Campaigns, what they are and aren't

June 11, 1999

It seems that there is still misconceptions of what Combat Mission's Campaigns will be like. Many people have a fear that they won't get to carry units from battle to battle, which is an important part of wargaming. This is not true, but we aren't doing a copycat Panzer General / Steel Panthers / Close Combat system either. This is obviously why people are having a hard time understanding what we ARE doing.

Let me first define a couple of things here:

Core Units - this is a term that was coined from Panzer General. It is an abstract form of having central units go from one battle to another, gaining experience and so on. Close Combat followed this to some extent, with the addition of many RPG type elements (awards and so on).

War-Wide Campaign - this takes your core units from one historical battle (ex: Arnhem) to another (ex: Bastonge). When you get to the new battle you pick up some attachments based on whatever game factors are being used (Prestige in PG terms).

OK, Combat has neither of these and will not have them no matter what. First of all, they don't work very well in terms of game balancing. I don't think I need to go into details here, but it is plainly obvious that this screws up game balancing quite a bit. This was, BTW, one of the biggest complaints about Close Combat 3's campaign system, which is the most recent example of this Core Units approach to War-Wide Campaigns. The fact is that it is VERY hard to account for random, variable, and highly diverse introduction of units from battle to battle. So far nobody has done it right so far as we can tell.

The second thing here is that CM simulates roughly 20-60 min engagements. Nearly any battle you have ever read about consisted of many of these engagements. So to have the Battle for Aachen be represented as a single 30 turn scenario in a big War-Wide Campaign is just silly. You don't get any sense of accomplishment of fighting in Aachen for the big prize. Instead you just slug it out for a house or two and then move off to some other major battle. Boring!

But the big problem for us comes with realism. NO UNIT survived from one major engagement to another intact. Unlike Steel Panthers and Close Combat your units in real life didn't fly off the battlefield and wait for some new epic battle to be tossed into. They were fighting all along the way. This means casualties. Since most units had turn over rates of at least 100% (some into 300% range!), by the time your units got to the next battle hardly anybody original would be left. More importantly, no one set of units went to more than probably one or two major battles for the entire war. So to have your same guys go from St. Lo, to Caen, then off to Arnhem, and over to Aachen, over to Bastonge, down to Remagen, etc. is just plain silly. Toss in the fact that the US forces and British forces didn't fight in the same battles most of the time (i.e. Brits did Arnhem, US did Bastonge), and their units are VERY different from each other, makes going from battle to battle ridiculously ahistorical. Combat Mission might be a game, but it isn't a silly one

OK, so now hopefully you understand what Combat Mission ISN'T doing, and more importantly, WHY it isn't following the lead of Panzer General. Now to briefly explain what Combat Mission does and why it gives the player everything that the above is SUPPOSED to do, plus historical accuracy, and an overall BETTER sense of attachment to your units...

A Combat Mission campaign is a string of many battles from a single engagement (fictional or historical). There is no War-Wide Campaign or artificial Core Units. Instead you get one set of units and fight for an entire battle (Aachen for example) for something like 6 sub battles (count is up to the campaign designer). What this means is that you get to fight with the same units from start to finish, without totally ridiculous abstraction and gamy conventions that often lead to unbalanced battles.

The best part about this is that you fight on the same map. The map can be HUGE, like 1000m wide by 8000m deep. Each individual battle will be fought on a section of this big map, with the attacker's objective to be advance, advance, advance until the far end is reached. So each battle you fight, with the same troops, brings you closer to the mission objective. The attacker can even be pushed back and LOSE ground. Night and day can be passed through as well. All of this with your SAME units pursuing the SAME overall objective. This is 100 times better than having some abstract group of units going after some abstract goal that is labeled "Aachen" and then labeled "Bastonge". You WILL feel like you are slugging it out with your men to archive some really important objective, instead of just saying, "yeah, I rolled over that Remagen thing in a couple of turns. Don't see what the big deal was about it". In one battle you might try to take a pillbox line, get your ass kicked, and then have another shot at it in the next battle. Now you can apply the knowledge you accumulated from the previous battle to take on the pillboxes again. In Panzer General you could do this too, by restarting the game and playing the same scenario over again Yawn...

You will also come back to the next battle and see guys where they were before. So you come in and there is Sgt. Santos' squad, right were you last left him, all set and ready for another go. No abstracted Core Units thing, because there he is, right there on the map already. You will have some ability to reposition your troops, depending on circumstances, and of course you can get reinforcements (either between battles or during them. Depends). Ammo replenishment and replacements come in too, depending on settings. If you managed to keep knocked out vehicle crews alive you might even get a chance to have them man a new vehicle, or perhaps you can recover a slightly damaged one from the battlefield.

There will also be no unit experience gain between battles. A couple of 30- 60 min firefights are not enough to make a unit go up in experience. They would need to fight for weeks of sustained combat to go up even a single notch. Remember, Elite troops have been fighting for YEARS in some cases, so it doesn't make sense for some Green unit to obtain Elite status after a couple of minor scrapes. And it is impossible to simulate such large gaps of time at Combat Mission's level. So if you have a Green set of units, you will have to learn what to do and what NOT to do with them during the course of the campaign, and to keep applying those lessons each battle. They won't magically become better.

Finally, for those how STILL want some War-Wide Campaign, it isn't going to happen. For all the above reasons we simply do not support it. Every game concept that gamers REALLY want is inherent in our system. What is more, we have things in our system that NO OTHER computer wargame simulates. I don't know about you, but I have never played a computer wargame that allows you to dynamically advance the map based on your real game progress, including maintaining your units in their last held positions. All I have ever seen is the "warping" type thing like in Close Combat. Not the same AT ALL.

In the end we have a system that maintains balance between scenarios (a real problem for all the other games) and is historically accurate instead of just plain silly. The only thing we don't have is the gaining of experience and the brag factor of having played x and y and z big historical battles all in a row. We are sure that you won't miss either of these last two things one bit after you play one of Combat Mission's campaigns.

Steve

J Davis · June 12, 1999

Hmm OK so what you are saying is that a campaign in CM will always be on a single map that expands with succeeding missions (firefights), and therefore would only portray a single major battle, am I right in saying this?

If that's the case, how do you provide for play balance for succeeding missions? Say that I really take a beating in mission 1 and my forces are literally wiped out. How can I continue with the campaign in such an instance? From the campaign designer's view, how can he provide for balance with such a potentially large force variance?

Anyway, about the core unit thingie, what I had in mind was more of a "Forest Gump" tour of duty campaign deal--you know in the movie Forest bud was in on every major cultural US event in the 70's. So I was planning on making an ahistorical(!) campaign consisting of the famous battles. But if a CM campaign is per force on a single map, then scratch that. Can a campaign by made up of missions on separate maps, and if yes, can units' states be carried over? I think this is gonna be a no-go reply... AHAH! Something CM doesn't do!

Anyway, you still haven't convinced me that the CM "rollover" system is "better" than the other systems cited. It's different, and it's certainly more historically accurate, but the problem remains that "my guys" are tied to a single series of battles and I can't take them to another battle of my chosing. I want to stress again that, yes, I know it's totally BS from a historical viewpoint, but so is putting Pershings against King Tigers. Your argument about play balance isn't kosher, as given my suggestion of a small rollover force (platoon sized), it would affect the game less than the present system where the whole force from one mission is rollover to the next. Moreover, I'm not into the RPG stuff of "growing" the core unit. I don't care about increasing morale or weapons or whatever. As said, I'd be perfectly happy having the regular "rollover" unit taking casualties, getting green replacements, and getting busted down to greenie status, i.e. be affected/changed in battles in a realistic manner WITH THE EXCEPTION OF being able to warp to another battle and getting replacements along the way.

Anyway, it's late in the CM development cycle, and I'm sure the suggestion box is long closed before now, so if it's not in already then that's the way it will stay. May be I'll bring it up again when CM2 is getting put together and you have more time to consider it. CM is still the apple of my eye, with or without the "alter ego presence" feature.

Hey I have another question: Why is CM limited to only 2 players? It would be neat to have a bunch of guys, each commanding a kampfgruppe, fighting it out in a big battle. You know, team play! Then you can restrict comm channels to simulate the confusions in a battle...and all sorts of other nifty stuff! Oh hey may be that'll be for CM2 I guess?

June 12, 1999

Yes, one battle, one map, one campaign. We decided almost a year ago to NOT do the kind of ridiculous "I'm taking Sgt. Smith's squad on a tour of WWII battlefields" style of campaign play. This was a very well thought out, well reasoned, logical, rational design choice based on our knowledge of what would work best for Combat Mission. Our game is designed to be a realistic WWII simulation first and foremost. The kind of battle to battle thing is just total bunk from a realism standpoint, so there was a big strike against it to start with. Then when we looked at the pluses and minuses of the GAMEPLAY, we firmly decided against the battle to battle system. There are plenty of watered down mass market games that do this sort of thing, so we decided to leave it to them and spend our energies on doing something different and in our view better (by a long shot ). We have no interest in doing what others have done simply because they did it a certain way. That is not the way to innovate...

One thing you have to appreciate here is that CM's scale is too small to simulate an entire battle, or even a decent chunk of one, in a single scenario or even a couple of scenarios. Panzer General and Steel Panthers are all higher up in scale, and even then it really didn't work so well for Steel Panthers (works great for Panzer General because it is just a Rock, Paper, Scissors puzzle game with little tanks icons ). Close Combat 3 is slightly smaller in scale than CM, and bops people around from battle to battle, but I have seen more complaints about their system (from reviewers as well as gamers) than either of the other two SSI games mentioned. I remember one big magazine suggesting that the game would have been better without the campaign system at all! There are reasons why this is so, some of which lead us to create the system we have (note that we came up with this loooooong before CC3 came out).

Your worries about play balance are not a problem either. Reinforcements are allocated by the campaign designer according to historical time tables and force allocation, or if the campaign is fictional, based on good, sound play balancing decisions (not all scenarios and campaigns designed by people are going to be good. They never are). If the player screws up ROYALLY in a battle, and isn't able to make good on losses or lost ground, then the player has lost. Play balancing does not mean that either side can win every time no matter how badly they screw up. So if you are attacking and are in, say, battle number 4 of a possible 10 battle campaign (number of battles are determined by progress, BTW), but do some ill advised move and lose all your tanks, you might have to call that battle quits. If when you go into battle 5 you see that you didn't get anything significant for reserves, then you have to make a decision as to the viability of continuing the push. If you think you might still make progress, go for it Other wise call it a day and end the campaign with some sort of defeat. This is the way it goes in real war, and CM simulates that. We aren't out to make a game that rewards bad play with more reinforcements to offset unnecessary losses simply so they can keep playing. We will leave that to the mass market games to do.

My question is, why is it so important to take your men from St. Lo and plop them into Bastonge? Isn't it the combat that is the important thing here, not the names of the places you are trying to capture? Remember that each battle is only about 30 - 60 minutes worth of combat. Do you really think you will be satisfied to take command of some of Patton's troops, fight for 30 minutes worth of combat, maybe take 2 or 3 farmhouses, and declare yourself the victor of the Bulge? We personally think it would be a hollow and meaningless exercise since all you fought through was a skirmish of one battle in one large campaign. It should be far more satisfying when you get to the end of the Bastonge campaign and you are actually IN the center of the town, complete with surrounded Airborne guys being "liberated". That is what Combat Mission does.

It seems that you agree that our system is more realistic, ties you to your men even more, and is also challenging, but you don't want to believe that it is also more fun. Only playing will prove that.

Time is tight and we aren't introducing anything big and new, but we ruled out the battle to battle campaign system almost a year ago because we felt that it simply wouldn't work for Combat Mission. Since we are the game's designers and creators, you should understand that we know what is best for the game and what is not. You seem to be happy with our other design choices, so we ask that you try and reconcile the two and at least assume that we know what is best for now. Well, at least until the game is out and then you can see for yourself

As to multi-multi player games... we all like the idea but you have NO idea how hard it is to implement. Requires a game outside of the game. Perhaps eventually we will do such a game, but for the first one? Way too ambitious. This is what seperates Big Time Software from some other developers out there. We only bite off what we know we can chew in a reasonable time frame We aren't interested in having people talking about how great our game is going to be for nearly 4 years and through 3 publishers....

Steve

Doug Beman · June 12, 1999

I agree with BTS. Although, I do have a nagging, nit-picking question. Let's take your example of "Battle 4 of 10" in which you screw up and lose a bunch o' troops. Can you, as the commander, expecting reinforcements (not certain of, but "should be in your area in x days") push on to battle 5, hoping that that combat command of the 7th Armored arrives in time to sustain your push on St. Vith? I mean, yeah, don't reward bad command with reinforcements just so the player can win all the time, but lots of times, commanders would push on with seemingly hopeless attacks or defenses because they were expecting reinforcements that would turn the tide. Or because they were ordered to (I just read a person-by-person account of the Bulge. On Elsenborn Ridge the soldiers were told "stand and die." And they did)

Additionally, I think there's one very important argument for having multiple players on the same side: if you lose, you get to blame the dumbass commander of those death-trap tanks that got knocked out 500 yards behind the start line.

I realize that, rather than seeking enlightenment, I only expressed personal opinion. I don't care.

DjB

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

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion.

remove the caps letters in my address to email me

June 12, 1999

Yes, you can continue the fight even if it seems hopeless. Using my example, perhaps battle 5 you spend pulling your guys back and reorganizing them in hopes that some heavy stuff comes up for battle 6. However, at some point CM is basically going to say, "hey buddy, you have lost. Why don't you give it a rest?" I'm pretty sure you can keep playing after this point (this bit isn't finished, but I think this is what Charles intends) but the "official" word will be welcomed by people that rather not play a lost cause.

Steve

J Davis · June 12, 1999

On play balance:

"Your worries about play balance are not a problem either. Reinforcements are allocated by the campaign designer according to historical time tables and force allocation, or if the campaign is fictional, based on good, sound play balancing decisions (not all scenarios and campaigns designed by people are going to be good. They never are). If the player screws up ROYALLY in a battle, and isn't able to make good on losses or lost ground, then the player has lost. Play balancing does not mean that either side can win every time no matter how badly they screw up..."

You didn't really answer the question. For historical campaigns, your reliance on historical accuracy isn't the answer because historical accuracy != play balance. In real life, there is no such thing as "trying to be equitable" when fighting a war. If you want CM to be challenging to play, as versus "yeah I'll just call in my fighter-bombers and blast you to bits before I walk in because that's what the history books said happened," then play balance necessarily outweighs a strict reliance on historical force allocation. Moreover, in real life, things don't happen in a vaccuum as it is in a wargame. Reinforcement schedules aren't static, but can vary in accordance with how well or poorly the present battle is going (yes, I realize you can vary the timetable, but they aren't dynamic relative to results from previous combat, from your description.) Your response of "well, if you screw up a 60-minute firefight in a campaign then you might as well hang it up and forgo the rest of the campaign (for that battle)" is not only outrageously callous from a playability standpoint, but is also highly ahistorical from a historical standpoint. How many large battles in WW2 do you know that were given up for lost after a battalion commander screws up in a firefight?

"...or if the campaign is fictional, based on good, sound play balancing decisions..."

This is circular reasoning. There is no worry about play balance if the (fictional) campaign has good play balance decisions?

I didn't have much of a concern about the issue of having or not having a core unit, but your above rationale of how play balance is dependent on historical accuracy is frankly worrisome, and casts a pall over CM as far as this gamer is concerned.

On the "core unit" issue:

"My question is, why is it so important to take your men from St. Lo and plop them into Bastonge? Isn't it the combat that is the important thing here, not the names of the places you are trying to capture? Remember that each battle is only about 30 - 60 minutes worth of combat."

Different people have different definitions of what "fun" is. Granted, CM's scope of "fun" is more narrowly defined than many of the beer & pretzels wargames out there, but realize that your notion of what's important in the game may not be shared by some of your targetted market. For many gamers, the notion of having an "alter ego presence" in a game and being able to transfer it from battle to battle is "fun." If you doubt this, I'll just point to PG's popularity and to the many requests that led to a similar feature in CC3. Granted that PG's and CC3's implementations are faulty and (in PG's case) can severely impact gameplay, that doesn't mean that the concept is without merit. And since it is an optional part of play, it shouldn't have any impact on the realism emphasis that you seem to be striving so hard for. Sticklers for accuracy will simply ignore it. So at worst, having such a feature will have no change to the game. At best, it widens CM's appeal to more casual armchair generals who want more identification with the units. I understand that your primary targetted market is the grogs, but why not make the game "fun" for as large a market as possible, especially when you don't need to compromise on your goal of historical accuracy? And given that you said the game already saves the end-state of units to rollover to the next battle, then I think it's hardly an effort to have those end-states be carried to other campaigns as well.

As I said earlier, this "core unit" issue is of secondary importance to me. The play balance matter is going to be a sticking point for me, I'm afraid. But I think the "core unit" thing will prove an interesting test of BTS' vaunted customer-responsiveness, when CM is released and gamers start asking for such a feature. Will you relent to customers' wishes and implement a feature that takes minimal effort, even when it runs counter to your personal philosophy?

Anyway, am still looking forward to the game, even if not quite as eager as before.

Fionn · June 12, 1999

Well this is just another example of where people are used to something and think that not having it in a game is somewhat "inconceivable".

Personally speaking I play wargames and strategy games to explore strategies and tactics and not to watch some alter-ego artificially transported from battle to battle ahistorically.

I also totally fail to see the difference in playability and enjoyment in creating separate Bastogne and Falaise Gap battles which, while historically accurate in every detail simply do not allow you to port one platoon and its leader into each battle.

Surely our imaginations can stretch far enough to enjoy being Captain Thompson at Falaise and Captain Jameson at Bastogne ?

I personally don't see the deal-killer there. Remember, you can't have historical accuracy and fidelity such as BTS is trying to deliver whilst having all the ahistoric crumbs which have become commonplace in other lesser-fidelity games.

I often disagree with developers and producers as regards their design decisions but I must admit that this decision cannot be made until we have actually played the game.

Until that time I will say that I do believe that BTS will make the correct decision for THEIR game. Remember that what worked in Panzer General wouldn't work in CM and what worked in CC3 isn't necessarily the best way to do things in CM.

It is my understanding that, within any given campaign one will be "the leader" and have a given number of units with which to start the campaign. Losses and reinforcements will decrease and augment this starting force but, in essence, this starting force is what in most other games would be your core force.

You CAN role-play your alter-ego on a campaign by campaign basis. You just won't be able to take your British partroop officer from Arnhem into the Bulge (an action by American infantry, tankers and paratroopers and British infantry and tankers (in the north) ) or Huertgen (an action by American infantry).

Any suspension of disbelief would be destroyed by the branch and country-hopping nature of such linked campaigns.

BTW it is my firm belief that it will be extremely rare for much of your core group to survive any campaign.

Also, JDavis said ""well, if you screw up a 60-minute firefight in a campaign then you might as well hang it up and forgo the rest of the campaign (for that battle)" is not only outrageously callous from a playability standpoint, but is also highly ahistorical from a historical standpoint. How many large battles in WW2 do you know that were given up for lost after a battalion commander screws up in a firefight?"

I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of CM campaigns. In CM you might command most of a tank company with an infantry company in support in any given battle. Your aim would be extremely limited, to take a village or a given bridge etc against a similar ask-force sized German or American force.

BTS is NOT talking about a divisional commander abandoning a major push just because your company was reduced to 10 effectives after 1 battle. They are talking about the inability of YOUR company to continue fighting in that campaign if you lose 90% of your strength (for example).

I think that you are showing a basic misunderstanding of the scope and aims of CM. Some people feel they won't attach to units in the game and others feel that losing a company should not force you to lose.

My opinions on this are that:

a) When you only have 10 manouevre elements which are under your command you identify QUICKLY !

If you lost ALL your men then you simply would not, historically be recommitted to that battle. You would be taken out of the line and rested.

c) If you had lost so many men that you could not carry on as a company commander then the division would PASS ANOTHER COMPANY through your position to continue the attack and place you in reserve.

The battle would not be over for the division BUT you and your men would play no further part in it (unless you suicidally WANT to continue attacking a town you couldn't take with a company with only 10 or 20 men ).

You have got to remember the scope of CM. It DOES more effectively place you in the role of a company commander than CC3 or PzG I'd imagine.

Thomm · June 12, 1999

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

I don't know about you, but I have never played a computer wargame that allows you to dynamically advance the map based on your real game progress, including maintaining your units in their last held positions. All I have ever seen is the "warping" type thing like in Close Combat. Not the same AT ALL.

Oh, that's a new one ! Do you mean that you can create a terrain model of e.g. the whole "Market Garden" operation area with all houses, rivers, bridges and with ALL troops ? And that you then take out your magnifying glass (Combat Mission) and watch the same detail (="map") of the "world" for, say, 40 minutes (=one "battle") ? And then you determine how the "front" has moved and you move your magnifying glass accordingly for the next battle ?

If yes, what happens if troops leave the border of the map (can they) ? Will they reappear at the other battle map at this very time ? What happens in the rest of the "world" while you play the battle ? Does it wait "to be played" ? What happens to units which cannot follow the "magnifying glass", for example infantry who cannot keep up with a tank spearhead ? How do you handle the tons of data you must have if you manage a game world like "The Battle for Aachen" ?

Tell me more, please !

Thomm

[This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 06-12-99).]

HR · June 12, 1999

Just started reading the campaign design and it has a nice new look One thing you mention was that if you lose on say battle 4 and can't really go on the campaign will have to end. While realistic it' still no fun for a game to end. While magically new units and experience may not be the answer..perhaps some kind of pull back to fight another lesser campaign...something on the neighborhood of a campaign within a campaign.

Some sort of role playing, even in a wargame,is what gives a gamer that "personal feel".

Pete

June 12, 1999

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It should be far more satisfying when you get to the end of the Bastonge campaign and you are actually IN the center of the town, complete with surrounded Airborne guys being "liberated". That is what Combat Mission does<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sounds immersive. I like it. I think that the player should feel like a soldier that has arrived in a new strange town. Buddy, you won't know if you are going to get outta thier alive. If you screw up for 4 turns, the cpu has kicked your ass. You lose. You will have to sweat it out for multi battles to say, 'I won Bastogne'.

CM is at a new scale. The continuity is there but at a new, tactical level. By the way warzone 2100,(RTS,) used the idea of keeping the same map for multiple scenarios. The idea was well received. Reviews remarked how you couldn't afford to play bad in one scenario and then start fresh in the next. Also, playing well early will give you an advantage later on. I think CM will give players a better feel of gathering momentum by successive wins than other games do.

June 12, 1999

In fact, I can take this one step further.

The campagn should not even tell you exactly how many turns it is. EX. game is 20 -30 turns. That would simulate ,for example, you knowing reinforcements should arrive in 20-30 min, but you don't know exactly how many minutes. Gives rise to tension. You sweat it out thinking , damn, when will that airborne arrive? You might die waiting.

In one Star Trek movie, one simulation had the captain die, no matter what he tried to do. Why, to teach him that sometimes,death is inevitable. I hope CM isn't that mean.

June 12, 1999

J Davis... you seem to be taking a system that other games use and are trying to FORCE it onto Combat Mission for no other reason other than you like it in other games. What works for one game does not necessarily work for another.

You also seem to totally toss aside our ability to know what is best for this game with a casual sweep of your hand, as if you know more about Combat Mission or game design than we do. This is a pointless tact to take because you can't possibly support either position. We don't mind if you are skeptical, but you seem to be CONVINCED that we are wrong and what we are doing is totally harmful to the game. You should be more humble and at least wait until the game is out to come to such strong conclusions. You *might* be right (see, we are humble), but at this point you don't have anything to back up such a conviction, while we have plenty to back up ours.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You didn't really answer the question. For historical campaigns, your reliance on historical accuracy isn't the answer because historical accuracy != play balance. In real life, there is no such thing as "trying to be equitable" when fighting a war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would appear that you haven't played many historical wargames. The fact is that MANY real battles are balanced in some way or another. Not all, for sure, but this is what separates a good scenario/campaign from a bad one. There was one battle I wanted to simulate where the Germans. It was a pivotal battle which resulted in the utter destruction of what was once a great division. As important as the battle was, and interesting from a historical standpoint, upon further study of the battle I found it would make a terrible campaign (unless you like seeing one side wiped out by massed artillery time and time again). The Germans lost nearly every single skirmish over several days, with horrendous casualties. So needless to say it won't be simulated.

Let me repeat -> Combat Mission is NOT just a game, it is a historical simulation. If you want a game that pays little attention to the realities of war then maybe you should stick to the beer and pretzel games out there. *I* think you will like Combat Mission, but you don't seem to be able to grasp what we are doing because it is different.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Your response of "well, if you screw up a 60-minute firefight in a campaign then you might as well hang it up and forgo the rest of the campaign (for that battle)" is not only outrageously callous from a playability standpoint, but is also highly ahistorical from a historical standpoint. How many large battles in WW2 do you know that were given up for lost after a battalion commander screws up in a firefight?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You a) don't understand what I am talking about and seem to have a pretty poor understanding of the way battles were fought in real life at CM's level of simulation.

Combat Mission campaigns do not simulate more than a day or two's worth of combat tops. Do you know how long some battles were fought for in real life? MONTHS in some cases. How many times was Caen assaulted before it fell? Or St. Lo, or Falaise, or Bastogne? A CM Campaign is only simulating a slice of that battle, so you might have to call off your operations because the enemy has beat you in that one small instance. Not for the whole war, but just that hour or day. So the battle wasn't "given up for lost after a battalion commander screws up in a firefight", rather that one group of units on that one given day in that one given situation pulled back and didn't achieve what they were supposed to. This happened more often than you may think. In fact, in a big battle there were usually at least a 1/2 dozen failures, or partial successes, at Combat Mission's level before the battle concluded. Larger battles had even more.

This is WHY the Panzer General model WON'T work for Combat Mission. The scale is much smaller and that means the treatment of a particular battle can not be the same. Panzer General "simulates" (God, it hurts to use this term with PG. As good as the game is, it is only a game) big battles, Combat Mission very small ones. Panzer General can easily slap a label of "Bastogne" on some map and say that you took it or didn't. This is not possible to do at Combat Mission's level of simulation, no matter how hard you wish it to be so. Our game was not designed to be an ego boost about which major labels you captured or didn't. We focus on the combat to achieve a realistic and historically accurate end goal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"...or if the campaign is fictional, based on good, sound play balancing decisions..."

This is circular reasoning. There is no worry about play balance if the (fictional) campaign has good play balance decisions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. I am merely qualifying that the fictional ones need to be well balanced because someone can easily make a poorly balanced fictional campaign.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I didn't have much of a concern about the issue of having or not having a core unit, but your above rationale of how play balance is dependent on historical accuracy is frankly worrisome, and casts a pall over CM as far as this gamer is concerned. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know how you can possibly come up with this conclusion. A Combat Mission campaign is, in a way, nothing more than a HUGE scenario broken up into chunks. If a historical scenario can be balanced (and wargames have been doing this for decades) so can a campaign. The only reason campaigns have balancing problems is BECAUSE they are too far removed from reality. In this camp you find Panzer General, Steel Panthers, and Close Combat 3. Hence one of the major reasons we didn't go with this style of campaign.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Different people have different definitions of what "fun" is. Granted, CM's scope of "fun" is more narrowly defined than many of the beer & pretzels wargames out there, but realize that your notion of what's important in the game may not be shared by some of your targeted market.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, our audience is diverse to some extent. But we can not cater to everybody or we risk having a beer and pretzels game. Our targeted market is MORE likely to find Combat Mission's campaigns the best thing since sliced bread than to be disappointed by it. Again, you imply that we don't know what the Hell we are doing, and frankly that is insulting. We have been making games a long time and know our audience, and how to cater to them, much better than you do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>For many gamers, the notion of having an "alter ego presence" in a game and being able to transfer it from battle to battle is "fun."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this IS in the game. It just isn't a carbon copy of every other game out there. I really don't understand your position. Are you saying that something different means something bad? Don't you think it is possible that we have a different way of achieving the same feeling of attachment? We personally think we have a BETTER way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And since it is an optional part of play, it shouldn't have any impact on the realism emphasis that you seem to be striving so hard for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But we can't code up a dozen ways of doing the same thing. We can't even code up TWO ways of doing a major feature such as campaigns. We made a conscious design decision to NOT repeat the mistakes of the other games and to make a system that was both different and BETTER. Therefore this is what we coded up. We aren't going to delay the game a couple of months (and yes, that is how long it would take. Nothing is easy) to put in a feature set that WON'T work for Combat Mission just because someone expects it to be there for no other reason than that other totally unrelated games have such a system. This is the corporate way of doing game design, and it more often than not flops badly, even for the intended audience.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So at worst, having such a feature will have no change to the game. At best, it widens CM's appeal to more casual armchair generals who want more identification with the units. I understand that your primary targeted market is the grogs, but why not make the game "fun" for as large a market as possible, especially when you don't need to compromise on your goal of historical accuracy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry to come down on you so hard here, but you are utterly unqualified to make such a statement. You aren't involved in the Combat Mission design process, and you haven't played the game, so you have no basis for knowing what you are talking about. What is more, you most likely have zero game design experience in any tangible manner. Being a gamer and being a game designer are two entirely different things. So without having played the game, and without being an experienced game designer, you can't come out with such statements with any credibility.

And why do you INSIST that Combat Mission's campaigns aren't going to be fun? On what basis do you draw these conclusions from? Because what we are doing isn't what every other plain Jane, beer and pretzels game has done? Man, innovation and creativity sound like bad words in your book.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And given that you said the game already saves the end-state of units to rollover to the next battle, then I think it's hardly an effort to have those end-states be carried to other campaigns as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about here. Why do you think so many campaign games suck eggs? Because they don't do anything more than what you are talking about. You can't just cut and paste a few units between battles and have it magically work. Just doesn't work that way. Oh, and it takes them weeks, if not months, to make such features that are "hardly an effort". I've been doing game design/production as a living for 6 years now, so I think I should know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As I said earlier, this "core unit" issue is of secondary importance to me. The play balance matter is going to be a sticking point for me, I'm afraid. But I think the "core unit" thing will prove an interesting test of BTS' vaunted customer-responsiveness, when CM is released and gamers start asking for such a feature. Will you relent to customers' wishes and implement a feature that takes minimal effort, even when it runs counter to your personal philosophy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you trying to be purposefully insulting to us, or are you just ignorant? You are so wrong about so many things, but yet you seem to be so convinced you are right. At the very least you have no basis for drawing your conclusions because you lack the single most important element needed for such an analysis -> the game. You have imagined the way it is going to be, brushed aside all comments from the people making the game as irrelevant and/or flawed, and seem satisfied that this is all you need to draw your conclusions from.

What you ask us to do will not work for Combat Mission. What we have in place of the flawed system found in other games is better than the same old same old you are seeking. Unlike you, were are in a position to be a better judge of this. Yet you are so sure that we are wrong and you, who has no basis to draw such conclusions, is right. The interesting test to our "vaunted customer-responsiveness" is trying to remain composed in the face of all your groundless insults towards our ability to do game design. Seriously, do you understand how utterly insulting you are being here? On the one hand you say that you are really looking forward to Combat Mission, which means that we must be doing something right in your eyes. Then, when you see a very specific game feature that you want that we are purposefully NOT adding in the way you see it in your head, you call into question our capabilities and put your unqualified opinions forward as being superior. The really frustrating thing for us is that our system does a MUCH better job at all the aspects you want out of a campaign game. But you seem incapable of understanding that there is not only a different way of doing this, but that there is a better way. At the very least, a better way for Combat Mission. And since that is the only game we are talking about here, it is the only one that counts.

If when all is said and done, and the game has been out for a while, people find our campaign system lacking, we will improve it (of course!). But we don't think this will happen. Sure, a tweak here and there is to be expected, but we doubt many people, if any, will have a problem with the fundamental system. If we are totally wrong (as you seem to be so thoroughly convinced that we are), we will make major changes. That is how we do things. Now I guess I should should ask if you are prepared to eat your words if the vast majority of gamers say that our system is better than what the other games have. After all, it is what you have asked us to do if we are wrong...

Steve

Thomm · June 12, 1999

Hey, lets got back to technology !

How was that you mentioned about the moving map ! IMHO this is MUCH more interesting that the strange (religious) discussion evolving here ! PLEASE refer to my post above ...

June 12, 1999

Other answers...

Thomm... simulating the WHOLE Market Garden area, from the front lines to Arnhem, is far too large a slice to bite off. Our system is tied to CM's scale, and this is just too large for either scale or system. There are all sorts of problems with such a large chunk, especially because we would have to simulate battles going on behind the scenes, as you suggest (and we agree!). The other thing is that such a campaign would probably take you a year of your life to finish. Just way too much going on at CM's level even if we could simulate this accurately. What you can do is a day or so of fighting from Oosterbeek to Arnhem, or the battles around the bridge (though the map would change little from battle to battle), or the drive of XXX Corps to either Eindhoven or Nijmegen areas.

But yes, the map advances much the way you think it will. If the attacker goes off the far end of the map then the next map will be further back, based on how many defending forces managed to escape. This is fantastic for the defender because meaningful fighting retreats are poorly simulated in most games. Here you have to really think if you should try taking out another tank or if it is time to call it quits and get your AT gun out of there before it is run over. Best part is that if you get your AT gun out, it is there for you next time

Pete, to let you continue a game, which you have been utterly defeated, is problematic. We would have to create some system to figure out what you need for reinforcements, then what the other side should reasonably expect for theirs, hand them out, make some other adjustments, and then let you start out again. This is a lot of work to support something that we really rather not simulate (i.e. ability to win no matter how incompetent ). It doesn't matter if we are talking an individual battle or a campaign. Players should learn to be humble and that they can't always win all the time. Fun should come from learning how to win and from the path taken to victory, not from winning itself. And what if you don't win the second time? Should we try and let you go a third, fourth, fight time? Personally, we think that this is a colossal waste of the gamer's personal time. What the gamer SHOULD do is restart the campaign and try to apply lessons learned from the first defeat, or move on to a different campaign altogether (trust me, there will be more than a single person could play in a lifetime thanks to our editor and the Web!). Campaigns are going to suck up a lot of time, so playing the same one for months until you win is not something we would recommend as a healthy way to live life

John, didn't know about the RTS game Warzone (or maybe I did and forgot ). Yeah, there is nothing new about the concept (been around for decades I'm sure), but we have yet to see any wargame simulate this. And yes, you won't know when your reinforcements are coming. Even if you cheat (i.e. peak at the scenario with the Editor) you might not know, because we have variable arrival times.

Steve

Thomm · June 12, 1999

BTS, my working weekend companion

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

If the attacker goes off the far end of the map then the next map will be further back, based on how many defending forces managed to escape. This is fantastic for the defender because meaningful fighting retreats are poorly simulated in most games.

(a) Why does this depend on the number of defending units ? Could you not simply center the border of the old map on the new map ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Here you have to really think if you should try taking out another tank or if it is time to call it quits and get your AT gun out of there before it is run over.Best part is that if you get your AT gun out, it is there for you next time.

(Where exactly is the gun ? Can I redeploy it on the shifted map whereever I want ? You know, theoretically you could store the position and time the gun left the map and then apply rules for deployment based on this data. So a unit which has left battle 1 at minute 0:39 cannot be 1000 meters away at the beginning of battle 2 (0:40 campaign time, 0:00 battle2 time).

June 12, 1999

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But I think the "core unit" thing will prove an interesting test of BTS' vaunted customer-responsiveness, when CM is released and gamers start asking for such a feature. Will you relent to customers' wishes and implement a feature that takes minimal effort<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the issue: it's far more than minimal effort to implement such a feature and do it well. Sure, we could whip up something half-assed pretty quickly, but that wouldn't please anyone. If we do something we want to do it right. And doing real role-play that's meaningful in a platoon/company-level WW2 setting is a bigger development undertaking than I think you realize. We haven't ruled it out for the future, but there's simply no time to do it now. For all the reasons Steve mentioned, it just isn't a high priority and well shouldn't be.

Charles

Moon · June 12, 1999

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Say that I really take a beating in mission 1 and my forces are literally wiped out. How can I continue with the campaign in such an instance? From the campaign designer's view, how can he provide for balance with such a potentially large force variance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In real life, there is no such thing as "trying to be equitable" when fighting a war. If you want CM to be challenging to play, as versus "yeah I'll just call in my fighter-bombers and blast you to bits before I walk in because that's what the history books said happened," then play balance necessarily outweighs a strict reliance on historical force allocation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you expect, J Davis? Do you really expect the scenario designer to calculate in that the player is dumb enough to lose his entire force in battle one and therefore provide him with huge reinforcements for the second turn? I would say if you lose your entire force in game one of the campaign, you should accept your loss like a gentleman and go play Pacman. Hey, if you loose all your hit points in a FPS, game is over, ain't it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Moreover, in real life, things don't happen in a vaccuum as it is in a wargame. Reinforcement schedules aren't static, but can vary in accordance with how well or poorly the present battle is going.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, they vary in accordance with many other things, too - like availability of forces, how the superior commander is feeling that day etc. But what do you expect? Do you really ask for CM to simulate the entire world at arms just so you can have the reinforcements arrive one turn later?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How many large battles in WW2 do you know that were given up for lost after a battalion commander screws up in a firefight?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but CM doesnt simulate any LARGE battles. It simulates battles at battalion level. So if the battalion screws up, battle is over for the battalion, right?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is circular reasoning. There is no worry about play balance if the (fictional) campaign has good play balance decisions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But which other answer do you expect? The problem is with the question and not the answer. Answer this - how does the car manufacturer ensure that there will be no accidents? Answer: there will be no accidents if people drive safely...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I didn't have much of a concern about the issue of having or not having a core unit, but your above rationale of how play balance is dependent on historical accuracy is frankly worrisome, and casts a pall over CM as far as this gamer is concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for sharing your opinion with us. I absolutely disagree. That is my opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>For many gamers, the notion of having an "alter ego presence" in a game and being able to transfer it from battle to battle is "fun." If you doubt this, I'll just point to PG's popularity and to the many requests that led to a similar feature in CC3.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a wargame, you assume the position of a battalion commander. That guy, your alter ego, is way back behind the front line. If you want more alter ego, I suggest switching to games like Delta Force and the ones mentioned above. Or how about Quake?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Granted that PG's and CC3's implementations are faulty and (in PG's case) can severely impact gameplay, that doesn't mean that the concept is without merit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno about PG, but CC3 definitely is faulty exactly BECAUSE of that feature. I have played the large campaign in CC3 and have done pretty good in the first few scenarios. Well, my core force has become so goddamn strong, that I have just walked through the rest of the game. No fun at all. BECAUSE of the feature you're asking for, the fact that I played from Stalingrad through to Berlin was nothing more than names. I could have played from Moscow through to the suburbs, if you ask me. No difference...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And since it is an optional part of play, it shouldn't have any impact on the realism emphasis that you seem to be striving so hard for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about that: before playing a scenario, you fire up the scenario editor and add yourself a platoon. You can tweak the values of the units to represent your core force. Then you call that bunch of houses in front of you Berlin, and here you go. Optional enough for my taste...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But I think the "core unit" thing will prove an interesting test of BTS' vaunted customer-responsiveness, when CM is released and gamers start asking for such a feature. Will you relent to customers' wishes and implement a feature that takes minimal effort, even when it runs counter to your personal philosophy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why should they do it? It's their game. If a Star Wars fan would come up here and insist that the Allies simply HAVE TO HAVE those X-wings in the game, what do you think would the answer be?

Besides, the above should read "a customers wish", not "customers' wishes"... so far you're pretty much the only one who wants something like that. My wish is to leave it out. What now?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Anyway, am still looking forward to the game, even if not quite as eager as before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I am more excited than ever! Funny, eh?

Harold Jones · June 13, 1999

BTS, If I hadn't already preordered, your description of the campaign system would have convinced me to. This sounds exactly what I am looking for in a campaign. I really like the idea of simulating a day or so of combat over a fairly large area. I always thought the way SP did campaigns was kind of pointless. I want to be able to exploit a success or be forced to recover from a set back. As far as identifying with my "core" units it really doesn't matter to me if the ten or so battles I fight with them are called Caen, Market Garden, Bastogne or Caen 0600, 0800, and 1000. I still have the same group for those ten battles and if Sgt Jenkins and his platoon don't magically improve from green to vetran to elite over the course of the battles, so what. If I want to suceed I'll have to learn how to use that unit in a way that makes sense for that unit's level and type. Much more fun than just making sure that a platoon survives to be promoted before the next battle.

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

If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

Dan · June 13, 1999

well this topic has everybody all up in arms and drawing lines in the sand now don't it?

Well my personal opion as a grunt and some time armchair historian/general is as follows.

PC and CC2 ( havn't played cc3 yet becouse microsoft is pissed cause apple is back, as near as i can tell anyway.) campain systems are both flawed. (although CC2 was at least enjoyable). Trying to impose this on any other war game including a beer+pretzel game is a bad idea.

CM seems to me to be going into the right direction. for starters the terms "battle" and "campain" can mean many diffrent things. CM scale being a battion at most cannot cover the entire scope of any major action. Nor is ment to. This bickering about "bastonge" and other big name battles is point less. When I was in panama the city could have been Panama City it could of been New York city it did not matter to me. All that matter was the tatcial chalange the cityscape presnted to my section. CM scope is larger than that but it is still a TATICAL SIMULATION not a stratgic one. The problems you will be facing as a comander in this game will not be " How do i take St. Low." It's "how do i take these row of buildings."

the core unit idea still drives me nuts with PG/CC seris games No single Platoon could in be as much contuinous operations as these games ask of them. Even eilte units tire, run out of muntions, suppiles. Socks for christ sakes do you pepole have any Idea how important socks are, that alone can stop an assult for a day. I trust the desginers and there current system. We unlucky few have not even got to see a clear pictue (the movies are ok, but i know the real deal is going to be outstanding). even if this game had no "campaign" system it still is going to be the best game ever made barnone. (off my high horse, and stop thinking about how bad my socks smell. .

J Davis · June 13, 1999

"J Davis... you seem to be taking a system that other games use and are trying to FORCE it onto Combat Mission for no other reason other than you like it in other games..."

Hmm. Like I said (one more time), the "core unit" situation is not a large issue for me, and I understand it if it isn't in CM, if nothing else than for the time issue. I'm certainly not "forcing" it on you. Your previous response on play balance leaves quite a bit to be desired, however.

"You also seem to totally toss aside our ability to know what is best for this game with a casual sweep of your hand, as if you know more about Combat Mission or game design than we do. This is a pointless tact to take because you can't possibly support either position. We don't mind if you are skeptical, but you seem to be CONVINCED that we are wrong and what we are doing is totally harmful to the game..."

I do wish you would stick to the subject rather than accusing me of things I didn't do or calling me names. Character assassination does you poorly. I never said I knew anything about the game, other than what you've chose to reveal on this web site. I never said that I am the final word on what's good for CM. I never said that you are harming the game.

What I have said was: 1) The "core unit" concept does have appeal among gamers, despite its catering to fiction. My contention was that it does indeed have a wide appeal, and as long as it's an option, then there is no compromise to realism. My other contention was that your "core" implementation is not an implementation, in that the units are simply rollover to the next firefight in the same battle; the gamer can't use the same unit in a different battle (again, realizing that it is fictional). 2) In a campaign setting where there is 100% rollover (both unit composition & disposition) from mission A to mission B, play balance is going to be a problem. Your answers of "let history be our guide" and "play balance isn't a problem as long as the campaign has good play balance" do little than sweep the issue under the rug.

"It would appear that you haven't played many historical wargames. The fact is that MANY real battles are balanced in some way or another...

"Let me repeat -> Combat Mission is NOT just a game, it is a historical simulation. If you want a game that pays little attention to the realities of war then maybe you should stick to the beer and pretzel games out there."

Yet more putdowns. What, aren't you going to suggest I stick to tic-tac-toe because my intellect level isn't up to anything else? Gosh, beer & pretzel games...are you sure those aren't just a little over my small misshapen head?

"Combat Mission campaigns do not simulate more than a day or two's worth of combat tops. Do you know how long some battles were fought for in real life? MONTHS in some cases...A CM Campaign is only simulating a slice of that battle, so you might have to call off your operations because the enemy has beat you in that one small instance. Not for the whole war, but just that hour or day."

Finally there's a solid answer out of the mudslinging barrage. Allow me to wipe myself off first. Now that I understand that a "campaign" in CM doesn't portray a whole battle but only a slice of one, let me tell you where I'm coming from so you'd understand me:

I'm all for realism and history. If I weren't interested in history, I wouldn't be a wargamer. However, as a wargamer, there is one inviolable tenet that overrides even the sacred realism, and that is the game has to be challenging to play. That means that conditions have to be such so that either side will have a reasonable chance to win for any given contest. This is where play balance comes in. For one side to be so handicapped by its performance from a previous contest that it has no chance of winning the present one doesn't make for challenging play, and it means that the game has zero play balance (other than for the first contest with no preconditions.)

I do see your point, however. I think there is a miscommunication here, and it stems from your use of the word "campaign" <with my finger so sharply pointed >. By normal definition, a campaign is a chronological series of battles, each of which may have some relation to each other, but the relation isn't strictly sequential, i.e. battle A doesn't need to be successful before battle B will happen. This is my understanding of the term. Certainly, I've never heard of the battle of Caen or the battle of Bastogne being referred to in history books as a "campaign."

By your first explanation in this thread, then my understanding of the meaning of "campaign" is amended to encompass only a single battle or operation. But as you yourself stated, however, even a battle like Caen have many smaller ops within it, and the failure of any one op is not the end-all of the battle. This was my contention in my previous post from the realism angle (and the lack of play balance from the playability angle).

Now I've come to find out that a CM "campaign" is not even that--a single battle--but only a small portion of one. Yes, if a CM campaign is only about the travails of Company B in battle XYZ, then if there's no more company, then no more anything. However, even at this small a scope, it still depends on how the campaign designer tells the story. If he sticks with just the same unit throughout the course of the "campaign," then the strict sequential relationship applies. If, however, he wants to portray the battle from more than one perspective (i.e. with different units involving in neighboring operations), then play balance WITHIN a CM campaign will still rear its ugly head, as in this latter case, the success or failure of firefight A should not be a precondition to firefight B.

Three questions, then a comment:

Q1) Can the campaign designer opt to have some or none of the forces from mission A to rollover to mission B?

Q2) Can the campaign designer predicate the volume/amount of reinforcement or replacement on the outcome of the previous mission?

Q3) Understanding that a "campaign" in CM is only on a single map, can a designer have different maps and still package it as a single campaign? Put another way, can he package different "campaigns" together and call it as one campaign?

Comment: Rather than a taking up umpteenth paragraphs asking of "how dare you question our design abilities and insult our manhood, you stupid ignorant beer-n-pretzel lover," all you've needed to say was in the paragraph above. For what it's worth, I think you should make very clear to gamers what a CM "campaign" really is, or amend it to use another term. By any other view, a campaign is a series of relatively discrete battles, and because they are discrete, then gamers would not want the success of one to be a precondition to play the next. A CM campaign is not a campaign, not a battle, not even a portion of a battle. What it is, is different phases--a continuation--of the same firefight, because that is the only instance where you can justify a strictly sequential relationship between "missions."

This isn't to say that a CM campaign won't be fun. As you said yourself, I don't know if it will be fun or not, as I don't know anything about the game other than your say-so and a bunch of screenshots. I do hope that it (CM) is fun, or else I wouldn't be here posting and getting people's egos bruised. I do hope, however, that a CM campaign can be more flexible to cover more than just a particular unit in the portrayal of (a portion) of a battle, thus my three questions above.

"Are you trying to be purposefully insulting to us, or are you just ignorant? You are so wrong about so many things, but yet you seem to be so convinced you are right..."

" The interesting test to our "vaunted customer-responsiveness" is trying to remain composed in the face of all your groundless insults towards our ability to do game design. Seriously, do you understand how utterly insulting you are being here? On the one hand you say that you are really looking forward to Combat Mission, which means that we must be doing something right in your eyes. Then, when you see a very specific game feature that you want that we are purposefully NOT adding in the way you see it in your head, you call into question our capabilities and put your unqualified opinions forward as being superior."

An insult is dependent as much on the receiver as it is on the sender. I'm not sure where asking about play balance and contending that a "core unit" implementation is appealing to gamers is insulting, but if you say so, then it is. Rest assured, Steve, that if it does come down to insults, then I'm sure you are much better equipped for it than I am, so I will quit while I am ahead. However, once you've sufficiently recovered from the grievous hurt I've caused you, then perhaps you may want to go back and review the maturity level in your own response.

"If when all is said and done, and the game has been out for a while, people find our campaign system lacking, we will improve it...That is how we do things. Now I guess I should should ask if you are prepared to eat your words if the vast majority of gamers say that our system is better than what the other games have. After all, it is what you have asked us to do if we are wrong..."

On your first, I'm glad to hear. On your second, I don't believe in the concept of "right" or "wrong" when it comes to tastes. If I like X and the majority like Y, that means nothing other than that we have different opinions on the matter. We're talking about a game, not doing math.

That said, I agree that what's "better" or "worse" will be determined by popular vote. My feeling is that you will see this "core unit" issue again, although certainly not from me (I've learned my lesson in messing with the BTS manhood). On the play balance issue, I'm hoping that the CM "campaign" won't be just limited to a strictly sequential A-then-B relationship.

As Forrest Gump buddie would say, "And that's all I have to say about that." Thanks for your time.

Fionn · June 13, 1999

J Davis. For what its worth I still totally disagree with you but ask you to understand that the guys at BTS really have gone into a lot of detail and thought in their design and certainly are doing what is right for CM IMO. Hence, when the perceive someone saying that all these other features should go in which they think don't fit the lines get drawn. Also, I do think your initial post came across as being more of a "You're doing this wrong, here's what you need to put in" than it was intended as. Anyways, with that said...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What I have said was: 1) The "core unit" concept does have appeal among gamers, despite its catering to fiction. My contention was that it does indeed have a wide appeal, and as long as it's an option, then there is no compromise to realism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No BUT there is finite coding time and it really hurts the game in other areas. The ability to have guys manning a mortar in one battle and a tank in the next just always makes me laugh. It would drag CM down to the level of all the other flawed wargames out there IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My other contention was that your "core" implementation is not an implementation, in that the units are simply rollover to the next firefight in the same battle; the gamer can't use the same unit in a different battle (again, realizing that it is fictional). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. Why can't they do this? Simple, it would be unrealistic as hell and hurt the game. BTS is not implementing this core unit thingie to PROTECT the core game. I'd rather give up "core " units than hurt the CORE game of CM. I'm sure you would also.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>2) In a campaign setting where there is 100% rollover (both unit composition & disposition) from mission A to mission B, play balance is going to be a problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO. In fact by allowing the scenario designer to ensure balanced forces are present and then NOT upsetting this balance by the introduction of (usually tremendously strong) core forces the actual gamebalance is increased.

J Davis. I'm sorry to say this but quite frankly "core units" do NOT help game balance. If anything they HURT game balance. Just look at CC3 and all the games which use them. Once your core units get too strong its all over.

I remember in SP1 when I finally got Tigers and Panthers I only lost 2 tanks in the last 2.5 years of the war. (And both were to aerial attack). Sure it was a nice ego stroke BUT the game would have been more fun if I actually had had to work for my victories u know?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Your answers of "let history be our guide" and "play balance isn't a problem as long as the campaign has good play balance" do little than sweep the issue under the rug.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doh !. Sorry but that's just wrong J Davis. If the campaign designer has ensured play balance, which IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY after all and not something BTS should have to code for, then the play balance issue is SETTLED and not just swept under some carpet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm all for realism and history. If I weren't interested in history, I wouldn't be a wargamer. However, as a wargamer, there is one inviolable tenet that overrides even the sacred realism, and that is the game has to be challenging to play. That means that conditions have to be such so that either side will have a reasonable chance to win for any given contest. This is where play balance comes in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In each and every campaign the sides WILL be balanced. Now if you totally screw up and lose 90% of your men on the approach march then you should just replay that single component scenario and do better next time and not expect your CO to give you an entire other company to fritter away due to piss poor planning.

I simply don't see why having a "realistic failure criteria" is going to hurt the game in your eyes. hell if you screw up, rather than continuing and getting an entire new company just replay that battle.

IMO this HELPS the game. If you know you can't lose EVERY man to get that objective secure in the knowledge that no matter how heavy your losses are you will ALWAYS be brought back to company strength you just may husband your resources. Remember in CM if you can't take that village with the forces you have you can just sit on the defensive or make a more limited attack (to create a jumping off point for the NEXT scenario) whilst waiting for reinforcements.

This is MORE realistic AND more playable because of their design decisions than what you propose IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>For one side to be so handicapped by its performance from a previous contest that it has no chance of winning the present one doesn't make for challenging play, and it means that the game has zero play balance (other than for the first contest with no preconditions.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it does because it will teach you that you can't screw the pooch and carry on regardless. When this company is ALL you get you WILL grow to know and depend on them and feel every loss. Thus fulfilling your need to attach to "core units" FAR better than the core unit games manage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I do see your point, however. I think there is a miscommunication here, and it stems from your use of the word "campaign" >. By normal definition, a campaign is a chronological series of battles, each of which may have some relation to each other, but the relation isn't strictly sequential, i.e. battle A doesn't need to be successful before battle B will happen. This is my understanding of the term. Certainly, I've never heard of the battle of Caen or the battle of Bastogne being referred to in history books as a "campaign."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My God... The Battle of Caen lasted for 2 damned months. It was a huge campaign which comprised of MANY operations. Goodwood for example gutted most of the British Army's tank regiments in one day. And that was just one battle in the campaign.

As for the battle of Bastogne. At the level of a company commander it consisted of MANY battles which were related to eachother thus constituting a campaign. Simple eh?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Now I've come to find out that a CM "campaign" is not even that--a single battle--but only a small portion of one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gees J Davis you're a company commander for god's sake. God mode belongs in fpses not in CM.. As a company commander your orders in WW2 would often consist of take that ONE street in that village. If you want to fight campaigns with 200,000 or more men (the Battle of the Bulge) with your company fighting everywhere then your really misunderstanding the scope and POSSIBLE scope here. That is just in the realms of fiction and simply can't be done..

CC3 tries to do it and dies a death, in part, because of that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Yes, if a CM campaign is only about the travails of Company B in battle XYZ, then if there's no more company, then no more anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, THUS you attach and THUS you are more careful than you otherwise would be. Thus making for a more immersive game. You just don't seem to get that though. (If you don't understand it that's cool though it's just highly regrettable).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A CM campaign is not a campaign, not a battle, not even a portion of a battle. What it is, is different phases--a continuation--of the same firefight, because that is the only instance where you can justify a strictly sequential relationship between "missions."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is just totally incorrect in so many ways J Davis. You should break out books about Huertgen and read them. Entire battalions were lost trying to take the same damned area of forest. Companies might go into action every day for a week in the same terrain. These were not little firefights. They were full blown assaults and they made some of the most intense fighting in WW2. This will be possible to simulate in CM but isn't possible in most other games. IMO

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I do hope, however, that a CM campaign can be more flexible to cover more than just a particular unit in the portrayal of (a portion) of a battle, thus my three questions above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hell, why not just make 3 different campaigns focusing on three different units in the same larger battle. That should meet your criteria no?

Confused about why you want some functions which seem to, in many ways, weaken the game and interact unfavourably with eachother.

[This message has been edited by Webmaster (edited 06-13-99).]

Strider · June 13, 1999

BTS : I like the concept of your game, and I fully support your design decisions. My so-called 'wargame' library consists of old titles (Perfect General, The Lost Admiral, Z, etc) to more recent titles (Panzer General I & II(?), Steel Panthers I & II, Close Combat I, II, & III), in other words 'Been there, done it'. I for one, am looking forward to a fresh approach to wargames. Your 'concept' of a 'campaign' seems just find to me. I agree that if you lose your forces to a point that you can no longer continue, then give it up and start a new fight. Hitting the 'Flee' button in CC3, knowing that the next battle or operation is going to be against you even with more 'buy points', and just waiting for the next operation that is in your favor, is not my idea of 'fun'. Using the 'Save Game' feature while playing against the AI to refight the same battle so you know where and what the AI's units are, is not playing the game, it's beating the program (although some games 'require' you to play this way in order for you to continue it's 'campaign'). BTS : seems to me, you have a lot more support for your game system than you do against it. You and other developers have stated it yourselves 'there's no way to please everyone' (would be nice if there was

gatsby · June 13, 1999

*Really Long* Sorry*

As far as a the campaign is concerned it is not neccesarily true that small units did not stay together for extended periods of time...The germans and british rotated their relacements back to the units they had trained with, while the US rotated to any unit which needed men...

During Huertgen and certainly during the January part of the "bulge" the americans did sutain the 100 to 300 percent casualities to units that you refer to ...in the summer and early 44 ,most US units did not take those high casulity rates...

For the German and British army this is even more the case because both traditions understood what poor old SLA MArshall (even though disparaged;his work and that of his team is still some of the best "stuff" on the job historical research) called fireteam cohesion...that men fight more for the guy next to him than anythig else..

It is true that it would be a rare occurence for a squad to be at Normandy and then again later at Arnhem...However it would be very very possible for a squad to have been at some D+1 assault(the game can't do beach landings so I didn't use D-day) and then be involved at the closing of Failaise. Now that is a long time in war terms but it is one battle...Normandy...So,,,with taht in mind...

In your game,understanding,it the way I do...you have a map with objectives and each side moves the other back and forth...essentially lets say a few days ina battle...Normandy say...well...going by realism standards ...once that "battle is over" ..objectives met...then the Company(I arbitrarily assign that size)would be pulled off the line and rested and refit and then put back in...Now in your games terms I should be able to take the remainder of my company...the guys who survived the what...10 or 12 firefights that I have deoicted in the Combat Mission "campaign" and have them refitted and top-ed up...

So they would survive from CM campaign to campaign...so I would really reaally like to be able to take my men from the end of one campaign and move them to another...I mean what you call a campaign...theoritcally ..your campaign as you describe it could take 10 or 12 40 or more campaigns to depict Normandy for example..right?

ASL has a campaign system like the one I gather you are talking about...After the day's fighting threre is a no-mans land...certain moement is allowed certain replacement etc...Its a great idea for a computer war game but I do think you shoudl include some ability to carry over from scenario to scenario and from campaign to campaign...

In ASl for example when I do that I usually get about a 100 percent turn over within about 5 battles(actually ASL senerio's)...but its cool to see when my long running squad goes down or how fast the green guys get mowed down...

Now as far as experience I think you guys are a little off too...The combat "numbness" which I gather you are talking about regarding green and veteran troops takes only about a whole day of being undefire ...at least that's what I have gathered and ecperienced in my one brief exposure to it ...not as a combatant...and from what i have read and heard...your adrenalin being used up and therefore that mortar shell 30 yards over there that would have had you diving and clawing through the earth in the morning becomes something like a dull vague concern by the afternoon....in fact that morning feels 5 million years ago..Jones and Tolstoy are the best at describing it...but most first person accounts talk about it..

amyway apart from training which will make a difference there is nothing like a unit being bloodied to make a unit become elite...and that I think is the result of a kind of numbness about it all...a sense of complete fatalism and exhaustation that allows a previously cowering unit with a small percentage of guys willing to do some stuff..to a unit with a much higher firerate and abulity to expose themselves to fire..(getting up from a foxhole or leaving cover to run to cover etc)...Its why Generals like to "bloody" their men...and after about 5 of your 30-60 minute fights I think that of those that survived they would be get "experience" points..promoted certainly because of the vacancies that would appear... i mean you did have non coms running company's...

here's how I see it...if your game is as realistic as you say and I bet it is then I would hope over the course of even just one of your campaigns...lets say a three day one or even a two day one.. that the guys who got through the night would be "bumped" a bit..

I personally would like to beable to be able to "bump" them or promote them or have the computer do it at the nd of the campaign and then transfer them...Realism would dictate that most of them would be killed or rotated out by the "mill of combat"...but maybe that squad of officer who came in on battle 9 during the last campaign survived...I'd like to be able to promote him or bump his firerate and abiulity to move and allow him to stay underfire longer without panicking...

At the very least I shoudl be ablle to edit those things so I can do it myself...

Companies on paper did go through the entire war...Yes they probably had turned over three or four times but they still wnet through te war...and yes they probably weren't at every majour battle but some of them did see at least one long campaign...and I do know lots of German companies that did invade Poland and then Fracnce participate in the balkans or the desert and ebd up on the Russian front...with maybe a side trip to Italy...especially right after the surrender..and the British did have companies at Dunkirk go to the desert and then Normandty and Hollland...so I would like the ability to link campaigns with my units if I choose...if I feel like its realistic...isn't that the idea... that it should feel like a simulation to the gamer...

I mean a unit that fought outside Caen was there for weeks before Falaise fell...and it even took a while to chop up the 1st at Huertgen...

I'll shut up...I am going too long...It just one of the things I really wanted...not a Panzer General core unit thing...(I played that hame I think for less than a minute) or Steel Panthers(less than three minutes actually two scenarios in their campaign)but more along the Company in Solitaire ASL...

If you are still reading.. Thanks...

