Will CM ever have an operational layer?

[sandman2575]

In the category of 'pipe-dreams' perhaps, but...

CMx2's lack of a dynamic operational layer is, in my mind, the single thing that keeps it from being the perfect ww2 combat sim (or as near to perfect as we are likely to get).

I came to CMx2 by way of playing *a lot* of "Achtung Panzer - Kharkov '43" and later "Grativeam Tactics - Operation Star", after growing a little fatigued by those games. Having gotten hooked on CMx2, all 3 theaters (Normandy, Italy, Russia), I almost never go back to GT Op Star. To me, that's a very big indicator of how great CMx2 is, since I still regard GT Op Star as an absolutely superb game, and in a lot of ways, I think CMx2 is even better. We're spoiled for great game options, it appears.

But the one thing Op Star still has over CMx2 is a dynamic operational level. I think it's hard to overstate just how much this enhances the 'campaign' experience (as opposed to one-off, quick missions). CMx2's 'beads on a string' consecutive missions in the campaigns, completely scripted with no player input, feels very crude by comparison.

For me, the campaigns are the heart of CMx2, since I'm not a MP player. I seldom play the single missions vs. AI because it doesn't really feel like anything is 'at stake' in those games. The campaigns give you reasons to care about your units, to keep track of their losses and ammunition usage, etc.

Obviously, this would involve at least one radical change for CMx2. Instead of discrete map settings, you would (as in Op Star) have to have one, completely continuous 'super' map of the operational area, divided into 'battle area' segments. I'm sure from a programming standpoint (understatement imminent), that's not a simple thing to do.

Anyway, I suppose this boils down to me musing aloud in an impractical 'what if' fashion. But is there any hope CM might go in this direction? CMx3 perhaps?

[A Canadian Cat]

Not sure how much of a pipe dream it really is. Check out this stickied thread from the CMBN forum: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110736

[Bulletpoint]

The problem is not so much programming the operational layer "minigame"... the problem is that once you start playing like that, you end up with essentially a series of quick-battles, with the force composition decided by the outcome of the operational layer. And the AI is not really good for quick battles.

But a pseudo-operational layer might be nice for campaigns with branching structure, as long as each choice would lead you to a scenario set up with AI plans made by a human designer.

[Skwabie]

...

I mirror your sentiments like 100%, completely. More like 120% even, for I think GTOS etc. does a poor representation of a dynamic operational layer...

However I doubt it is due to any negative effect on game play, but rather money. I refer you to the "Combat Mission Campaigns" sub-forum and the now defunct product that was in the works by BF a few years ago.

Apparently in PC gaming history every product that tagged with "dynamic campaign" has faced commercial turmoil, it is as if a business model like that simply doesn't exist. And so it seems games nowadays rarely feature this aspect except ones with no graphics. The ones that come with are all born before the IT bubble burst in the early 2000s.

Or put more blatantly, imagine CM with a grand operational layer, but price ranges between $500-$1000 (which is a reasonable figure some game devs recently estimated with dynamic camps, if still quite conservative). How many will be willing to pay that much for a single computer game? The most hardcore armor sim Steal Beasts Pro comes with a low-ish 3 digit price tag, and already raises many eyebrows. Simply put we haven't reached a quality of life where this kind of entertainment is acceptable yet. But... will the golden age of computer games come again? I hope so someday...

[womble]

Branching campaigns can already be done, and exist. Including ones where the player's choices of how to proceed make a big difference. If branches could be forked on different criteria than "victory level", it might be a lot more commonplace as well as straightforward, both to create and present to the player.

The biggest problem with Operational games translating down into tactical scenarios is that if you play the Ops level well, your CM battles become very humdrum, and if you play it badly, they become very frustrating. This is because the objective of "Operations" is to generate unfair fights at the tactical level. Beyond that, the AI is really going to struggle to adapt to the varied requirements of an infinitely flexible fight-generation system: the need to allow for force-preserving fighting withdrawals and other higher-level-supporting goals mean the battles could often only be "done justice to" by having humans on both sides, and possibly even an umpire.

