Pain Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 CM is great, no discussion. But the main problem of the game is, that the operations just aren't long enough. In other words: I would like to see something like real campaings, where I have battlegroups of divisional size, or even bigger. A complete map of Europe, from France to Germany or Italy. Where I have to secure reinforcement routes, occupy airfields for better airpower on the field, where I have to cut off enemy's battlegroups from support etc. This is sort of a feature which would do well for CM2 or an update for CM (if this is possible). Gimme some feedback. Greez Pain ------------------ War is in my heart Death is by my side! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 hmmm... sounds a little bit like close combat, which tried to do both large operations/campaigns and tactical combat, neither of which it did very well with its last few titles. CC2, a bridge too far was very good but featured little or no operational parameters beyound linked tactical battles, IIRC. When Atomic strayed away from tactical and more towards large operations/campaigns they lost a bit from their tactical game (CC4 & 5). CC3 the russian front was more like CC2, using linked tactical battles and a few maps. Frankly I did not like the switch atomic made to large operations and battle groups, as a number of other people did not. And where is close combat now? I picked of CC5 and was quite disappointed. My hope is for BTS to remain true to their tactical roots and not lose something in their tactical game by switching to large operations/campaigns. I think it would be a mistake to do so. You can also design any number of your own scenarios in CMBO and link them together to form operations, while making your own unit selections for each battle, as well as reinforcements. I see what you are getting at with continent-wide campaigns (a bit like the boardgame axis and allies) but do not think it could be implemented very easily without delaying CMBB another year or two. imho, john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kelly Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 This is an interesting question. I have worked on a number of operations since I bought the game. It is possible to create continuity and quite an interesting campaign. I would say the operations in CM are similar to the operations in Close Combat. A true campaign would entail linking several operations. Actually, the folks at Advanced Squad Leader have a great idea. They created a dozen or so related scenarios. Market Garden has been designed as such. Of course, Combat Mission will only declare a winner for each scenario, not the series. I would like to see the addition of air fields on the map editor. Perhaps some planes...destroyed or otherwise. At any rate, it is an interesting concept. Cheers, John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kelly: This is an interesting question. I have worked on a number of operations since I bought the game. It is possible to create continuity and quite an interesting campaign. I would say the operations in CM are similar to the operations in Close Combat. A true campaign would entail linking several operations. Actually, the folks at Advanced Squad Leader have a great idea. They created a dozen or so related scenarios. Market Garden has been designed as such. Of course, Combat Mission will only declare a winner for each scenario, not the series. I would like to see the addition of air fields on the map editor. Perhaps some planes...destroyed or otherwise. At any rate, it is an interesting concept. Cheers, John<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is precisely what I was wishing for in CM. If the first operation started early in the war and lasted 5 battles. Then the second one could start out later on in the war. New armor and units could be developed etc. I realize that a certain unit cannot be carried over from operation to operation but the feel would still be there. Good stuff. ------------------ Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armornut Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 That is great! That would add a whole new demension to the game! Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 People are asking for the stars when we do not yet have the moon. How about we get the current operations setup working better before we worry about campaigns and linked operations? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: People are asking for the stars when we do not yet have the moon. How about we get the current operations setup working better before we worry about campaigns and linked operations? Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No worrying happening here, Jeff. I was just throwing out my opinion. I like operations because of the continuity between battles because PBEM's don't really have that feeling. I don't understand much about the setup of operations and I won't pretend to either. I would just enjoy having linked operations that progress chronologically. ------------------ Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop88 Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 Good idea, but if followed through the game would lose its purpose. It is designed as a tactical game, not a strategic one. And if you bring in the strategic level, you have to introduce the Allies' overwhelming advantages of material, airpower, etc., and the Germans' lack thereof. You would lose one fo the beauties of this game ... its balance. In CM, both sides can be fairly balanced, or the Germans can even have an advantage, because that was indeed the case in many engagements that occurred at the company-battalion level. Once you move beyond that level, then the Allies would have to be given major advantages for the campaign to be realistic ... and hence, the Germans would have little chance of winning. Which, to me, would make the game rather boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pain Posted December 22, 2000 Author Share Posted December 22, 2000 Good idea, but if followed through the game would lose its purpose. It is designed as a tactical game, not a strategic one. And if you bring in the strategic level, you have to introduce the Allies' overwhelming advantages of material, airpower, etc., and the Germans' lack thereof. You would lose one fo the beauties of this game ... its balance. In CM, both sides can be fairly balanced, or the Germans can even have an advantage, because that was indeed the case in many engagements that occurred at the company-battalion level. Once you move beyond that level, then the Allies would have to be given major advantages for the campaign to be realistic ... and hence, the Germans would have little chance of winning. Which, to me, would make the game rather boring. Good points I must say. The only thing I missed in your statement is about "fictional scenarios". Why do the US-Troops have to be much numerous to the Germans? Why couldn't it be balanced? There should then be the option to edit the "strategic" map of the game. To create billions of possible "strategical-scenarios". The realism wouldn't be the same, I must agree, but fun is the main thing on the whole, isn't it? And fun is for me to have a complete "tactical-strategical-wargame". Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... (OK, I have stolen this one from John Lennon's "Imagine". Don't soe me for this one ) Oh yeah, Tiger, I absolutely agree with your opinion to CC. I liked CC3 the most. It was "kick-ass" to watch T34 tanks against Tiger tanks fighting Greez Pain ------------------ War is in my heart Death is by my side! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Pain Said: CM is great, no discussion. But the main problem of the game is, that the operations just aren't long enough. In other words: I would like to see something like real campaings, where I have battlegroups of divisional size, or even bigger. A complete map of Europe, from France to Germany or Italy. Where I have to secure reinforcement routes, occupy airfields for better airpower on the field, where I have to cut off enemy's battlegroups from support etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great Idea Pain. I would love to see an elaborated operations\campaign layer added to the game. I personally liked the campaign layer implemented into Close Combat IV and V, and would love to see BTS take a crack at this sort of thing and pick up where ATOMIC left off. ATOMIC had several short comings in their campaign system…I'm sure BTS could actually get the thing done right. Maybe even as an add-on pack to CM-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Napoleon1944 Posted December 23, 2000 Share Posted December 23, 2000 Someone could write some Java script or something and make a strategic campaign on the net. Just plug in your forces, or let the campaign tell you what you have to do and what units you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 23, 2000 Share Posted December 23, 2000 Hi folks, This subject has been raised a couple dozen times in the past. In fact, it was brought up again earlier this week. Hehe... in fact, before we even released the Beta Demo Doing a Search on "campaigns" should turn up quite a number of things. Or you can try "linked". Bottom line is that we have no plans to do this. As others have stated, it is all about focus. Concentrating on too many things at once is a VERY bad idea. CM is a tactical wargame, and therefore Battles and Operations are the only thing we have planned for the near future. Thanks, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pain Posted December 23, 2000 Author Share Posted December 23, 2000 Hmmm, then I have to play operations with linked stuff... maybe someone could do the java-solution like napolean1944 said. I don't know java, so if someone else could do this please I would really like this! Sorry Steve about my topic... I didn't see any others like this. (OK, OK, I haven't done a search, my fault) Greez Pain ------------------ War is in my heart Death is by my side! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts