Two tweaks to make CM the perfect tool in operational games.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Allowing Saved Games to be edited and adding the ability to password protect scenarios.

Currently it is massive amount of work to build and rebuild games/scenarios, but the two above features would transform everything. They may already be in Combat Mission Professional. Presumably the military use CM within operational games, to some degree. However, it is not a trivial job as Charles has previously explained that games are saved in a different format to that used in the current editor.

Some wargames are available in the standard and “professional…” versions for all to buy. Hopefully the same will happen with CM.

For tactics and more tactics CM is unequalled. Far, far ahead of all else. And with all the player aids turned off, and the camera down low, certainly takes me into the zone as if watching a Spielberg movie.  But its potential for use in an ongoing operational game is currently wasted.

All the best,

Kip.

[weapon2010]

On 10/11/2022 at 1:28 AM, kipanderson said:

and adding the ability to password protect scenarios.

what do you mean by this?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

what I mean is that when you go to Save a scenario, in the editor, a dialog box appears with the option to enter a password meaning that from then on in order to edit the scenario one would have re-enter that password. 

All the best,

Kip.

PS This feature combined with being able to edit Saved games, if had the password, would make umpiring CMMC games so much easier. 

[Artkin]

I do wonder why you think they would improve the experience. Can you please elaborate? 

Personally I think having the ability to combine CM maps is the missing element for my own operational level games. It's fine if you chop up a big map (5x5km into 25 1x1km maps), but when you combine different maps there's no way to combine them unless you do it manually. 

[kipanderson]

Artkin,

because with the return of the final saved file from a game of CM everything could be edited, and a new battle built. 

Given the orders/movements and such from the operational game the CM map could be edited by enlarging it in a given direction. The forces on both sides could be edited in order to reflect reinforcements and withdrawals, the time of day changed, everything. 

Editing is way quicker than starting from scratch. In my experience. 

All the best,

kip. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by kipanderson

[Artkin]

Certainly this helps if you want to reuse the same battlefield and retain the craters, damaged houses, smashed fences or hedges, and vehicle wrecks.

Have you experimented with Campaign core unit files? I call them MASTERTOE's. I stuff a division or larger into a file, and import the troops to the map I want to use them for. I can edit the MASTERTOE file to account for losses, so the next time I incorporate it into a new scenario, then the losses will be done already for me.

I haven't wanted anything more than the ability to combine maps, because I do feel like we have almost all the tools.

Something that could fix all of this IMO, is an operational layer where you can slap maps together into one big image. You can assign grids of varying size or shape to these maps, and the game would keep track of your troops, front lines, etc.... There's a lot of potential with this idea.

 

[RockinHarry]

I like all he mentioned ideas here. Going full fleshed out campaigns with dynamic maps (pre battle damage from previous map if available) would add new life to the current game engine. I´d even prefer it all added before a new game engine would be developed. In case that ever happens.

2 hours ago, Artkin said:

Have you experimented with Campaign core unit files? I call them MASTERTOE's. I stuff a division or larger into a file, and import the troops to the map I want to use them for. I can edit the MASTERTOE file to account for losses, so the next time I incorporate it into a new scenario, then the losses will be done already for me.

Really got to dig more into this. Interesting stuff. Very interesting.

[IICptMillerII]

The single biggest roadblock to using CM in a larger campaign context is that making maps takes a lot of time and even more effort. If maps could be generated in a reasonable amount of time (say, a single sitting or two) then you could run decent linked battle campaigns without any other tweaks. The main bottleneck is the scenario editor. 

Being able to edit battlefields would be great as well. Carrying over battle damage, or just continuing a fight on the same map with fresh forces would be nice. 

[Ithikial_AU]

I think @IICptMillerII has nailed it on the head. Operations will inherently require the in game functionality of carrying across battlefield damage (potentially including remembering vehicle wreck locations), and existing units to be a worthwhile proposition.

Multiplayer

For multiplayer you'd need to be able to export the map via a button on the AAR screen which then can be loaded into the editor for a game master to tinker with and set up the next engagement. I've personally never run into situations where players in a campaign want to cheat and would require a scenario file to be locked. As a game master you can just send the first PBEM saved game file to the players as that's all they need to get going. Don't need the scenario file.

Single Player

The ability to integrate this functionality into existing campaign structure would I think make it a worthwhile feature for single player gamers. How I think this would work is that the game detects the map is identical to the last scenario played so automatically imports it's state from the point of mission end and then loads the units for the engagement on that map in the same action tiles. Sounds easy, but I'm guessing it's a coding nightmare.  It's a major limitation right now as there is the assumption that that each engagement in an engagement will mean fighting somewhere new, which is never guaranteed even in stock campaigns.

I remember one specific example fighting over Gavrus in the "Scottish Corridor" campaign. I completely destroyed the cathedral tower only for it to be miraculously repaired before the next engagement set a few hours later.  It is a bit jarring to a player but also gave me an unfair advantage when you think about it, as I was able to perch a spotter nice and high to watch the German counter attack role in. Ideally I shouldn't have that option as a choice I made previously should of cut off that possibility.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Ithikial_AU

[Artkin]

It's nice to play on the same map and all, but that just isnt going to cut it for the modern titles. Even in ww2, I achieved decisive victories on a cut up version of Rad Full 2 and would have cleaned my opponent off the map, pushing much more than the allotted 5.7 x 5.7km. 

 

Think how cool it would be if you were able to piece together all 5 Orshanets maps. 

[dkchapuis]

i do agree that piecing together maps would be a big help.

 

9 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Carrying over battle damage, or just continuing a fight on the same map with fresh forces would be nice. 

This is one of my biggest personal gripes about CM2.  BFC had this function in CM1 games.  It is hard for me to believe this was too complicated to implement with the CM2 engine.

[kipanderson]

On 10/18/2022 at 10:06 PM, Artkin said:

Have you experimented with Campaign core unit files? I call them MASTERTOE's.

Artkin, hi,

I don't...

It is interesting to see the different ways people play or would like to play CMMC type games. You mention the use of the CM campaign editor other I see use QBs as the base for their games.

When it comes to maps, I agree it is a big problem. One partial solution, they are all partial solutions and no more unfortunately, is use the Master Maps that ship with the titles. My experience is that editing maps, changing elevations, deleting woods here, adding fields there can in a short time make a map unrecognisable from its previous iteration. And is, relatively, very quick. 

All the best,

kip.