Which gives rise to the second layer of difficulty: making an Operational situation that doesn't just snowball from the first mismatch, because having one human side quickly slide into an unrecoverable position is a recipe for unfinished games, or at least chagrin on one side, as well as unsatisfying walkovers if the player in the losing situation is "game" to continue...

[Broadsword56]

Which is why the best operational layers are between two or more human players, via PBEM, just using a good standard board wargame to manage the higher level. Simple, satisfying, no technological hurdles, and feasible to do right here and now.

For example, I made an op layer scenario for CMRT that uses the excellent grand tactical boardgame Panzer Command. It uses the Cyberboard computer playing aid to keep track of everything, so there's not even any need to mess with maps and counters. We skip the super-lopsided or less-interesting op layer battles, and use CMRT to enjoy the ones we think will make good PBEMs. Thanks to the master maps that come with CMRT's Soviet campaign, It takes just one evening to cut out the relevant master map segment, set up the forces, and get the action started. When the battle ends, we apply the results back to Panzer Command, I play the op action forward a bit more, rinse, and repeat.

I'm not saying this to brag or tout my own creations -- just to point out that this is extremely easy to do and anyone can do it. If Sandman is new to CMx2 and these boards, then his question is understandable and legitimate, and I don't fault him for raising it.

But if an operational layer matters soooooooooo much to some players' ability to enjoy CMx2, then I have to wonder why it seldom seems to matter enough to motivate them to work one up and start playing. Instead, we see perennial "why can't BFC" and "When will BFC..." whiny threads that plead for some ultimate dream-game that we might see, perhaps, years from now, or perhaps never.

One common objection is that hex-and-counter boardgames are clunky or old-fashioned. Indeed, Panzer Command dates from 1986, likely before some of the players posting here were even born. But -- ironically -- the op-tac campaign I'm playing now using the "ancient" wargame is on pause because we're waiting for a fix to the 26% crash bug bug in RT 1.02. Take that, you young'uns!

[Childress]

One common objection is that hex-and-counter boardgames are clunky or old-fashioned.

Yes. To my knowledge there's no extant board game that can compete with the depth, originality, graphics and, yes, charm of the CM product. So any grand strategical, hex-based overlay sim is going to suffer in comparison. The Command Ops series enjoys a strong reputation but it's computer based and real time.

[Broadsword56]

Yes. To my knowledge there's no extant board game that can compete with the depth, originality, graphics and, yes, charm of the CM product. So any grand strategical, hex-based overlay sim is going to suffer in comparison. The Command Ops series enjoys a strong reputation but it's computer based and real time.

"To my knowledge" is the operative phrase there. And the question of whether or not a given board game measures up to one's needs is entirely a personal judgment. There's no justification for such a sweeping statement.

On a constructive note, here are some board games that offer authenticity and depth and have proven to work well in operational layer play with CMx2. I've had personal experience with these and found them very satisfactory. Every game on these lists exists in computer form, as Cyberboard and/or Vassal modules:

Saint-Lo (West End Games) -- Great with CMBN. Designed by wargame design legend and official historian of today's 29th ID, Joseph Balkoski, who also wrote the definitive book Beyond the Beachhead.

The Devil's Cauldron (Multi Man Publishing) - for the N half of Market Garden. Company scale.

Where Eagles Dare (Multi Man Publishing) - for Market Garden below Nijmegen to the Belgian border. Company scale; links up with the game above for a monster campaign.

Panzer Command (Victory Games) - Great with CMRT if you use my 1944 Bagration mod in Cyberboard. Otherwise, the base game is set in the Chir River battles of Dec '42 - Jan '43 and will have to wait for RT to get to that era. Or, using the good snow mods already out, one can play battles from that period using Panzer Command as long as you adjust your TO&Es accordingly for the period and avoid battles that require AFVs not yet in RT, such as Mark III tanks, KV-1 tanks, and short-barrel StuGs.

Here are some other games I have not yet tried with CMx2, but their scales, systems, and depth put them on my hope-to-try list for op-tac play:

Streets of Stalingrad 3rd Edition (L2 Publishing) -- The classic monster game of S'grad at company level. Mine dogs, you name it, it's all in the game. Don't even think of trying to game the whole campaign in CMx2. Slice off a section and just play one scenario. I laid out the Orlovka Pocket scenario map on Google Earth and marked it out for master maps in RT, and it would take around 6-8 of them just to cover that one sector.

Death Ride Salerno (Grognard Simulations) - 4 connected games cover the entire Salerno beachhead. But you can just play any of them as a stand-alone. Designed by a former career Army armor officer, this series is not only playable but has an impressive depth (hospital and vehicle repair functions) and authenticity.

Bradley's D-Day (Against The Odds) - A campaign special edition published a couple of years ago by this wargaming magazine. John Prados designed it, and it covers the first 48 hours of Overlord on the US beaches at battalion scale.

[Skwabie]

Broadsword.... your setup requires multiplayer there. We're talking SP only. MP is more about the human element, war thunder and WoT is crap even, but they're very popular. An op layer is of secondary importance there. But it's very imortant for the ultimate SP experience.

[darker4308]

It would be very hard to implement a good operational layer in this type of game. My advise is to buy one of the many board games that actually cater toward this type of play.

[Skwabie]

Yep a good AI is the block I reckon for land combat games. I got GTOS, Steal armor: blaze of war, and Theater of war 3. None of them belong to the top tier game level imho... For naval combat I got Jutland by SES and Steam & Iron by NWS, the latter is actually very good, but only 2D graphics. For air combat there's a lot. F-22 TAW, Mig Alley, BOB II, CFS, Strike fighters 2, DCG for IL2, EECH and ofc Falcon 4.0, all solid stuff, but the first 2 are totally outdated. And all the above have about neared or expired their commercial shelf life.

For games coming out nowadays... I got nothing. Edit: NWS is doing a successor based on Steam & Iron's combat engine, it'll have a strategical layer plus the op and tactical layer of S&I, so.. it's not all dark:o

http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/260/rule-waves-information

[Broadsword56]

I really wish you could find the game you're looking for. But, sad to say, you may continue to have "nothing" for a very long time.

You can have "something," and choose to use what exists, for what it's worth.

But I guess some have chosen they'd rather have "nothing" and continue waiting for someone to make them a game that takes them to single-player AI op-level nirvana. After all, it's easier to just complain.

[Skwabie]

...

Oh, I do have plenty to choose from the big list in my post above. Atm I'm actually making a campaign mod for Steam & Iron. They just have nothing to do with CM and most of their makers will be absent for support for the less computer savvy users. While I sure want a land combat game with both an op layer and tactical combat, nothing is perfect and there's always something to be desired, isn't such the human norm;) I'm sorry if my posts got you down.

[vincere]

But if an operational layer matters soooooooooo much to some players' ability to enjoy CMx2, then I have to wonder why it seldom seems to matter enough to motivate them to work one up and start playing. Instead, we see perennial "why can't BFC" and "When will BFC..." whiny threads that plead for some ultimate dream-game that we might see, perhaps, years from now, or perhaps never.

Well there could be a many reasons.

Off the top of my head, some of us are busy and want to pay to play not make and administer the games.

Another is that there are some significant hurdles. Decent sized operations need a decent amount of maps.

Casualty tracking back an forth from tactical to operational level.

AI. I know that CM has a strong multiplayer community, but across the board most people play against AI, and it's weak in the quick battle area that dumping forces on a map would be.

[Pete Wenman]

Just in case some of you Gents missed this posted to the repository a week or so ago.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=3425

I've not used it myself, but from the video it appears that it can create an excel spreadsheet from the editor.

Might be a help with some of the operational issues faced

P

[sandman2575]

Appreciate the thoughtful responses -- and innovative work-arounds suggested.

Just to be clear, my post wasn't in any way intended as a criticism of BF. I'm by no means trying to minimize the amount of work and programming challenge adding an operational layer to CMx2 would involve. I'm no coder, and so the challenges are probably bigger than I can guess.

Still, for me, an operational layer integrated into CMx2 itself remains the holy grail. GTOS shows that it can be done, and effectively (however imperfectly). I probably invoke GTOS at my peril, since it doesn't seem to be held in high repute by most here. I understand the criticisms of the game and think many are valid. Still, I do think CMx2 could learn one or two things (or maybe one thing -- the dynamic campaign mechanic) from it.

[Broadsword56]

We can always dream!

It's just a game, after all :-)

[kevinkin]

Here is what I posted 2 months back:

=================================================

Hello all:

I have been away from wargaming for a long while and finally back at it. Back in the day I was on the test team for CMC. I am still under NDA, but wanted to add a few observations to this thread.

First, programing another layer to CM2x is a very difficult task. I am not sure but getting the right data of the right format from CM2x, using it and passing it back to CM2x seems mind numbing especially for a few good programmers working part time. One thing that these brave wargamers have to decide is if the result of the hard work will be commercial or freeware which will decide how polished the product becomes.

Second and perhaps most important, what do we mean by an operational layer to a tactical wargame. I have played the total war products and like many always wonder how this could be executed with CM. I am not sure who defined operations as warfare activities beyond the reach of direct fire and only within reach of long range arty and air power.

This definition creates a problem. Over the weekend I took a look at many wargames - even older ones made with Cyberboard. Their are really two types: those where combat takes place in adjacent hexes and those (fewer) that use ranged fire like Squad leader and Panzer blitz. Using the adjacent hex model would mean large scale hexes and small/narrow operation maps with large CM maps and OOBs (depending on the hex scale) that would be very cumbersome to play. A ranged model would mean gathering smaller units from multiple nonadjacent hexes into a tactical CM battle. This might be OK if say the game is at the division/corps level having battalions on the operational map and combat companies and platoons are grouped into a force and passed to CM for tactical resolution on an appropriate map for the terrain. Here the campaign map would look like a EF map. So choosing the size of the operational units might be key and perhaps company sized units fighting from adjacent hexes would strike a good compromise. I am trying to find a WW2 company scale game to look at the mechanics.

Great to be back...Kevin

====================================================

Using Cyberboard PB I modified the longstanding rules to provide company level combat from adjacent hexes. The rules are abstraction and don't provide FOW. One to one odd combat is resolved in RT using a quick battle. The terrain is town, woods, hills and open. I have had fun with this and the rules shows promise for making quick campaigns. I have to add supply to the rules and other ideas as they come up. Its mostly a solitaire system with some player judgment needed to create the QBs.

Kevin

ps rules are available for comment.

[76mm]

But if an operational layer matters soooooooooo much to some players' ability to enjoy CMx2, then I have to wonder why it seldom seems to matter enough to motivate them to work one up and start playing.

I made my own operational layer for CMx1, but want something more satisfying for CMx2. That said, while I am not looking for Battlefront to create an operational level, they could take a few seemingly simple steps to make it much easier for players to create an operational layer. The most important feature would be to create a special type of file that allows players to modify saved game files in the editor (even better, to allow players to modify campaign files).

Second in terms of usefulness would be the ability to export game data (I will look at the file in the repository shortly).

The other problem is that you need these same features in the operational level game that you want to use. Personally, I want to use a full-fledged computer game for this, not a Cyberboard/Vassal version, and I've looked at pretty much every computer game out there for suitability. So far the only one I've seen which fits the bill is the Panzer Campaigns series, which not only has a large selection of battles, but allows players to modify saved game files. I've been trying to come with with a program to import/export data for some time, but am not a programmer, so it is going *very* slowly. I've seen Noob's system for CMBN, but it wasn't quite what I had in mind.

[Erwin]

How about a simple Op layer like in the CC series? ie: You get to decide which divsions with what equipment go in which sector on a "area map" then fight with the "sort/variety" of units that those divsiions have. So you can concentrate for (say) an armored attack in one sector while putting your defensive forces in other sectors.

The original CM1 Op layer project stumbled cos they tried to make it too complicated - like a stand alone game. Need to KISS.

[Ithikial_AU]

Always been a supporter of CMx2 getting some kind of Op Layer incorporated but also agree with Erwin that KISS (Keep it simple stupid) needs be a guiding factor. Using the Close Combat style op layer would be brilliant in my book. Always thought they did that better than the tactical combat.

No idea on the programing side but within the existing tactical battles I think the following two features would need to be added within CM to make an Op Layer an authentic option:

- Terrain map transfer between battles. (Like what was introduced in CMBB in CMx1 days).

- Player has the ability to reorganise their forces between engagements. ie. Merge those depleted 'two man squads' together before entering the next fight.

[kevinkin]

76 mm

I agree a computerized OP layer would be ideal based on company scale combat. The program would handle FOW and the book keeping needed to keep the game going.

The RT files mentioned ....

BF would not make these files available to the public I believe. Perhaps to a small design team under NDA. But they been down that route. I think the situation is different than with graphical MODs in that there is a long history with these being released as freeware successfully across differing games. Files that will manipulate gameplay are a different matter.

Again there are two fundamental questions:

- What do we mean by operational?

- Will the efforts result in freeware or payware?

I see a few benefits using Cyberboard plus "old fashion" rules sets as the OP layer

- The software is free. The gameplay is well known at least to the older of us.

- It fits the KISS concept to a tee

The downsides are lack of FOW and keeping track of the counters as they move and engage the enemy. "Darn I forget if that unit has enough action points left to fire?"

After two single board trials switching from PB to RT and back I have to say the system will work - but the devil is in the details. I have been writing the rule changes down as I test. The basic concept is PB platoons represent companies where MPs are 1/2 and the hexes are 500 meters. Turns are 15 mins real time - about 2x of PB. Combat is from adjacent hexes. Several long range units can fire beyond adjacent hexes but as of now are not included in the RT QB. Everything will not be standardized and player judgment will be needed e.g. setting up the QBs One to one combat odds came up a lot in the OP layer so that was good - perhaps too many times. The best thing I can say is I had fun playing this way.

Kevin

[76mm]

76 mm

The RT files mentioned ....

BF would not make these files available to the public I believe. Perhaps to a small design team under NDA. But they been down that route. I think the situation is different than with graphical MODs in that there is a long history with these being released as freeware successfully across differing games. Files that will manipulate gameplay are a different matter.

That's the thing, you don't need access to any game files to create an operational campaign--all you need are:

1) a separate file format that allows you to create scenarios from saved game files; and

2) a function within CM to import/export unit data before/after each battle.

With these functions, the community could come up with any number of operational campaign variants. While I'm not suggesting that these features are trivial to program, they are certainly far, far, easier to do than a whole op layer.

While I understand your preference for Cyberboard/Vassal, I tried with with CMx1 and this time want MOAR!

[kevinkin]

It would be easier to envision this knowing what commercial game would provide the operational layer. I think I read PzC for example. Two things: combat has to be resolved in the OP layer and TAC layer each turn. I used to have a copy of Smolensk but forget how this would be achieved. Can you turn combat off and on and decide when the OP layer resolves or when to fire up CM for resolution? All combat cannot be resolved at the TAC level within CM - the game would last forever.

Those types of files mentioned would be interesting to play with and I would like to hear what folks think a OP layer really means.

Kevin

[Skwabie]

Well I got a couple ideas...

one is player only control a "Kampfgruppe". What ever battle this KG encounters is played in tactical CM level. Other battles are handled by 2D dice rolls. The player can still control other friendly forces but only on the op layer.

Another is more complex. A campaign where each unit movement is tracked in real time and combat resolved with real time dice rolls, instead of turn based. And there're no hexes. But on the op layer, instead of depicting every solider/tank as a single unit, a battalion is considered a single unit, with its morale/ammo/supply constantly tracked and updated. The player can dive into whatever battle he wishes for the tactical battle. And so you can have on map heavy artillery and the like.