Campaigns, what they are and aren't

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi John,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is, and yes it already does, but not at the level you have chosen. The problem is that we have to draw the line somewhere. One person (J Davis) wants to fight the whole war with his company, while you want to fight at least through something like Normandy. We chose to draw the line at an individual battle. The reasons for this are very many, very complex, and all rooted in reality and what is best for the game. We know what can and can not be done, but more importantly WHY and HOW certain things work and don't.

What you suggest (what we call "linked campaigns") was discussed as a possibility earlier in developoment. We ruled them out because there is a WHOLE lot of programming involved to pull off a transition. As stated several times here, other game companies (with multiple programmers and big budgets) have failed to come up with even a good GAME aspect of a big campaign (forget historical accuracy), so why should we feel very confident of pulling this off along with all the other stuff we are doing? Yes, we could make a kick ass über campaign system, we are sure, but it would come at the expense of something much more important; the game itself.

Another reason is that a 6 battle campaign (and that is more or less the average size, not 12), will likely take about 40-60hrs worth of play time. That is a LOAD of time. So to do up Normandy, or even a chunk of it, you are talking the better part of a year to play it out. Our job is to make Combat Mission have lots of playability and replayability, and we have that already taken care of. Going the extra mile to consume people's free time for a year FOR ONE CAMPAIGN is therefore not high up on our list No matter what you might conceptualize in your head, there are realities that we must take into consideration. If it was no big deal to add this functionality, we would say SURE, knock yourself out. But it is not easy to do even poorly, not to mention doing it well.

If you agree that it isn't likely (and it isn't) that a company sized force can go from Big Battle A to Big Battle B intact, then by definition there is no need to do a linked campaign. Linked campaigns are only there to bring the EXACT force you have (plus reserves, minus support units) from one campaign to another. But if historically they would be entirely different troops (Normandy was a blood bath for some units at the lower level, with even battalions being wiped out), then what is the point of having a special linked campaign system, with all of its potential balancing problems? Why not make 8, individually balanced campaigns, with a company sized force for each instead. Play one, then play the second, and so on. There you go. You just took a company through 8 campaigns. Same effect, better balancing, and even more realistic.

While we agree that a unit's first baptism of fire is very important, and certainly gets rid of the real problem cases, it still does not yield a much better unit after just a few skirmishes. However, keep in mind that it all depends on how you choose to define your terms, as there is no right or wrong way to classify unit experience. When it comes down to it, the names are all arbitrary. In Combat Mission's the experience level not only stands for the quality of the combat knowledge, but also prior training and physical fitness. A bunch of Conscripts isn't just 9-12 men with absolutely no combat experience, they also have piss poor training, most likely mediocre leadership, and questionable physical fitness. No skirmish, or set of skirmishes, is going to change ALL of this. Also keep in mind that there is a great variety of possible unit behavior. I have seen Regular troops crack when the Green unit next to them stayed put.

As for other RPG aspects, such as promotions and awards (like CC), we don't do any of that. This is not an easy thing to do even if we felt it was something we wanted to delay the game for (it would cause a delay no question). We have the advantage of playing Combat Mission and know that this stuff is just window dressing. The real feelings of attachments to your units comes from the game play, not what rank some guy does or doesn't have. To put it another way, I don't even CARE what the name of the commander of my one surviving tank is, not to mention his rank. All I care about is keeping him alive and scoring hits on the enemy. If I lose the tank, I cry (figuratively ). Name, rank, and awards are unimportant. The loss of a much needed unit is.

Mike, well we obviously see eye to eye here. We can't be all things to all people, and neither can Combat Mission. We have designed something that kicks ass, but obviously not everybody in the world is going to love it. The thing that really differentiates BTS from other wargame companies is that we have a clear vision, lots of experience, and an excellent understanding of what we can and can not do with the realities placed before us. Compare this with games from companies that never ship or ship horribly flawed. We can keep adding stuff, day in and day out, but we will either never ship or put out a visionless, or poorly made, game. Those who really think they can have it all usually wind up with nothing. No thanks, we'll stay the course

Steve

P.S. I'll keep this thread alive a bit longer, then I am going to lock it up. It has largely said what it has to say.

[Harold Jones]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why not make 8, individually balanced campaigns, with a company sized force for each instead. Play one, then play the second, and so on. There you go. You just took a company through 8 campaigns<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There you go. If you want to follow company B 37th armor through the whole war just make a series of campaigns that cover the battles it fought in historically. You could even have their skill levels increase for each campaign. Something like this would require a ton of research but I'm sure someone or other will do it.

One question about campaigns that I haven't seen asked. Will we be able to play a campaign only against the AI or can both sides be player controlled?

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Good question! You see, we at BTS feel that gamers should be able to play everything solo, and from both sides, as well as engaging in battle with other players. Therefore we kinda forget that not all games do that So, to answer your question... YES. You can play everything from either side solo.

BTW, there is no AI scripting in Combat Mission. All AI is on-the-fly, dynamic, Fuzzy Logic based. Judging from how well the Tactical AI kicked my ass the other day, I'd say CM is going to set a new standard for computer player challenge.

Steve

[Guest Lokesa]

Hey everyone, back from my haitus.

Steve, you know we totally support you on this thread don't you? well have no doubts my friend, we do

As stated by Fionn in a post a while back, this forum is the most amiable I have been part of for quite some time. Although not affiliated with BTS I too was offended while reading the posts not so much from the perspective that the post showed a lack of respect for your abilities but from the rude tone, it doesn't belong here. There have been many disagreements here but never had the tone reached such lows. I am glad to see the situation being handled well.

On the campaign subject. I have had a vision. I see a campaign club. I see people designing campaigns representing multiple parts of the same battle. I see the results of said battles being recorded. I see a larger map and team members allocating avaliable reserves. I see new campaigns being made and distributed to partipants. I see time and effort being required as well as the need for more knowledgable historians than I. What do you think guys?

One approach we could take would be to predesign all the maps for an area and then edit them as needed to suit our purposes. We wouldn't necesarally use them all, it would depend on battles won or lost as well as team or command descisions between battles. Who has access to good maps from the period?

BTS, is there any reason this would not be feasible? Please contribute