John

Mike D · June 13, 1999

My, my, my, but this has turned into a barrel of rattlesnakes hasn't it? Well here is my two cents worth (well it started out as 2 cents worth really, but now I guess you get the $1.98 special).

I pretty much agree w/ all that Fionn has said, nice job by the way Fionn. Now, CC1, 2 and 3 were all "fun" to play, but as Fionn and others have said here before when it comes right down to it their "campaign" system just doesn't work. You simply can't take a tactical level game where individual squads (or men in CC's case) are modeled and try to fight through a campaign encompassing the entire war (CC3) and really have it mean anything. IMHO CC series fails utterly and most miserably in this regard. To even say it is "fun" is a bit of a stretch. As Fionn points out playing a CC campaign against the computer isn't really any fun at all. All you have to do is preserve your precious "core" units long enough and they eventually become nearly invincible. And once that happens the most precious "play balance" is completely and utterly ruined which has happened to me in the CC series (all bloody three of them!), on any number of occasions including playing head to head against my buddy. And when this happens (and it eventually has to some degree in nearly every last CC campaign I've ever played), the "fun" just evaporates right out of the game. The point is that CC fails miserably in its quest to turn a squad/individual level combat simulation into an entire battle simulation in the case of CC1 and 2 and an entire eastern front war simulatation in the case of CC3. In fact the CC3 attempt to provide a campaign of the entire eastern front war is so utterly rediculous that I still can't believe they actually tried to do it!

So what was gained? Did they (CC designers) really get that many more beer and pretzel, or RPG, gamers to come and buy there game because it had core units and a complete and utterly flawed campaign system? Perhaps, a few, but I really doubt it amounted to that many. Or, instead, did they mostly piss off us true wargamers and grognards out here (the ones they really coded the game for in the first place) by delivering us a game that fell absolutely, completely, and unequivacally, short of what is promised (my opinion)? My guess is there were a lot more people in this "ticked off" category, than there were those that were happy because the campaign game was included.

Speaking for my friend and myself I think we would both say that the CC series of games, while fun to play, also consisted of a completely flawed campaign, not to mention any other number of totally screwed up modeling aspects of the game. In short, CC tried to be everything in terms of simulating squad level battle action and also giving the gamer a "grand campaign" to follow his units along through a succession of battles. All they accomplished in this regard was to produce a game which again, IMHO, for the most part sucks. They could have spent their time getting the basic squad level game done right, but instead decided to include features like campaigns that really had no place in the game to begin with in hopes of making the game something more than what it originally was intended to be. And there are very definately many things screwed up with the basic squad / tank level game in all of the CC series. When I see 2 and 3 German tanks getting taken out by a single HE round from a 152mm KVII Russian tank, and the round didn't even hit one of the tanks directly, let along all three of them, then something is VERY VERY VERY screwed up w/ the game. Absolutely, positively, no question that CC is flawed in terms of its tactical modeling of squad level infantry and tank combat.

With all that said here is my "question" to Mr. Davis and anyone else out there that might come a calling and a clamouring for CM to include some sort of "grand campaign":

WHY, OH MY GOD, WHY, SHOULD BTS EVEN THINK FOR ONE SECOND ABOUT GOING DOWN THE SAME ROAD THAT CC HAS? IF THE CC DESIGN TEAM HAS TRIED FOR 3 TIMES NOW TO GET IT RIGHT AND THEY CAN'T EVEN MAKE THE BASIC TACTICAL PART OF THEIR GAME WORK PROPERLY, LET ALONE INTEGRATE IT AND CORE UNITS INTO AN ALL ENCOMPASSING CAMPAIGN, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT BTS, OR ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER, CAN MAKE IT WORK?

THE ANSWER TO THIS IS SIMPLE:

YOU CAN'T MAKE A SINGLE GAME THAT WILL ACCURATELY MODEL AND PORTRAY SQUAD / COMPANY LEVEL UNITS, TACTICS, ETC. AND ALSO EXPECT TO HAVE THAT VERY SAME GAME ACCURATELY ATTEMPT TO MODEL, EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST SENSE, SOME SORT OF ALL ENCOMPASSING GRAND BATTLE / CAMPAIGN AND EXPECT TO MAINTAIN ANY SORT OF OVERALL PLAY BALANCE OR HISTORICAL ACCURACY, PERIOD.

WITH THAT SAID I WILL NO COME DOWN FROM MY HIGH AND MIGHTY SOAP BOX.

I hope I havn't bruised Mr. Davis's or anyone elses ego here, that was not my intention. But this question of how CM will handle campaigns has come up before and I for one think that BTS is completely, 100% and without any doubts or reservations on track w/ how they intend to implement "campaigns" in CM. Again, to try to include core units and grand battle / war campaigns in a game system that is intended to accurately model tactical level combat is completely ubsurd. To even suggest to them that they should even consider such a thing is, in my opinion, nothing but an invitation to disaster.

It didn't work for any of the CC series of games, and in fact, probably took what could have been a great game and turned it into mediocrity.

It didn't work for Steel Panthers.

I'm sure it hasn't worked for any other tactical level combat simulation either. And if it has it came at the expense of either historical accuracy (i.e. the game was about martians fighting against zorkians), or realism/accuracy (as is the case in CC series), or both.

So my vote is to leave the core units and grand campaign ideas out of CM. It has no place in a game simulating combat at this level and furthermore can only serve to:

1) detract from the precious programming time needed for oh so many other things in not only CM,. but also CM2, 3, etc.

and

2) drag what is going to be a great tactical level combat simulation down into the gutter w/ CC and the rest of the games that have gone before it in their ill advised attempts to make a wargame that does everything from modeling the individual soldiers in the squads to attempting to having the disjunct microcosm of a series of mostly unrelated battles somehow be drawn together (with the supposed "core" units) so as to give the player the perception of having fought through the entire war! (please, give me a break).

CM is going to be what CM is going to be: a great game because they decided way up front what they were going (and not going) to try and do and then executed that plan to produce a complete and accurate game.

While CC and games of the like, are going to be what they ended up being, crap! And why? Because they started off w/ all the best intentions, but then got sidetracked w/ garbage like grand campaigns and the like. And instead of doing the basic game design they originally set out to do correctly (produce a tactical level combat game), they instead got themselves wrapped around the axle doing all sorts of other things to make their game something more than it should have been. End result, garbage, plain and simple. It may be "fun", but it is garbage nonetheless!

Regards,

Mike D

Aka Mikester

June 13, 1999

J Davis, I will only comment quickly on the "mud slinging" issue. I reread your post several times and still find it to be over the top insulting and off base. Seems that that is the majority opinion here, judging from the follow up posts. Perhaps you should reread your own post and see why I reacted the way I did. I have had lots of skepticism and challenges tossed my way since taking over these boards almost 10 months ago, and I must say that your post has been only one of perhaps two that have truly angered me in the last 5 months. With all the hundreds of posts I read every other week, this should tell you something. I don't get offended easily.

Now to answer your questions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Q1) Can the campaign designer opt to have some or none of the forces from mission A to rollover to mission B?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The campaign structure is dynamic. That is its big selling point. There is no artificial boundary or link between one battle and the next. It is a natural flow. It is the campaign designer's responsibility to choose a battle (historical) or create one (fictions) that has a reasonable degree of balance. This is fairly easy to do for a good designer. Simply find a battle that had an outcome that could very well have gone either way and simulate it. Say for example the Germans launched a local counter attack and were defeated only after a tough struggle. This is ripe for simulation. A battle where one side pulverized the other into a bloody pulp before they even got out of there jump off area would be a waste of time to simulate.

We can not vouch for the quality of scenarios and campaigns that people outside of BTS are going to produce, but we can vouch for our own. They WILL be balanced and WILL be fun. They will also be historically accurate. These things are not mutually exclusive. We are also looking into establishing relationships with organizations that will play test user made scenarios and then offer them for free download. This will ensure that there are more balanced scenarios than you can shake a stick at, including campaigns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Q2) Can the campaign designer predicate the volume/amount of reinforcement or replacement on the outcome of the previous mission?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Once again, each battle is inextricably linked to the ones prior and the ones going forward. There are no artificial game decisions of "oh this side screwed up, give him more tanks". The campaigns reward players that play well, punish those who do not. If you can not make good on your mistakes with whatever forces are made available to you, then you will have to concede defeat. If you do play well, and Lady Luck is on your side, then you shall most likely win.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Q3) Understanding that a "campaign" in CM is only on a single map, can a designer have different maps and still package it as a single campaign? Put another way, can he package different "campaigns" together and call it as one campaign?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The WHOLE point of the campaign structure is to avoid all the problems that go with "warping". It isn't JUST a realism thing. It is also a playability aspect that you do not seem to fully appreciate. The only examples of such a campaign structure presented here so far are Steel Panthers, Panzer General, and Close Combat (third one mostly). Everybody, even yourself, admits that these fail to work right. There are reasons for that, ones we do not wish to repeat.

Steve

Campaigns, what they are and aren't

Recommended Posts

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest John Maragoudakis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest John Maragoudakis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites