Jump to content

2015 Christmas Bones


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 424
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It probably won't make you feel any better but I have a recollection of Steve himself posting on the forums a while ago that he preferred the old campaign system from CMx1.  This was probably several years ago and he may not even remember posting it, but I remember because I think I asked him about the old campaign system making a return.  The fact that BFC hasn't implemented something that BFC themselves would prefer should give you some indication as to how difficult it would be to implement and why it isn't already in the game.  Even the way the old system worked in CMx1 was screwed up if we are honest about it.  The game could never draw the new setup zones correctly since it generally just drew a single line down the center of the map without much accounting for where your troops actually were located.  So yeah, a return of the old system will probably never happen and it isn't that way because BFC doesn't like the old campaign system.  After all, they did it that way the first time they made a campaign system didn't they? ;)  It will never happen because BFC has determined either that it can't be done or that the cost of doing it is too high to be viable.  It's just a business decision and we all have to live with it.   

Yup, that's just about right.  The one minor thing to correct is that I liked the theoretical system from CMx1 more than the theoretical system of CMx2, but I think the CMx2 system turned out a lot better in reality.  The practical problems associated with making CMx1's system doomed it.

IanL - Believe it or not I had it all planned out about 12 years ago.  Not sure if I can dredge up my brilliance from back then but will give it a go.

I'll save you some time... don't bother :)  There is no way, no how, that we are going to undo the CMx2 campaign system and we will never make/support a parallel system.  It's just not in the cards and therefore no point discussing something we won't ever do.

IanL's suggestion to think about "tweaks" to the current system is fine, though we have no near-term plans to do major work on the campaign system.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The practical problems associated with making CMx1's system doomed it.

I'll save you some time... don't bother :)  There is no way, no how, that we are going to undo the CMx2 campaign system and we will never make/support a parallel system.  It's just not in the cards and therefore no point discussing something we won't ever do.

IanL's suggestion to think about "tweaks" to the current system is fine, though we have no near-term plans to do major work on the campaign system.

 

Yeah, persistent map damage is IMHO the #1 thing to do.  It's a little tricky to do with the code we have, but it is definitely doable.

I never played CM1 but from what I have taken from the discussions the CM1 system allowed battles being fought on the same map and map damage just like vehicles were persistent or even could be repaired between battles. Sounds very, very B) and realistic.

If I imagine a Stalingrad module, I think persistent map damage would be absolutely a must have. But without a battle continuing where the previous battle ended I see it's attractiveness dramtically lower than it could be.

 

Not that I believe I have better ideas, but maybe you have not thought about some possibilities because of your involvement every day?

Problem to determine a frontline? Would a frontline really be necessary?

Alternative to frontline:

  1. Supply vehicles. As long a the player does not lose his base, he could receive supply trucks at the base VLs. Then it's up to the player to get them to his units from the pervious battle. The player therefore has to plan ahead: where do I need to advance to keep supply routes open? Tactically a significant improvement IMO. If tanks could resupply (under certain situations) this feature could offer even more tactical depth for scenarios - pardon: CAMPAIGNS :D  ;) .
  2. Another possibility could be to determine a "supply path" on the map. Drawn by scenario designers like they create VLs. At the end of the battle it could be checked, if this path was free of enemy units or if enemy units have LOS to it. If they have LOS, the severity of the potential fire from each unit could be calculated. Depending on how severe the fire-threat to this supply-path is, the received supply to the units along the path could be determined.

My 2 ct.

Edited by CarlWAW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old system had a frontline system and that is what doomed it.  T

 

I never played CM1 but from what I have taken from the discussions the CM1 system allowed battles being fought on the same map and map damage just like vehicles were persistent or even could be repaired between battles. Sounds very, very B) and realistic.

If I imagine a Stalingrad module, I think persistent map damage would be absolutely a must have. But without a battle continuing where the previous battle ended I see it's attractiveness dramtically lower than it could be.

Yes. that is the sort of thing persistent map damage is really meant to do.  Atmospheric for the most part, but certainly there are practical implications from a tactical standpoint.

 

Problem to determine a frontline? Would a frontline really be necessary?

 

Yup, that's the central problem and unfortunately it is critically necessary to support the "Operations" concept that CMx1 had in it.  It was a never ending fire in a peatbog or coalmine.  There was never any hope of putting it out, and after a time we gave up even trying to contain it.  Just too much bother with such a low chance of real improvement.  Which is why we will not go in that direction again.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old system had a frontline system and that is what doomed it.  T

Yes. that is the sort of thing persistent map damage is really meant to do.  Atmospheric for the most part, but certainly there are practical implications from a tactical standpoint.

 

Yup, that's the central problem and unfortunately it is critically necessary to support the "Operations" concept that CMx1 had in it.  It was a never ending fire in a peatbog or coalmine.  There was never any hope of putting it out, and after a time we gave up even trying to contain it.  Just too much bother with such a low chance of real improvement.  Which is why we will not go in that direction again.

Steve

Steve - 

If I created a frontline algorithm with XLS model for you would you even consider it?  

- Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was pretty much ok with the CM1 Front line system. I always viewed the kinks in it as how the lines settled after a mutual pullback for resupply and regroup.

Was it perfect. No.

Was it better than Campaign system that's largely a system of yesteryear. Yes.

Somewhat disappointed that there is still a 'never' position towards operations or dynamic campaigns.

That said, give us persistent damage, large enough maps, ammo dumps, and reinforcements then we have a CM1 de-facto operation.

Some UI to review and pick units for next mission would be an evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well appearently it's on their todo list for 4.0 anyways, but there's a bunch of stuff that comes to mind pretty easily. Just off the top off my head:

- more branching options and conditions (not just binary win/loose conditions)

- reusing maps and keeping battle damage (craters, destroyed buildings, knocked out vehicles, KIA maybe)

- better refitting system (users can chose which units to refit/repair/resupply between scenarios maybe)

- more options for refitting in general, like differentiating between armor and infantry (e.g armor gets repaired but infantry does not recieve replacements for instance or only some specified units are resupplied while others are not)

None of those would be really major overhauls I think and could be extensions to the current system

Without confirming or denied anything specific, or even commenting on any of the specific items above, this is a good idea of the sorts of things to expect from the upgrade in regards to campaign systems. Provided, of course, that plans for the upgrade remain on track (could I add ANY more qualifiers?!). Basically, expect refinements to the current campaign system we have, not the inclusion of a brand new one. It's an upgrade, not a rebuild. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without confirming or denied anything specific, or even commenting on any of the specific items above, this is a good idea of the sorts of things to expect from the upgrade in regards to campaign systems. Provided, of course, that plans for the upgrade remain on track (could I add ANY more qualifiers?!). Basically, expect refinements to the current campaign system we have, not the inclusion of a brand new one. It's an upgrade, not a rebuild. ;)

Works for me!  Thanks Steve and Chris for this bone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is in the details. ;)

I am currently in probably the last scenario of Blunting the spear-campaign. Although I really like big battles, because of their tactical choices, sometimes I didn't want to continue, because of it's size and despite the fun it is.

Have you ever considered the following? If you make it possible to fight several battles on the same map and if it feels like the consecutive battle is a result of where the previous battle ended with all damage and units, that suddenly small campaigns, easier to produce, like platoon sized probes or company sized campaigns would become VERY interesting? If you make a well working supply/repair-system, you maybe even could create 7-, 10-, 15- battle campaigns with the minimum effort of only a single map. That seems to be a huge leverage revenue/cost wise.

 

The current system almost enforces to make campaigns on big maps and with many units, because a lonely platoon appearing on completely different maps and therefore different tasks, is tactically not really interesting. But if the battles are glued together and feel like a whole, also very small scale campaigns would become tactically interesting - besides the fun they probably are. I guess small scale campaigns would be much more interesting for realtime players, too.

Edited by CarlWAW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve - 

If I created a frontline algorithm with XLS model for you would you even consider it?  

- Chris

Nope, not a chance :)  Determining where the frontline is constitutes the easiest part of the design requirements.  Remember, we've already done this once with a system that was by far more simplistic than the one we have in front of us today.  We started out CMx1 thinking "hey, all we need to do is..." and it turned into a never ending headache.  We stopped trying to improve Operations even before we ceased working on the CMx1 engine.  It was that bad.

I was pretty much ok with the CM1 Front line system. I always viewed the kinks in it as how the lines settled after a mutual pullback for resupply and regroup.

Was it perfect. No.

Was it better than Campaign system that's largely a system of yesteryear. Yes.

We've had this discussion with you dozens of times before.  The fact is that hardly any of our CMx1 customers played Operations.  It is one reason we stopped working on it even in the CMBB days.  Contrast this with CMx2 Campaigns where it seems the vast majority play them.  With so many CMx2 games under our belt, it's pretty clear to us that the CMx2 system is closer to what our customers want.  Perfect?  Nope, but closer than CMx1 Operations ever got.

Plus, even the people that generally liked Operations did complain a lot about its shortcomings at the time.  In our view, at the time, we had a few people playing a system that they mostly liked but we couldn't realistically improve to match expectations.  Coupled with this were all the people who did not like Operations saying they wanted a system closer to what we now have with Campaigns.  So strong was this impression of the state of things we never, ever, even once (not even for a second) considered doing Operations for CMx2.  And never once since then have we considered this a bad decision.  Quite the opposite, in fact, because of the much higher participation rate in playing Campaigns vs. the old Operations.

Somewhat disappointed that there is still a 'never' position towards operations or dynamic campaigns.

That said, give us persistent damage, large enough maps, ammo dumps, and reinforcements then we have a CM1 de-facto operation.

Some UI to review and pick units for next mission would be an evolution.

While we do intend to avoid the slippery slope, we do want persistent damage.  It's something that's good even for the existing Campaign structure.  There's been more than once Campaign which has two consecutive battles played out on at least parts of the same map.

 

]Have you ever considered the following? If you make it possible to fight several battles on the same map and if it feels like the consecutive battle is a result of where the previous battle ended with all damage and units, that suddenly small campaigns, easier to produce, like platoon sized probes or company sized campaigns would become VERY interesting? If you make a well working supply/repair-system, you maybe even could create 7-, 10-, 15- battle campaigns with the minimum effort of only a single map. That seems to be a huge leverage revenue/cost wise.

You are describing the CMx1 Operations system and that's what we're not going to touch with a 10' pole again.  It was a nightmare on our end.

 

Guys, take it to another thread, please. 

Actually, take it offline completely.  Threads are not designed for one on one banter/razzing.  That's what PM's are for :)

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

$10 download. The designer of the Battle Pack also gets a significant cut of each sale.

Free. Patches are always free.

 

You are marketing a community made mod as a battle pack DLC and charging $10? I thought mods were free and if you want to donate to the mod maker that is your decision?

 

Edited by Gamer1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are marketing a community made mod as a battle pack DLC and charging $10? I thought mods were free and if you want to donate to the mod maker that is your decision?

Uh... I'm not seeing how the Battle Pack can be considered a "community made mod"?? A member of the community is the one who made the product's scenarios, yes, but I think that's true of most maps in any of the CMx2 titles. If you take a look at the Designer's Notes in the various missions, you'll see that those missions are often made by community members who are also doubling as beta testers, researchers, and scenario authors. So I think that the Battle Pack's status as an "official" BFC product simply means that its campaign and scenarios have passed through the proper channels and meet the same high standards as those found in the other titles. Looking at it that way, $10 is a bargain, at least in my opinion. I plan to snatch it up the first day it's offered.

Edited by sttp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...