New campaign content?

[Red Rage]

Last page update is from May 1st with 1.03. Not even a bone with some sort of roadmap after.

 

3 campaigns with their 5-mission absolutely linear setups felt like a really nice demo. And out of each of those 5-mission sets, typically 2-3  felt like pure unimaginative padding hacked together in one evening (fine with epic 14-15 mission sets, even welcome to set the mood, but no bueno when you have the measly 5 missions per side). QBs are getting old with a brain dead AI without set attack plans and not a whole lot of kit to play with in the sandbox. Arma 2/3 type of quick editor DIY setups don't really work with this game - 1) they are not so quick to setup, 2) no fun without an element of randomness and surprise. 

 

BS has the best CM mechanics yet, but there is literally nothing to do for single-player oriented people once the mini-campaigns and a dozen or so scenarios are burnt through. Are BF moving at their usual glacial pace with this title or is this abandonware for a year or two, shelved in favor of supporting WW2 modules?

 

I'd seriously consider paying another $25-35 for a proper campaign pack at this point, with 2-3 proper diverging campaigns per side with 15-20 missions each. Would be pure fleecing from the customer satisfaction standpoint, but at least there will be something engaging to play. 

[Kieme(ITA)]

Last page update is from May 1st with 1.03. Not even a bone with some sort of roadmap after.

 

, typically 2-3  felt like pure unimaginative padding hacked together in one evening

 

Considering that people who made the campaigns and some of the missions also read this forums I am sure they could use some enlightment on how exactly the missions "felt like being hacked toghether in one evening".

 

Personally, I would have chosen a different set of words (but I also have a different opinion on the campaigns); those you used don't really fit the constructive criticism idea upon which the forum is based on.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Abdolmartin]

Although the wording may have been somehow unfair, I do agree that BS, being the most up to date and most advanced CM game, needs much more SP content. The original campaigns are actually nice (TF 3-69 is excellent), but they're too short for most tastes. I mean, you're like "Hell yeah, this is great... oh wait, this was the last mission? :| ".

In addition, people making new campaigns and scenarios can't be asked to do it faster or something. We should already be thankful that they do what they do, because they receive no payment and are doing us all a favour. But if the scenarios/campaigns are BFC-sponsored, they will be made faster, they will be allocated more playtesters, and they'll become polished and ready for release much faster.

However, I'm not willing to pay 25-35$ just for a campaign. I mean, probably 10-15$ for a campaign pack is OK, but that sum is too much IMO. It will definitely be offset by the fact that most will buy a campaign pack whose every campaign has over 10 missions, because it would be quite refreshing for their game.

[Red Rage]

Considering that people who made the campaigns and some of the missions also read this forums I am sure they could use some enlightment on how exactly the missions "felt like being hacked toghether in one evening".

 

Personally, I would have chosen a different set of words (but I also have a different opinion on the campaigns); those you used don't really fit the constructive criticism idea upon which the forum is based on.

 

 

When it comes to modders - I'd agree since they do it on their own time and the whole "beggars can't be choosers" thing applies. When it comes to monetized content, which wasn't exactly cheap in perspective of other games (x2 as much as Arma 3 for example, also done by a studio that could be considered fairly small time),  not hurting someone's creative feelings is pretty low on the priority list. For example, the Red campaign - Crossing the Dnepr and the last mission were Combat Mission at its best (even though the last mission would work alot better with lots of Ukrainians instead of a few US for blue side imho), but then there is mission 2 where it's boring night recon with an even more boring force composition (Tigrs and recon troops),  with 3/4 of the map being empty and real fighting not kicking in until an hour into the whole thing, and then it's almost over. Nothing wrong with boring night recon as mission 2, but not when it's 20% of the "campaign" (occupied beaches being used in the next mission was a nice continuity touch however, to give credit where it's due). Or mission 4, which literally required very gamey tactics of sneaking forces along the edge of the map to occupy the large corner apartment complex for overwatch in order to avoid horrendous casualties; I still haven't figured out how to push the US side from their stronghold in the apartment complex across from mine without losing more men that the objective was worth or running out of time by going slow and methodical (50 min time limit to dislodge an entrenched vet/crack US mech force in heavy MOUT environment with green/regular Rus motorized infantry, no tanks (?!!) and barely a 2 to 1 numerical advantage). If the whole thing is only 5 missions long, then all of those missions should be 2hr 30 min epic rollercoaster rides, with paced reinforcements and the drama of sudden AI counter-attacks; and certainly without any 50 min quickies that make no tactical sense mixed in. 

 

BS has by far the weakest campaign structure  since I got into the Combat Mission with Beyond Overlord. Shock Force, which was a trainwreck of a game compared to BS, had campaigns that actually felt like continuous operations that didn't buzkill you just when things just started to pick up. I still remember every mission from Hasrabit and Perdition campaigns for SF 6 years later - both were done by a dude on his free time, both had quantity, quality and divergent structure and both had an incredible attention to detail that provided immersion. The fact that BF's in-house mission makers could not repeat the feat 6 years later with a more advanced engine platform is disappointing to say the least. 

[Stagler]

Although the wording may have been somehow unfair, I do agree that BS, being the most up to date and most advanced CM game, needs much more SP content. The original campaigns are actually nice (TF 3-69 is excellent), but they're too short for most tastes. I mean, you're like "Hell yeah, this is great... oh wait, this was the last mission? :| ".

In addition, people making new campaigns and scenarios can't be asked to do it faster or something. We should already be thankful that they do what they do, because they receive no payment and are doing us all a favour. But if the scenarios/campaigns are BFC-sponsored, they will be made faster, they will be allocated more playtesters, and they'll become polished and ready for release much faster.

However, I'm not willing to pay 25-35$ just for a campaign. I mean, probably 10-15$ for a campaign pack is OK, but that sum is too much IMO. It will definitely be offset by the fact that most will buy a campaign pack whose every campaign has over 10 missions, because it would be quite refreshing for their game.

 

Yeah, but dat VDV doe.

[Holien]

Hmmm not sure BFC have in house scenario makers? I could be wrong?

How about all the new content being created? Is that not doing it for you?

Just out of interest how many hours play did you get out of the scenarios shipped with the game?

[Kieme(ITA)]

As many times happens in these situations, you are assuming that your personal taste regarding a mission is what's "right" to think about it.

Le'ts take this phrase of yours:ù

 

"but then there is mission 2 where it's boring night recon with an even more boring force composition (Tigrs and recon troops),  with 3/4 of the map being empty and real fighting not kicking in until an hour into the whole thing, and then it's almost over"

 

Personally, I find this very interesting, because it's an as best as possible approximation of the tactical reality of a recon.

So, who's right and who's wrong? Nobody, because it's down to personal tastes. Personally, I find this kind of approach (the mission above is a good example) the most interesting and I like it a lot. Not a case CM games are thought in a way that these kind of mission are part of a campaign. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong in any way. It's just your personal refusal. Asking for something different because you say this is "boring" is not really any kind of criticism or construction of a discussion, it's juse venting out your tastes, and if you don't like the CM games you are not forced to play them.

 

Anyway, I am glad CM games follow their traditions, and missions such as the one you described are there. That's what makes CM games in my opinion.

If you find it boring because the force composition if tigrs and recon troops I am pretty sure that I can say CM games are not really your thing...

 

As regarding how you phrase your thoughts, well, it's down to you, I know what's about map making and I spent enough time on the editor to make me say that no CM campaign mission was the result of little effort during a night. 

Personally I don't really look forward in making any kind of discussions with people so rude behind a screen such as you, so suit yourself as you think it's best. Considering your attitude towards people you don't know and diminishing their work like you did using an arrogant and elitarist point of view, I have no real interest in participating to this arrogant discussion of yours, so I won't post here anymore.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Bootie]

Hopefully The Scenario Depot III will bring scenario designers back from the darkness.  

[exsonic01]

I don't know the BFC have a plan for CMBS, but I also want more single play campaigns. 4~5 missions for each factions was not enough at least for me.

 

(Also, I wish a pbem or realtime based multi-player grand campaign, with strategic map and a game master, but this is different story... )

[ASL Veteran]

Maybe someone could post a poll about how many campaign missions you want to see in a campaign.  Bear in mind that 'unlimited' isn't an option!

[kohlenklau]

(Also, I wish a pbem or realtime based multi-player grand campaign, with strategic map and a game master, but this is different story... )

 

Start one up! 

[agusto]

Maybe someone could post a poll about how many campaign missions you want to see in a campaign.  Bear in mind that 'unlimited' isn't an option!

 

Personally i prefer the shorter campaigns of the recent titles. Task Force Thunder (CMSF) had aboput 20 mission IIRC and it was almost a tad too long fore my taste. 7 missions would be ideal for my taste.

[exsonic01]

Start one up! 

I really want to if I can, but I have no idea about how to make grand campaign strategic map, what are the important things to be a game master, and what rules should be there and etc.... Gundoc opened one multiplayer campaign, but I couldn't hear anything about that campaign after last post. 

 

 

Personally i prefer the shorter campaigns of the recent titles. Task Force Thunder (CMSF) had aboput 20 mission IIRC and it was almost a tad too long fore my taste. 7 missions would be ideal for my taste.

How about 3~5 grand campaign made up of 10~15 missions, 10~15 operations made up of 5~8 missions, and 20+ single battles? Like most of the close combat series do. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by exsonic01

[Daidalos1988]

 

As many times happens in these situations, you are assuming that your personal taste regarding a mission is what's "right" to think about it.

Le'ts take this phrase of yours:ù

 

"but then there is mission 2 where it's boring night recon with an even more boring force composition (Tigrs and recon troops),  with 3/4 of the map being empty and real fighting not kicking in until an hour into the whole thing, and then it's almost over"

 

Personally, I find this very interesting, because it's an as best as possible approximation of the tactical reality of a recon.

So, who's right and who's wrong? Nobody, because it's down to personal tastes. Personally, I find this kind of approach (the mission above is a good example) the most interesting and I like it a lot. Not a case CM games are thought in a way that these kind of mission are part of a campaign. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong in any way. It's just your personal refusal. Asking for something different because you say this is "boring" is not really any kind of criticism or construction of a discussion, it's juse venting out your tastes, and if you don't like the CM games you are not forced to play them.

 

Anyway, I am glad CM games follow their traditions, and missions such as the one you described are there. That's what makes CM games in my opinion.

If you find it boring because the force composition if tigrs and recon troops I am pretty sure that I can say CM games are not really your thing...

 

As regarding how you phrase your thoughts, well, it's down to you, I know what's about map making and I spent enough time on the editor to make me say that no CM campaign mission was the result of little effort during a night. 

Personally I don't really look forward in making any kind of discussions with people so rude behind a screen such as you, so suit yourself as you think it's best. Considering your attitude towards people you don't know and diminishing their work like you did using an arrogant and elitarist point of view, I have no real interest in participating to this arrogant discussion of yours, so I won't post here anymore.

 

I don't understand why some people are reacting in such an hostile way if somebody outlines the obvious shortcomings of CM titles. The same happened in a recent thread which argued about CMs inferiority compared to GTOS.

 

I mean he says what he dislikes about the CMBS campaigns and why he dislikes it and why he thinks solo-content in CMBS is inferior to previous CM titles and all you have to say is, that he should go away and look for antother game to play.

 

I mean he never said he dislikes a short night recon mission per se, he just said, that if a campaign is only 5 missions long, he expects all missions to be of a certain complexity and length. And I think he has valid a point. There is too litlle content for player who are not playing MP.

 

If a mission feels and plays like it was pure unimaginative padding hacked together in one evening but actually took hours and hours of work by inhouse mapbuilding experts, work efficiency as well as quality is an issue.

 

[kohlenklau]

I really want to if I can, but I have no idea about how to make grand campaign strategic map, what are the important things to be a game master, and what rules should be there and etc.... Gundoc opened one multiplayer campaign, but I couldn't hear anything about that campaign after last post. 

 

I think there are several routes toward some resolution to your lack of campaigns and such.

 

1. An actual multiplayer campaign with umpire/game master: This can definitely be done although I don't play CMBS but I am enjoying organizing such an animal over in the WW2 titles. 

I searched for what GunDoc was doing but didn't find it. Maybe collaborate with him and assist to create something. or develop your own. I am available to provide some advice and guidance from what I have learned. PM me if you want this option.

 

2. A working group of several people to create a decent sized batch of QB-like scenarios. High speed and low drag with no fancy briefings to increase production.

You get the other authors' AI force and so it is a surprise with fog of war.

Maybe everyone has the same core force or you exit off at setup the parts you don't want but it is always ALL presented so you cannot spot your own scenario.

Maintains surprise and for a few nights of work in the editor you could get weeks of single player enjoyment.

 

Just some crazy ideas. I always like to have the mindset to NOT ask or wait for the government to come and help but instead to just do it or die trying.

[kohlenklau]

I mean he never said he dislikes a short night recon mission per se, he just said, that if a campaign is only 5 missions long, he expects all missions to be of a certain complexity and length. And I think he has valid a point. There is too little content for player who are not playing MP.

It is a double-edged sword to try to make a scenario or campaign because you aim to successfully create what you envision and what pleases you as the author. Then anybody reviewing can always be displeased if they were in your shoes would assume a different approach. I like a little variety in my campaign missions as a break or change of pace. In fact some feedback says they needed a short mission as they were getting burned out. But if you have a buddy, maybe he can unpack the X campaign and make an all long mission hybrid and you make a different hybrid for him/her. As long as you don't upload it as your own work you can go in and make some alterations and resave by a new name. Make sure the designers notes track what you did and date of any PM's to the original author for CYA. 

[kohlenklau]

There is Vassal for operational level maps. There is also JTS and editable unit counters and OOB and you can change city names and shop for a geographic likeness from say the Danube area to the area covered by CMBS. 

 

http://www.johntillersoftware.com/ModernCampaigns.html

[sburke]

I don't understand why some people are reacting in such an hostile way if somebody outlines the obvious shortcomings of CM titles. The same happened in a recent thread which argued about CMs inferiority compared to GTOS.

I mean he says what he dislikes about the CMBS campaigns and why he dislikes it and why he thinks solo-content in CMBS is inferior to previous CM titles and all you have to say is, that he should go away and look for antother game to play.

I mean he never said he dislikes a short night recon mission per se, he just said, that if a campaign is only 5 missions long, he expects all missions to be of a certain complexity and length. And I think he has valid a point. There is too litlle content for player who are not playing MP.

If a mission feels and plays like it was pure unimaginative padding hacked together in one evening but actually took hours and hours of work by inhouse mapbuilding experts, work efficiency as well as quality is an issue.

It is important in these discussions to separate opinion from fact. It doesn't make one's opinion invalid, but it does establish a different parameter as everyone has their own opinion about what they would like in the game.

Also characterizations of what went into it are not really helpful. I can attest to some of the play testing effort that goes into these and as any designer can tell you whether they are working on game provided content or user provided content, it is hard to find a medium to please everyone.

The OP has an opinion that there is too little content and that some of the content he considers inferior quality. Fair enough. The problem becomes in saying that is entirely fact. So for example the recon scenario he did not like. However many players have asked for exactly that type of scenario. Who's right and who's wrong... neither and both. (That is real helpful eh )

BF does shoot for a goal in content. There are only so many designers and the change to CMBS was as big a deal for the designers as players. I did I think 3 scenarios for the MG module. I feel woefully incompetent to do material for CMBS. I love the game, but it is a much more complex environment to design for. On the other hand I tried hard to play test as much as I could. I loved the variety in scenarios that were created. They gave me the opportunity to try different systems and capabilities. That is another part of what BF aspires to is to try to expose the player to the variety in the game, not just cookie cut stuff.

The issue isn't about people reacting to complaints about the shortcomings real or imagined in CM. It is how those complaints get registered. Being able to express opinion as opinion only is an important starting point. Knowing that what you want is not necessarily representative of the whole community is another. Knowing what is possible is still another, but most important is being civil. While this doesn't justify folks just responding back "just go play something else", it can be a human response if someone is trashing your very hard work creating something.

For example, in criticizing the scenarios/campaigns - those represent a LOT of work. To say I liked them, but I really would like more missions is different than the way it got presented and frankly I don't think anyone would necessarily disagree about getting a couple more missions in. Saying you'd prefer more complex missions, totally valid and acceptable. Saying a mission "felt like pure unimaginative padding hacked together in one evening" is pretty rude even if not intended as such. Remember there is no nuance in expression on a forum.

I have been accused of being a fanboy because I don't criticize. Fact is I do. When I show an example of that I get told I am too polite.. what the hell? I am an adult, I don't believe in ranting at a company like that. Especially a company I respect and that produces something I like. I also work in IT so I understand how difficult coding issues can be.

So yeah, bridge pathing issues drive me nuts. Some scenarios simply don't appeal to me at all. I have some issues with the way UAVs work in game. I wish the animations for infantry were more varied. I'd like more sound options, more building types, roads that curve better... the list is frankly probably endless.

But yes I am still a fanboy somehow, because I am too civil to the creators of the game. You can be critical of the game, even very critical and still maintain a civil discourse. Usually but not always that leads to a more civil discussion. You may not get the answers you like...I still want more curvature in the roads, but I get that it isn't a simple thing and it is low on the priority list (if it is even on the list).

As to our reactions etc, we are all human. We all can get defensive, we all get short with one another. Forum posting is a lousy place to communicate. Frustrations once uttered are there permanently. I took two days off from most of the heated discussions as I was being... well less than helpful. It was a good break and gave me a chance to step back emotionally from the discussions and calm down a bit.

For the OP there is one thing regarding perhaps a bit of a mis understanding. Red rage has been a member since 2008 but a very infrequent poster. I can't tell from that whether he/she has actually been involved the last 7 years.

 

BS has the best CM mechanics yet, but there is literally nothing to do for single-player oriented people once the mini-campaigns and a dozen or so scenarios are burnt through. Are BF moving at their usual glacial pace with this title or is this abandonware for a year or two, shelved in favor of supporting WW2 modules?

I'd seriously consider paying another $25-35 for a proper campaign pack at this point, with 2-3 proper diverging campaigns per side with 15-20 missions each. Would be pure fleecing from the customer satisfaction standpoint, but at least there will be something engaging to play.

Content from BF only comes out with the game/module releases. Any scenarios and campaigns beyond that are strictly user community. That may actually include folks who design for the releases, but they do so strictly on their own. CMBS is one of 4 soon to be 5 titles. New content for any one title will by default be slower the more titles there are. There really is only one answer to the question of more material - the user community. That paradigm however also affects the user community. People prefer certain titles and design for those.

Even were BF to consider a campaign pack that would directly take away resources from some other release not to mention present issues about how to make it financially viable in the sense that right now scenarios and campaigns are tied to content. If someone already has the latest version, how do you prevent sharing of the content?

[SgtHatred]

Sounds like Bulge, Italy, and Red Thunder are all lined up for releases before Black Sea gets another turn at bat. Don't hold your breath.

 

I don't understand why some people are reacting in such an hostile way if somebody outlines the obvious shortcomings of CM titles.

 

Welcome to Battlefront.com

Edited July 9, 2015 by SgtHatred

[LukeFF]

I don't understand why some people are reacting in such an hostile way if somebody outlines the obvious shortcomings of CM titles. The same happened in a recent thread which argued about CMs inferiority compared to GTOS.

 

Phrases like "pure unimaginative padding hacked together in one evening" don't exactly help.

[kraze]

I'm now playing german campaign in CMSF and, boy, do I miss lengthy branching campaign in Black Sea. 5 missions per side (had only 4 as ukrainians due to minor victory in mis 3) felt more like each side's showcase instead of true campaigns. Single skirmishes are great, but I find myself running out of them soon... And QB are, ugh, not on par

[grunt_GI]

Well The Eagle and the Bear campaign (see the Mods and maps forum) dragonwynn has created is going to be fantastic.  I have been lucky enough to playtest some..and you WILL NOT be disappointed.

 

There are some others in work....this is a very creative community...campaigns take a LOT of work so KUDOS to anyone who puts in the effort...DRAGONWYNN has done a marvelous job.

 

Trying to wrap up play testing soon so he can share it with everyone.

[exsonic01]

I think there are several routes toward some resolution to your lack of campaigns and such.

 

1. An actual multiplayer campaign with umpire/game master: This can definitely be done although I don't play CMBS but I am enjoying organizing such an animal over in the WW2 titles. 

I searched for what GunDoc was doing but didn't find it. Maybe collaborate with him and assist to create something. or develop your own. I am available to provide some advice and guidance from what I have learned. PM me if you want this option.

 

2. A working group of several people to create a decent sized batch of QB-like scenarios. High speed and low drag with no fancy briefings to increase production.

You get the other authors' AI force and so it is a surprise with fog of war.

Maybe everyone has the same core force or you exit off at setup the parts you don't want but it is always ALL presented so you cannot spot your own scenario.

Maintains surprise and for a few nights of work in the editor you could get weeks of single player enjoyment.

 

Just some crazy ideas. I always like to have the mindset to NOT ask or wait for the government to come and help but instead to just do it or die trying.

Yes I'm greatly interested about pbem (or realtime) grand campaign. I will PM you soon. Thanks 

 

The thing I mentioned was Battle of Kherson. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118901-battle-of-kherson/?p=1596093 

I have no news or screenshot or anything from this campaign so far. I send PM to him but no response. 

[Red Rage]

As many times happens in these situations, you are assuming that your personal taste regarding a mission is what's "right" to think about it.

Le'ts take this phrase of yours:ù

 

"but then there is mission 2 where it's boring night recon with an even more boring force composition (Tigrs and recon troops),  with 3/4 of the map being empty and real fighting not kicking in until an hour into the whole thing, and then it's almost over"

 

Personally, I find this very interesting, because it's an as best as possible approximation of the tactical reality of a recon.

So, who's right and who's wrong? Nobody, because it's down to personal tastes. Personally, I find this kind of approach (the mission above is a good example) the most interesting and I like it a lot. Not a case CM games are thought in a way that these kind of mission are part of a campaign. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong in any way. It's just your personal refusal. Asking for something different because you say this is "boring" is not really any kind of criticism or construction of a discussion, it's juse venting out your tastes, and if you don't like the CM games you are not forced to play them.

 

Anyway, I am glad CM games follow their traditions, and missions such as the one you described are there. That's what makes CM games in my opinion.

If you find it boring because the force composition if tigrs and recon troops I am pretty sure that I can say CM games are not really your thing...

 

As regarding how you phrase your thoughts, well, it's down to you, I know what's about map making and I spent enough time on the editor to make me say that no CM campaign mission was the result of little effort during a night. 

Personally I don't really look forward in making any kind of discussions with people so rude behind a screen such as you, so suit yourself as you think it's best. Considering your attitude towards people you don't know and diminishing their work like you did using an arrogant and elitarist point of view, I have no real interest in participating to this arrogant discussion of yours, so I won't post here anymore.

 

You are getting hung up on semantics. My goal was not to diminish anyone's work but to point out that for AAA title price, there was simply not enough of it. At this time I played Rus and Ukr campaigns/scenarios (don't enjoy playing NATO) to the point where they have holes in them and simply want to continue playing this great game (with your great mods btw), but there is just nothing to do. Situation reminds me of pre-Escalation Arma 3, where a great foundation was laid, but one was stuck with tumbleweeds, crickets and Persian spacemen for content.

 

And this is considered rude? Seriously? Is only praise allowed? Is this not a product that BF sells at quite a premium? If you buy a car that is missing pieces, will you sing praises to the brand engineers because they "worked hard", were short-staffed and had 5 other models to worry about? As I said before, I wouldn't have a problem with any of the current scenarios if there were more of them, but when there is so few the quality and complexity bar has to be set a lot higher. Especially when we all know from previous titles that BF can do a lot better.  

[Erwin]

It's rather unhelpful when someone expresses an opinion and the discussion immediately veers off into attacking the person because of the words he used rather than considering the content of his post.

 

I agree that the campaigns are very weak (and seeming to get weaker) compared to the ones we had in previous releases.  CM2 allows for a great deal of sophistication in campaigns what with branching, being penalized for using too much ammo or losing too many men and materiel or damaging buildings etc.  What we're seeing now (in all the recent CM2 releases) are campaigns where (usually) little or none of that matters anymore.

 

I suspect that the vast majority of customers play vs the AI.  Campaigns are the best way to experience CM2.  And also, this is an entertainment product with wonderful verisimilitude.  But, customers need content to play the game.