Wince Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 What does everyone think of this? If you took the top-down/hex based tactical wargames of old (the ones which allowed for large scale campaigning across a whole country or continent), and combined it with CM. Let me explain further. The campaign portion of the game would involve moving units around on a map in a turn based fasion, and then when ever combat had to be resolved the game would revert to the more familiar CM segment where combat would actually be fought out as opposed to generated and the results displayed. Maps for the CM battles would be generated based on geograpic info from the larger campaign maps. The units available in the battle would again be supplied from the larger campaign maps based on who is moving which unit counters, where. Let's say in campaign mode that player A checks his intel and decides that player B can't possibly attack on a particular flank so he decides to move only a platoon of old men in wheel chairs to the top of a mountain range to cover that flank. But player A's intel was all wrong and player B actually has his "Elite, Killer Hamster Company" already poised to attack from that flank. Next thing would be for combat to be resolved, so we switch over the our CM view and the battle is generated like so. The map would be large hills (It's the mountain's), and perhaps even some snow (Again, it's the mountains). The units involed would be the old me versus the hamsters. Is this idea making any sense? Anyone think this is a good idea and want to elaborate on it. If it is a marketable idea, I give BTS full permission implement it in CM2... provided I get a free copy!!! ------------------ "There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result" - Winston Churchill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 Sounds like the perfect game but I don't think present day computers would be able to deal with it. I'd like to see such a game only played at corps/division to battalion level. Actually such a game exists except it takes two CDs. Get Talonsoft's Operational Art of War and Combat Mission. Buy a set of comprehensive topographical maps of Northwest Europe and whenever the Operational Art of War engages in combat, you build a scenario to depict that battle in CM. In about 50 years you would be able to play the entire Normandy Campaign. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 That is basically what I did for the CMRPG. www.geocities.com/cmrpg The battle is hypothetical though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wince Posted October 5, 2000 Author Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: That is basically what I did for the CMRPG. www.geocities.com/cmrpg The battle is hypothetical though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> D'oh! The page won't load!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 I'd like to see a 360 turn (or 720 turn) limit on battles. That way you can simulate an entire day of fighting. Plenty of battles in the early Stalingrad battles (Sept 1942) lasted 6 hours or so. Germans attack, pushed back, regroup, attack, pushed back, regroup, etc... In these battles, the russians never got reinforced. BTW, if anyone is planning on making operations based on Stalingrad battles, no mans land was set at 50m by the russians. This served two purposes. Made it harder for the Stukas and the arty to not kill their own troops. To answer your question, Yes! I like your idea very much. (edited to answer your question ) ------------------ Jeff Abbott [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 10-04-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 You'd run out of ammo way before the battle ended. There would have to be some method of resupply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 Wince, Basically you have described what the CMMC/CPX is all about. You can read more about it at http://cmhq.tzo.com . The only diffrence is it isn't all handled by the game. It will consist of upwards of 200 players each in charge of a batallion, recieving and giving orders over the campaign. Everything from Army HQ leaders, division HQ, ect.. are real humans, playing the campaign out on a huge map. Using CM to process battle resolution through PBEM when two enemy units meet. I'm pretty sure this one is full (might still be some divisionl HQ jobs open). Thought you might want to take a look at it, and see what is up. Lorak the loathed. ------------------ "Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats Cesspool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epée Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 I think the idea is brilliant. If you use the right scale, it would be a perfect game. Epée Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilger Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 I have been asking for a campaign format ever since I started playing CM. There has been a large number of posts on the subject (which indicates that a large group of people are interested). However, BTS has not made any statement (that I'm aware of anyway) as to the future of campaigning in CM2. I'll keep my fingers crossed. Dilger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pucker Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 There is already a game on the market that has a turn based campaign move intergrated with real-time 3d battles. Okay it is not WWII, but feudal Japan - Shogun Total War -However, it does show it can be done and I have read they are planning further game releases. I also agree that CM does lack a campaign element. Ok the individual games and operations are fun, but they lack any greater goal or sense of achievement. That is where projects such as CMMC and CMRPG come into play and hopefully we will see alot more of these cropping up. Strictly speaking operations cater for large battles that last for 2+ hours. Okay you say it was common place for battles to last all day, but these would be broken up by periods of inactivity lasting half an hour or so, when troops on both sides would look after wounded, re-supply ammo and repair tanks. Hey presto An Operation. Pucker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 Which would you guys rather have: CM2 in a year OR a campaign mode (despite all the arguments and reasoning against it) for CM1, and CM2 in 3 years? I vote for CM2 as quickly as possible, and any campaigning in CM1 can be handled by efforts like the CMRPG and the CMMC. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted October 6, 2000 Share Posted October 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Which would you guys rather have: CM2 in a year OR a campaign mode (despite all the arguments and reasoning against it) for CM1, and CM2 in 3 years? I vote for CM2 as quickly as possible, and any campaigning in CM1 can be handled by efforts like the CMRPG and the CMMC. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I choose option 3 - CM2 AND a campaign in 1.5 years. ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wince Posted October 8, 2000 Author Share Posted October 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dilger: I have been asking for a campaign format ever since I started playing CM. There has been a large number of posts on the subject (which indicates that a large group of people are interested). However, BTS has not made any statement (that I'm aware of anyway) as to the future of campaigning in CM2. I'll keep my fingers crossed. Dilger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think it would be interesting to hear from BTS... you guys at BTS reading this or what? The two basic types of games are already out there... it's really just a matter or putting one on top of the other. Of course, in theory it sounds easy, but who knows how it could be done? I for one can't code to save my own life. ------------------ "There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result" - Winston Churchill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 Something better might be something like this: In CM2, let there be a way to link QBs into a linked "mini campaign". When starting a QB, allow the choice of stringing together from 1-5 QBs(or any #, 5 is just an example here), with reinforcement and supply variables for each QB setable at the start (and all the QB variables we have already like weather, map size, map variables, battle type, force points, handicaps; for each QB so linked). This way you could have a linked QB mini campaign, and even allow different players in on the next QB of the mini-campaign by simply e-mailing the next turn to them. I think this would be easily done, it adds just a few variable QB scenario inputs that would need to be linked together through the QB (viz a viz results of previous QBs). -john [This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 10-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 Any of you guys played Close Combat IV? Its basically this set up. You command roughly a corps of troops (either german or US) during the Bulge battles. You move around your regiments and battles take place at company and platoon level as a result. OK if thats what you're looking for, but I think you lose too much when you try to do both. To get a real feel of how a corps commanders decisions effect a campaign you'd have to fight every single battle from company level on up. Since one battalion on the left may hit a wall and one on the right might get through easily, you'd have to fight all of those small battles to get an accurate read on the larger fight. So I think it would be ponderous and never ending. It took three or four weeks to close the bulge. Now mulitply that by the number of rifle companies involved. You really want to fight that many battles in CM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: I'd like to see a 360 turn (or 720 turn) limit on battles. That way you can simulate an entire day of fighting. Plenty of battles in the early Stalingrad battles (Sept 1942) lasted 6 hours or so. Germans attack, pushed back, regroup, attack, pushed back, regroup, etc... In these battles, the russians never got reinforced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's basically what a CM operation does. Allows a battle to last for a couple days if need be. REMEMBER, CM's scenarios are more or less just "fire fights" or small skirmishes. ------------------ All that sleeps, awakens... All that awakens, hungers... All that hungers, feeds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wince Posted October 8, 2000 Author Share Posted October 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pucker: There is already a game on the market that has a turn based campaign move intergrated with real-time 3d battles. Okay it is not WWII, but feudal Japan - Shogun Total War -However, it does show it can be done and I have read they are planning further game releases. Pucker <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I had heard of that game before and thought it would be worth a try. The only article I read about it din't focus much on the campaign element as much as it did the 3D combat. ------------------ "There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result" - Winston Churchill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts