (etc) commander whould send his men to aqquire/steal/borror machinegun if the only one available was destroyed. Anyway, this would make campaing more interesting for me.

Other than the cheap shot with "proper campaign", you've touched on something a lot of folks would like. Yeah, I don't care about balance, but after 10 battles with the balance getting more and more skewed, it may get difficult to gin up the enthusiasm to play the next battle.

If the first battle goes to the "red", then the second battle will start skewed to "red". This feedback loop continues, ad infinitum. The solution is to play battles with no feedback. That would be separate battles, not a campaign.

I didn't try to be cheap. I believe BF has stated that they do not consider human-human campaign be worth the development time. If so, this would be an easy to implement alternative.

That said I do believe that campaign is a clear pain spot in CM. Beyond Overlord was released 13 (?) years ago and we have yet to have human to human campaign. In contrast, Close Combat 2 (1997) allowed multiplayer campaing. Add to that the failed CM: Campaigns. Perhaps BF just have too hight standards to make campaign worth to create.

This is new. Do you have a savegame? (I assume not, if RealTime is your favored mode of play.) Are you SURE they weren't anti-personnel mines?

Seems like we have a thread related to this problem. Unfortunately I do not have savegame since I played RealTime, but those mines exploded after my panther was passed them. Perhaps heavy weight was supposed to trigger nearby mines?

[womble]

Beyond Overlord was released 13 (?) years ago and we have yet to have human to human campaign...Perhaps BF just have too hight standards to make campaign worth to create.

The problems with HvH campaigns have been clearly elucidated: they're technically possible to create within the CMx2 engine (I just went and made one to check), but dreadfully hard to make "campaign-y" from the POV of both sides. It's not just BFC who haven't created one, it's the entire player base. And that includes some pretty creative folk who've made some damn fine single player campaigns.

It would be a doddle to get one of the existing campaigns, unpack it with the Scenario Organiser thingy that some clever soul devised, and change the [human opponent allowed] flag to "yes" and recompile. At least then you could have it campaign-y from one direction, though the "opponent" would be less involved in the story, while being compensated with AI-tastic force levels to employ against the person who's getting all the main focus of the campaign. You'd probably find you'd want to go in and edit the OpFor for most of them, since having a human driving them would make progress... difficult, I think.

[poesel]

Ok, a question about feasibility:

IIRC Warhammer (yes, Warhammer ) had it the back of the rules a small 'endless' scenario which went like this:

Both sides start with equal forces and fight over a bridge. The looser had to retreat one step and the next fight would be around some farm. The attacker would get bonus troops, the defender less so (because he had the farm as defensive position).

Defender wins it goes back to the bridge, attacker wins it goes another step to the castle. Attacker big bonus, defender small. Loose the castle, loose the game.

Could be that there was another step between farm and castle.

The game could theoretically run forever back and forth. Is something equivalent possible with CM?

[Apocal]

I have noticed few problem with this game. I do hope that these problems will be adjusted / fixed when the new game engine will be released.

1) In quck battless artillery is lightly over priced. You can't expect arty to kill worth its price. Chess-like players seems to hate artillery, because they cannot control it. Also, airplanes are over prized with their ridiculously hight rarity (standard).

2) Game favous tanks over infanry. 2-4 squads equivalents single armor. Seriously? Add spotting problems and the infantry's poor anti-tank performance and you have a rather serious problem.

3) Infanry should be lighly more resilient. I like how CMBB infanry squad can (seemingly) take more punishment. Perharps the ai should know how to take cover when they are about to die. Usually squads would be saved if the AI were clever enought to escape deeper into forest when tank shoots back. This is problem with real time battles when I do not have time to micromanage everything.

4) Fortifications seems to be nearly useless because they are too expensive. I would buy light armor rather than machine gun bunker. This is not only QB related issue. Seriously!

Actually I would like to purchase house and use it as a bunker.

5) Something wong with AT-mines. Panther drives over two at-mines but only destroys them. Problem seems to be that they explode _after_ a tank has driven over them (move fast).

6) TACAI (?) should do better. I do not understand why suicidal light at-gun decides to shoot tiger.

Squad should know thow to move in house to minimize the impact when something serious shoot back. Soldiers are supposed to be invidual persons who do not make suicidal action even when I ask them to.

I believe this should be easily fixed by allowing the game engine to simulate the likely result before actually implementing my orders. If result seems to lead certain death, soldier should deny my orders. This would nicely simulate the common sense.

7) Panzerfaus (etc) should be usable from house. Certainly random elements (delay when searching a safe shooting position, cowering, penalties, accidents etc) would be needed, but it's weird that soldiers wont use at -weapons even if they are about to be killed by tank near the house. I would rather risk the backblast when enemy armor is about to shoot me.

8) Scenario designer should be allowed to allow player to purchase his own reserves. Campaigns would be more interesting if player would be able to choose how to use those X points. I believe this would be somewhat realistic as a commanding officer should have something to say.

9) Scenarios can be hard to play without turnbased mode. Scenario designer should be able to give realtime players more time.

10) Campaign should be multiplayer friedly. I know that BF does not want to use time to create a proper campaign, but it would be nice if human player would be able to take role of the AI in standard campaign. Who who cares about balance?

Just my opinions.

1) Artillery effectiveness depends greatly on your opponent's actions. I can easily get my money's worth if an opponent, for example, shows a full rifle company and puts them all behind one hedgerow or if I catch a section of Wespes behind a building. More aware or less unlucky opponents limit it's effectiveness.

2) Yes, I believe that to be a concession to the old-school wargaming crowd who got used to pushing around a half-dozen model tanks on their literal boards. At any rate, you can afford (in a small QB) a section of medium tanks, tank destroyers or assault guns, a full company of infantry, high experience FO, some TRPs and one module of 105mm artillery or 2-3 modules of heavy mortars or 75mm howitzers, which is about ideal in my eyes. Sometimes heavier on armor, sometimes downgrading the artillery, sometimes attaching engineers, sometimes going with AT guns or light tanks or rather than mediums, etc. but a solid core force.

3) I agree the game in general doesn't have very good situational awareness tools for real-time players. It also suffers greatly from not being able to make ad-hoc groupings selectable at a single number key, like other real time games. Instead it plays with camera positions :-S

4) Fortifications are not only expensive but hilariously easy to spot and "de-populate." Even by small arms fire. Not really reflective of the real thing.

5) I've never had this problem.

6) Always could improve the TacAI. But for the most part it does reasonably well. If you don't want that light AT gun shooting a Tiger, give it a short-range 360 degree arc.

7) Sure.

8) Eh... not really. IRL, you would have a reserve, but consisting of what you could spare (as a battalion commander) or what your boss could afford to send you (company or lower). Maybe there'd be some back and forth about exactly what they could send, but nothing like, "lemee see, I'll take a section of Shermans, some mortars... oh! I know, another platoon of infantry!"

9) There is the option of having upwards of three hours for a scenario.

10) You can already play HTH campaigns, it is just difficult to balance so that one side doesn't get completely steamrolled after one decisive defeat.

[c3k]

Re: AT mines. I've tested and not seen the problem. (At least, as described.) Sometimes a sympathetic detonation will trigger a mine not under the tank, but only as/with the one under the tank blows up.

[Apocal]

Ok, a question about feasibility:

IIRC Warhammer (yes, Warhammer ) had it the back of the rules a small 'endless' scenario which went like this:

Both sides start with equal forces and fight over a bridge. The looser had to retreat one step and the next fight would be around some farm. The attacker would get bonus troops, the defender less so (because he had the farm as defensive position).

Defender wins it goes back to the bridge, attacker wins it goes another step to the castle. Attacker big bonus, defender small. Loose the castle, loose the game.

Could be that there was another step between farm and castle.

The game could theoretically run forever back and forth. Is something equivalent possible with CM?

Weren't there operations similar to this in CMx1?

[JonS]

Is something equivalent possible with CM?

In principle; yes, but it would require a fair bit of work on the part of the players, because I think most of the "Campaign" admin would need to be done off-line, by the players between battles.

For starters, you'd have to create or select five (or seven, or nine...) maps to move back and forth over.

Then you'd need some rules of thumb regarding reinforcements. Do the existing forces get built up? Do all new forces appear? etc. There is also, unfortunately, no export-forces function at the end of a battle so you'd need to note what forces you had left and build from there for the next battle.

Basically, it'd be a case of

1) create the first battle

2) fight the first battle

3) note the result and record end state of forces

4) create the next battle using 3) as input plus the rules of thumb regarding reinforcements

5) fight the next battle

6) loop to 3) until one side reaches their objective

Hmm.

Actually. You could also do it with a branching and looping campaign. I think. No, I'm pretty sure you could. If you laid out a battle progression flowchart (similar to this, but modified for the back and forth you're after. So, for example, generally a win would advance to the next battle while a loss would loop back to the previous battle), then used it to write the campaign script, I'm certain it would work. But getting it set up and working correctly and in a fun way would be ... challenging.

Jon

Edit: I just did a quick rough-out on paper, and as long as you didn't mind about battle damage not carrying forward, and core forces not carrying damage forward, I believe it'd actually be pretty straightforward to create such a campaign in CMx2.

[Erwin]

Apocal: Yes, CM1 had that capability as well as having battalion, regimental and divisional level reserves that would be automatically commited as reinforcements (to either side) if losses crossed particular thresholds.

[Pak40]

Actually. You could also do it with a branching and looping campaign. I think. No, I'm pretty sure you could. If you laid out a battle progression flowchart (similar to this, but modified for the back and forth you're after. So, for example, generally a win would advance to the next battle while a loss would loop back to the previous battle), then used it to write the campaign script, I'm certain it would work. But getting it set up and working correctly and in a fun way would be ... challenging.

Jon

Edit: I just did a quick rough-out on paper, and as long as you didn't mind about battle damage not carrying forward, and core forces not carrying damage forward, I believe it'd actually be pretty straightforward to create such a campaign in CMx2.

Technically you could just loop back to a previous battle but then you'd be fighting with the exact same forces (minus casualties and plus replacements). The battles will get quite repetitive. However, instead of looping, the campaign designer could take the time to copy/paste the battle and create many slightly alternate versions with "reinforcements" - i.e. the core units would be the same but you might get a support platoon in the second version, then a attached tank platoon in the third version etc...

[JonS]

Technically you could just loop back to a previous battle but then you'd be fighting with the exact same forces (minus casualties and plus replacements).

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. Although, you could probably do it with a repetitive Core Force, plus definite supplementary forces that depended on the map, so the exact makeup of the core force would vary a little from battle to battle.

The battles will get quite repetitive.

Yep. Although it sounds like the Warhammer campaign would get quite repetitive too - exactly the same forces on exactly the same maps.

However, instead of looping, the campaign designer could take the time to copy/paste the battle and create many slightly alternate versions with "reinforcements" - i.e. the core units would be the same but you might get a support platoon in the second version, then a attached tank platoon in the third version etc...

Yes indeed, although that rapidly becomes insanely time consuming and complex. Also, the Warhammer campaign example was potentially endless, which sort-of requires simplistic looping to replicate in CM.

[The Steppenwulf]

It would be a doddle to get one of the existing campaigns, unpack it with the Scenario Organiser thingy that some clever soul devised, and change the [human opponent allowed] flag to "yes" and recompile.

and..

You can already play HTH campaigns...

How?? - Specifics please!! I assume the flag is a hexadecimal byte change. Do you have the file reference for this flag?? See as far as I'm aware the .btt files. and the .ema files are encrypted archives. This makes it impossible to change just about anything in the files - this is the biggest stumbling block to playing out a multiplayer campaign on an higher operational level. Yes the .CAM files have some accessibility but I was unaware of aforementioned 'flag'.

In principle; yes, but it would require a fair bit of work on the part of the players, because I think most of the "Campaign" admin would need to be done off-line, by the players between battles.

For starters, you'd have to create or select five (or seven, or nine...) maps to move back and forth over....

I find this interesting because I've spent some time thinking about this. There is already a piece of software that could take care of many aspects of the

operational game. There are many other ways to do it outside a computer - as per Broadswords own "St Lo Campaign and CM maps" and Noobs Campaign ideas.

Unfortunately there are massive compromises (as they would testify) many of which you have touched upon in your post. The biggest problem, the way I see it, is that without being able to edit the .ema files (because they are encrypted -understandably so, to prevent H2H cheating), a Campaign Administrator cannot account for dynamic reinforcements as they would apply to an ongoing engagement. For example, assume that George, playing A company, is engaged in a battle on map A with German forces played by Hans and is also engaged in a battle on the right flank on map B with B Company. Assume that, after an hour of battle, A company defeats it's adversaries and C company, which was held in reserve, moves through A company, stealing a flank on the german forces facing B company to assault their flank on map A - which is still being played out.

Clearly this is not possible and therefore rules out the application of realistic operational maneouvres above the capacities of a single scenario. Moreover, this is highly unlikely to change because of the very sound reasons (as given above) for protecting the file data - hence the reason why BF have produced no higher operational game layer other than the SP Campaign - which is not the same thing in any case.

There are however some pretty interesting ideas that could emerge from campaign design, as JonS indicates, which could be very worthwhile pursuing.

Edit: I just did a quick rough-out on paper, and as long as you didn't mind about battle damage not carrying forward, and core forces not carrying damage forward, I believe it'd actually be pretty straightforward to create such a campaign in CMx2.

Japanzer (I think) wrote an application that uses a screen reader program and records battle results from scenarios. His unit buyer app can then take an OOB from an external document and then put forces into a new scenario. For me this seemed like the only way to take care of this messy business.

I was of the understanding that campaigns could carry damaged forces forward?? Would this work for our theoretical H2H campaign - assuming that the byte 'flag' has been identified?

Nothwithstanding these questions which are indeed of great interest in themselves, I find it pertinent to highlight that in reality any units that find themselves in battle are unlikely to advance to engage outside battle objectives as provided by orders without suitable recuperation, resupply and receipt of a fresh set of orders. Unsurprisingly, that takes time and explains why fresh battalions, and then brigades, move through their own forces to keep up the pressure on the retreating enemy lines and maintain momentum of attack. Therefore, I question whether there is a need to have units that carry over from one map to the next. Units that engage in battle normally do one of two things; either they fallback through their own lines, and their rear units, and then reorganise before receiving fresh orders, or they advance sucessfully to their objectives where they also reorganise awaiting new orders whilst rear units move through them to exploit. The number of casualties inflicted, tiredness accrued, supplies expended and morale sapped, amongst other factors, all affect the time taken for reorganisation. With the kind of intense firefights the average scenario puts its pixeltruppen through, one wonders if in real life that unit would be on the march again at all but certainly not for a substantial period of time - perhaps 24 hours or more!!

In summary, a cleverly written campaign could write this idea into each battle, ideally with the player pre-planning and deciding how to structure his own forces to meet each set of objectives?!??! :confused:

Apologies for the long post...

[JonS]

I was of the understanding that campaigns could carry damaged forces forward?

Yes, it can. The problem - from a design standpoint - is that it becomes very hard to predict what state any given force will be at in subsequent battles. However, the campaign script allows for replacements and resupply, at the designers discretion.

I find it pertinant to point out that in reality any units that find themselves in battle are unlikely to advance to engage outside battle objectives as provided by orders without suitable recuperation, resupply and a fresh set of orders

Yep, which is why campaigns which focuss on a particular unit usually either follow the unit over a short period of time with no resupply or reinforcement (that is, it's the player's responsibility to closely manage his resources across multiple battles) OR follow the unit across a long period of time, with many days between individual battles to allow for reinforcement and resupply.

(There are other types of campaign of course, including chopping and changing between different units for different battles.)

ideally with the player pre-planning and deciding how to structure his own forces to meet each set of objectives

Yikes! :eek: You could, technically, do that in a CM campaign, but it'd require a truck load of 'decision' scenarios and would I think be thoroughly confusing to both create and to play. Or you'd have some fairly complex 'rules' embedded in the briefing, along the lines of "you'll find a battalion of tanks and a battalion of infantry awaiting you. Select up to three companys for the next battle, and move the remainder into the 'storage box' at the left-rear of the map"

It'd be really clunky, I think, to try and do it inside a CM campaign. That kind of rolling task- and force-customisation is I think better done outside CM, a'la n00b's or Broadsword's campaigns.

Edit: Mad Mike's Scenario Organiser is discussed here. This tool has the ability to unpack the scenarios embedded in a campaign, and it works well.

[The Steppenwulf]

Thanks for your response. I'm aware of Mad Mike's .CAM extractor.

Yikes! :eek: You could, technically, do that in a CM campaign, but it'd require a truck load of 'decision' scenarios and would I think be thoroughly confusing to both create and to play. Or you'd have some fairly complex 'rules' embedded in the briefing, along the lines of "you'll find a battalion of tanks and a battalion of infantry awaiting you. Select up to three companys for the next battle, and move the remainder into the 'storage box' at the left-rear of the map"

It'd be really clunky, I think, to try and do it inside a CM campaign. That kind of rolling task- and force-customisation is I think better done outside CM, a'la n00b's or Broadsword's campaigns.

Yes I know. However, there may be a way to facilitate this that I could provide the practical means. Unfortunately, I have no experience of BF's campaign script. I haven't even ever bothered to look at it so I know not how flexible/inflexible it might be. The burning question in this regard is; is it possible to extract the script to an external document from a CAM file with Mad Mike's extraction tool? And; Is the campaign script only editable/ accessable via the game editor?

[JonS]

is it possible to extract the script to an external document from a CAM file with Mad Mike's extraction tool?

I ... don't think it is. Although if you knew what you were doing you'd be able to recreate it from the info that MMs tool produces.

Is the campaign script only editable/accessable via the game editor?

No, the script is a simple text file. It isn't edittable within the editor at all - all that has to be done outside the game on Notepad, or something similar. Actually, I'm not even sure the script is included in the .cam file at all. I think the script is used to compile the .cam, but doesn't become part of it (if that makes sense?).

[The Steppenwulf]

No, the script is a simple text file. It isn't edittable within the editor at all - all that has to be done outside the game on Notepad, or something similar. Actually, I'm not even sure the script is included in the .cam file at all. I think the script is used to compile the .cam, but doesn't become part of it (if that makes sense?).

I'm pleasantly surprised by this information. I think this now warrants a closer look for myself at the campaign script. However, I'm not going to get carried away at all at this stage with any ideas. If I think I have something I will report back.

I really need to know now if a H2H (2 player) campaign as mentioned in the previous posts (& as I have quoted from) is substantive fact or just wishful thinking. I must say I'm a little sceptical, but to me it read (& from two separate postees) that it was established in practice.

EDIT: This is from the v2.00 manual p100:-

The script is quite simple. The first part is the Campaign Header to help CM set up

the Campaign as a whole. The first variable specifies which side the Campaign

is played from (Allied or Axis), if a Human Opponent is allowed (No or Yes)

The pulse runs a little faster...

[womble]

Edit: should have read to the end of the thread, not just skimmed it lightly.

Changing the "no" to a "yes" worked for me (I just put Cats Chasing Dogs as the first mission and Huzzar as the second mission, and elided some comments). I think there might be some limitations on which player gets to see the campaign level briefings, and you have to choose which "vs" mode you use for each battle as it pops (though that would be useful for "decision-only" scenarios which could be played single-player so the opposition doesn't know what choices were picked). But it definitely works.

[Steiner14]

Not really. It depends at which level you stop the game from simulating command. "Major! You will attack the enemy with your battalion at 0600. You MUST gain control of the village by 0730. Now, look around the division and let me know which units you want." Um, not in real life.

There are not only divisonal reserves and every attack has it's reserve.

It would be great, if scenario designers could remove the tactical reserve from the map and let the player decide if he wants to use it or not.

It was not unusual that regimental reserves could be called within the CM timeframe or that the divisional reserves and tanks/StuGs/TDs were available for a quick request but not placed directly at the battalion's sector.

It would also be great for gameplay, if reserves would become something the player can influence and benefit by not requesting additional units.

New kind of scenarios would become available, where we no longer could quite well judge from the units we get on map and as scheduled reserves what we can expect.

For example, instead of light tanks suddenly a heavy tank shows up. The player no longer could judge from his units, how many more tanks he could expect. Will his tank be sufficient or will he need a certain reserve? What kind of reserve should he request? The company reserve of the half platoon? The battalion's reserve with the platoon and on field mortars? The regimental antitank platoon or the divisional reserve with the StuGs or TDs or the pioneers?

Or in the case of a successful attack: we wouldn't know, if after the lost five tanks of the oponent, if he would not be able to get additional divisional reserves.

The variety of scenarios could be greatly expanded.

[JonS]

The variety of scenarios could be greatly expanded.

Could you point me at your portfolio of scenarios, please?

[poesel]

Thanks JonS for the primer on campaigns. It's actually quite simple while I thought it's an arcane art and never looked it up.

There are two problems I see with an 'eternal' campaign but no show stopper.

First is that there is no [NEXT BATTLE IF DRAW] so you can not repeat the battle if it is, well, a draw. For all but the first battle it could be reasoned that a draw is a victory for the defender. But for the first? Maybe one side always gets a slight advantage in the first battle and thus has to achieve at least a tactical?

Second is similar. Currently it is always a two-way fork. So you can step forward or back but you will always encounter the same battle again (with varying core forces).

If we had a n-fork with entries like:

[NEXT BATTLE IF TOTAL DEFEAT] Battle 2 with no reinforcements

[NEXT BATTLE IF MAJOR DEFEAT] Battle 2 with an additional stick

...

[NEXT BATTLE IF TOTAL VICTORY] Battle 2 with an additional Panzerdivision

or a bit slicker (and more complicated):

[NEXT BATTLE IF > TACTICAL VICTORY] Battle 2 with an additional Company

Thus you could add some variety with the battles or 'jump' over maps with a good result.

Hmm, or you could create these 'decision' type scenarios to add additional branches. A bit cluncky but doable. I'll have to investigate further...

[JonS]

First is that there is no [NEXT BATTLE IF DRAW] so you can not repeat the battle if it is, well, a draw. For all but the first battle it could be reasoned that a draw is a victory for the defender. But for the first? Maybe one side always gets a slight advantage in the first battle and thus has to achieve at least a tactical?

I think you could just make an arbitrary rule that takes into account which side of the seesaw you're on. If Side A is approaching Side B's castle and the battle is a draw, that ncounts as a win for Side B and the seesaw moves back towards the middle

Or, alternately, it counts as a win for Side A and the seesaw tips over even further.

You could also factor in how far over the seesaw is - if you're just past the middle a draw would count as a win for the attacker. But if it's the last battle to win the campaign then the attacker has to actually win, else they're forced back towards the middle.

Or sumfink.

So you can step forward or back but you will always encounter the same battle again (with varying core forces).

Yep. Already noted. You could over come this with an insanely branching tree (even without 'decision' battles), but you'd quickly lose your mind. The Warhammer example that this is drawn seemed to be quite simplistic, so I was hewing close to that appraoch. It's also quite acheivable.

If we had ...

... and if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle

There are dozens of suggestions - some good, some not so good* - floating about for improving the way campaigns can be constructed. But using the tools we have, now, I think a decent Warhammer-style 'eternal' campaign could be made.

Actually, I think starting off with a simplistic eternal campaign would be a good idea. Build it, test it, publish it, then if you've still got the stamina, go back and refine it by adding more loops and branches.

Jon

* three-way branches is a good one.

[poesel]

... and if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle

...

Actually, I think starting off with a simplistic eternal campaign would be a good idea. Build it, test it, publish it, then if you've still got the stamina, go back and refine it by adding more loops and branches.

Wikipedia explains really everything...

Ok, I put together a VERY bare bones eternal campaign. This is the first time for me for a campaign and even a scenario. So please bear with me.

I came so far as to compile the campaign but CM got stuck. I killed the process after a few minutes. Or does it take so long?

The files are here:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8811801/Eternal.zip

Could someone please take a look?