There should be a Grand Campaign

[bojangles]

I believe for CM2, there should be a grand campaign. The probability of me buying it would be much better if there was a grand campaign.

[The Commissar]

I believe there should be an FAQ answering questions that appear like this over and over and over again.

Oh, wait, there already is. Then maybe we should have a permanent link to the unofficial FAQ in big red letters on the forums somewhere, visible at all times.

To your question, the answer is that NO, there will be no campaign. Id fill you in on the numerous details of why not, but then Id just waste more time then I already have. To put it plainly, no campaign.

[Clinton]

As hard as it is to believe. CMBO is one of the greatest games made even without this much coveted and much toted feature. Anyways, you can always make your own campaigns through a series of operations and such. If you havent already you should get CMBO and experience for yourself this unbelievable game. Todays PC game market is flooded with mainstream, name brand, mind numbing, crap. BTS has thrown the provebial guantlet in their faces and produced a product that surpasses and puts to shame most of the games produced in the last couple of years.

(Clinton steps off his soapbox, turn, bows, and quietly exits the stage)

[lcm1947]

Yeah, would be really great but guess it's not going to happen. Damn, I'm glad I didn't ask the questions. I get my feelings hurt real easy. I'd be crying after whats-his-face jumbed all over you. Maybe just a bad day - I hope so anyway.

[Panzer Leader]

Actually, Mr Bojangles, Der Kommisar was a little bit hasty and inaccurate in his smack-down of your much-asked-for feature request. While BTS has repeatedly said that there is "Little interest" and that it was "a bit unrealistic" they are IN FACT considering the possibilty of giving a feature (such as the "command-line game start" which would facilitate a campaign game.

Though I do not know the details (they go beyond my realm of knowledge into that miasma known as programming) do not give up because we might see something.

Incidentally, maybe if enough people showed their support for a campaign game, BTS might realize that its not a "minority" that want one. By the way, check my CM2 FAQ, linked below for more information.

[littleoldman]

..hey,i'm in a minority!..would love to see a campaign game..

[Jeff Duquette]

I'd like to see a campaign layer too. Me thinks it would be good fun

[Triggerhappy]

Well, I've added a "Me too!" to nearly every campaign request, so here we go: Me too!

[HawkerT]

Just joining the 'Yes To Campaigns' chorus with my humble voice.

HEAR! HEAR!

I think it serves BTS credit that they have opened the door an inch, and considered some kind of workable solution that gifted individuals in the community can implement in a nonsupported usermade addon.

Here's to BTS and the community.

[PiggDogg]

For CM2, I would rathar that BTS spend its time on refining the game mechanics and play. I would suspect that implimenting a campaign for CM2 would be tremendously time consuming and that time could be better spend elsewhere.

Also, for me personally, scenarios of much more than 700 to 1000 points is too much like work to be fun. Further, (once again for me), large scenarios just take too much time. I just do not have a lot of time to play CMBO/CM2, and I want the time that I do spend on them to be the best experience possible.

Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com, ICQ# 116577632.

[aka_tom_w]

What ever happened to the standard line:

"You'll get killed" ??? :confused:

Perhaps I'm not in the minority but I would like to propose that the campaign game suggestion does little more than facilitate the dreams and wishes of all those fans of the Third Reich that would like to believe that if Hilter had not royally screwed up, the war would have been won by the Germans and those same folks are only to happy to show how they as the German commander(s) would have won the war. (in the East anyway in the suggested Campaign Game in CMBB )

The ONLY campaign game that Should realistically work would be one where it would be impossible to win as the Germans, (given ALL realistic settings and historical maps and troops, yeah yeah I KNOW, the Real fun is in the "what If" scenario's where the Germans can take over the world )

The entire premise of the campaign game is based on winning, and CONTINUING to win every time you meet the enemy on the battle field. This notion turns the great historical WWII simulator (to be) CMBB, into something akin to a video game that has "boards" or screen sections with the "boss" monster bady (whatever) at the end of it to be over come, so you can move on to the next "board".

I strongly believe this notion has NO place in CMBB.

I also believe that units SHOULD not gain experience from a single battle and move on to the next. In virtually all Meeting Engagements against a skilled human player that I have ever played there is not enough units (men or machines) left fit and healthy to continue on EITHER side to make any sense of a "campaign".

I now realize this viewpoint may be in the minority, but I WHOLLY and completely disagree with the suggestion that it is realistic for either the Germans to win a campaign game or for units to gain experience after only one battle.

Again the One Line Refrain:

YOU'LL DIE BEFORE YOU GAIN ENOUGH EXPERIENCE

(I'm sounding more and More like a GROG every Day

Oh MY GOD!!)

-tom w

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

What ever happened to the standard line:

"You'll get killed" ??? :confused:

Perhaps I'm not in the minority but I would like to propose that the campaign game suggestion does little more than facilitate the dreams and wishes of all those fans of the Third Reich that would like to believe that if Hilter had not royally screwed up, the war would have been won by the Germans and those same folks are only to happy to show how they as the German commander(s) would have won the war. (in the East anyway in the suggested Campaign Game in CMBB )

-tom w

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, Tom. A campaign game in CM's scale would focus on a battalion and would, I hope, not allow you to alter the outcome of the war - simply allow you to command forces over time. The fantasy campaigns such as Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, Battle of Britain, or Close Combat 4, were pretty silly. Three B-17s alter the course of the war? Not likely. Two platoons of infantry decide Bastogne's fate? Don't think so.

It would be interesting to command a battalion from say 1941 to 1945 - where at first you run into nothing but green Russian troops with your veteran German infantry, and at the end are fighting off IS-II tanks by the dozen with heavily armed conscripts.

My conception of this has always been that you wouldn't need to fight a battalion sized battle every time your forces ran into something, but pick and choose companies for specific missions - even platoon sized patrols. That way you get a mix of large and small scenarios, easy and hard - more realistic than taking everything you own and throwing it at the enemy. You could add a fatigue factor to specific companies (sounds like CM2's "fitness" rating would be great for this) everytime they are used in a "mission."

That's the one part about Operations in CM I don't like - if you have a battalion sized force, you can't withdraw the remnants of one battalion and replace it with a fresh one. You can add a battalion as reinforcements, but the old guys stay on the map.

Would take a lot of research and time and energy to get it right, though, and I agree, reluctantly, that I hope CM2 doesn't include this (for surely it will mean sacrifices elsewhere). Besides, I want the Russian Front in my living room in time for winter!

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Panzer Leader]

Tom, it is not good argument tactics to use the most far-fetched, and worst-case possibilities for your argument against inclusion of a feature.

Furthermore, it is a bit rude to proclaim that every one who wants a campaign game really just wants the Axis to win. That is so ridiculous that I will not even counter it.

However, your description of some child-like campaign game where everyone gets "Power-ups" and become Crack troops with the best tanks is also ridiculous, but worth countering.

A campaign game has a core unit, whether it be a company, battalion, whatever, and follows it in a historically accurate way (or at least theoretically). While casualties are taken, the unit AS A WHOLE can still gain experience, but that isn't even what I personally want.

I want a linked set of scenarios fought by a core, constant force. It could be historical, theoretical, or even your fantasy of Hitler winning - whatever - but it only needs those two things (linked, core group) to work.

My example of a campaign would be following the Recon Battalion of Paulus' 6th Army as they attacked across the Ukraine and into Russia to Stalingrad. The battles would be fierce, and the campaign could last up to two years worth of fighting, covering many engagements 6th Army was involved in.

My other example (and this one is complex and prolly not possible) would be where the player controls a division and must shift rescources and decide which forces to allocate to any single engagement.

Campaigns DO NOT HAVE TO BE AHISTORICAL, GAMEY, OR CHILDISH.

[Lempereur]

Give us a campaign game and I will never leave the house!

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Furthermore, it is a bit rude to proclaim that every one who wants a campaign game really just wants the Axis to win. That is so ridiculous that I will not even counter it.

Campaigns DO NOT HAVE TO BE AHISTORICAL, GAMEY, OR CHILDISH.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please excuse me while I indulge in a moment of sophistry:

"Furthermore, it is a bit rude to proclaim that every one who wants a campaign game really just wants the Axis to win."

I'm feel compelled to address the suggestion that I was "rude to proclaim that every one who wants a campaign game really just wants the Axis to win."

Its the word rude here that is the focus of this reply. In my original (admittedly highly opinionated post) I wrote:

"Perhaps I'm not in the minority but I would like to propose that the campaign game suggestion does little more than facilitate the dreams and wishes of all those fans of the Third Reich that would like to believe that if Hilter had not royally screwed up, the war would have been won by the Germans and those same folks are only to happy to show how they as the German commander(s) would have won the war. (in the East anyway in the suggested Campaign Game in CMBB )"

I used the words "I would like to propose..."

This does not seem like a proclamation to me, but more like a suggestion that, many (ok I am sorry I used the Word "ALL" ) of the supporters of the campaign game are (like your self, as you admit) fans of the German units and are the same folks who prefer the German units when playing the game.

I'm not angry or mad nor willI ever get all bent out of shape over this issue, I'm just playing with words this morning and enjoying writing and debating (nothing more ) with all of you.

Again, it was only my one lone opinion, I can see there is ALOT of support for this campaign idea, it comes up ALL the time.

-tom w

[YECoyote]

I would love to have a campaign too. Then I can work hard on getting the Iron Cross for my Panzerschreck team :cool:

[Panzer Leader]

Pardon me Tom. I too am a pretty level headed guy with a love of conversation and argument. Take for example my constant abuse on the Mutha Beautiful. On second thought ignore that and just believe me. That said, a line like:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps I'm not in the minority but I would like to propose that the campaign game suggestion does little more than facilitate the dreams and wishes of all those fans of the Third Reich that would like to believe that if Hilter had not royally screwed up, the war would have been won by the Germans and those same folks are only to happy to show how they as the German commander(s) would have won the war. (in the East anyway in the suggested Campaign Game in CMBB )"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...even with all the "perhapses" and "proposals" is little more than an inflammatory statement geared to call pro-campaigners Nazis and everyone else the good guys. In fact, re-reading the above quote, I can't believe you actually wrote such a horrible thing, unless you were trying to be funny or incite an argument. If it was the latter, than I am sorry I took the bait. However, if it were an honest remark, then I am stunned by your opinion.

Oh yeah, I would like to propose and suggest that perhaps anyone who wants to leave out a campaign game is a damn Commie Bastard who thinks humans are little better than stock to be led to the slaughter of the battlefield.

Seriously though, to get the keel back i=on course, there was a person recently on the board who suggested a simple way to make a user-created campaign that would allow BTS to implement the work with litle more than a "Command line" battle generator. I wish he would speak up, as his argument seemed sound and easily facilitated.

I think the crux of the issue was that if a cm game could be started by a dos command that specified the type of QB, the forces involved, and all the variables, then a campaign game could be written by using another program to start up the "command line".

One thing that would be needed by BTS to implement this would be thar AAR in some sort of readable format to be exported into the Command line program to give it the needed info for the next battle.

For instance, if a battle was a draw, the "Program" would calculate which land and forces the next battle would be fought on etc. I'm sure he can explain it better.

[Chupacabra]

Dunno about a campaign game per se, but I'd love to see an operational level a la TOAW or the Gary Grigsby games on top of the current tactical game. Although I also realize there's not much chance of this happening any time soon.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Pardon me Tom. I too am a pretty level headed guy with a love of conversation and argument.

Snip...

Oh yeah, I would like to propose and suggest that perhaps anyone who wants to leave out a campaign

game is a damn Commie Bastard who thinks humans are little better than stock to be led to the

slaughter of the battlefield.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi

Ok Now that WAS funny:

"Oh yeah, I would like to propose and suggest that perhaps anyone who wants to leave out a campaign game is a damn Commie Bastard who thinks humans are little better than stock to be led to the slaughter of the battlefield. "

And I guess I will have to admit you (and more than a few others) may choose to remain stunned by my post. re: "However, if it were an honest remark, then I am stunned by your opinion."

I never said it was not an opinionated post, that it was, my intention was to state my point of view in an opinionated way, I did that, I figured some folks here might be put off by it or reply in kind, but that did not seem like a good reason not to post my thoughts, as unpopular as they might be

Oh well, I don't plan to edit that post (unless I missed some spelling or grammatical errors).

It was ONLY an opinion, I didn't use any profantity or abusive language to engage in a personal flame war with any one individual here, Hell NO!, its much more fun to PISS off a WHOLE group of people (camgaign game supporters to be specific)

In Fun

-tom w

[MrSpkr]

Well, not that I am a Nazi or anything, but I strongly support a campaign game because I see a lot of support among the non-grogs for it. I think this group of folks gets overlooked, marginalized, and abused in this Forum FAR FAR FAR too often. They are called 'gamey bastiches' if they so much as alter the type of shoe laces used in the 'historical' infantry company (if there even was such a thing). They are treated like heathens caught fornicating on a Catholic altar with a virgin at midnight on All Hallows Eve if they suggest that a vehicle that may or may not have seen combat be included because it might be 'fun.'

God forbid anyone here have any fun (particularly if it is not 'fun' as defined by grogs).

Oh, and some bona fides (because I understand many grogs don't even read the posts unless they see them) -- I have been in this hobby (wargaming) for nearly thirty years; have a degree in History with some graduate work in the area, and have written a number of scholarly papers on this era and region (Europe 1922-1948 was my particular area of interest).

Just in case anyone cares.

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Just in case anyone cares.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the grand and and glorious sentiment of Just in Case Anyone Cares, I'd like to know if anyone currently heaping scorn on the idea of a campaign game has read a book by the much derided-on-this-forum-Stephen Ambrose called Band of Brothers.

This book details the experiences of E Company, 506th Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division. Now, E Company took heavy casualties at times, but never stopped existing.

It fought in many places and its members tell many war stories which are repeated in the pages of Band of Brothers.

If it happened to E Company 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, did it happen to other companies in other regiments of other divisions? Yes? No? Why not?

If it did, is there some reason why a game that strives in all things to be realistic would not be capable of simulating a series of battles centered around a particular unit if, in fact, other units had similar analogous experices as E Company, 506th Regiment 101st Airborne Division?

[Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> They are treated like heathens caught fornicating on a Catholic altar with a virgin at midnight on All Hallows Eve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought I burnt that tape! Where did you se it? Im gonna kill my best friend he swore he burnt that tape of Sara and I!!!!

Arghhhhh!

Oh yea, I support a "campaign" as long as it is in realistic level, such as a following battalion throughout there tour, you have to decide when to pull back and not send your experienced but weakend troops to their death. I am leary about this addition. If they include it GREAT! Because if it sucks, then you dont have to use that feature. If its not included, ohh well, not much off my back.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence:

If it did, is there some reason why a game that strives in all things to be realistic would not be capable of simulating a series of battles centered around a particular unit if, in fact, other units had similar analogous experices as E Company, 506th Regiment 101st Airborne Division?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't read it, but would assume a campaign would look like this:

June 44 - jump in Normandy

July - do nothing (rebuilding)

August - do nothing (rebuilding)

September (mid) - jump in Holland

October - do nothing (rebuilding)

November - do nothing

December (end) - Bastogne

January - do nothing (rebuilding)

February - do nothing (rebuilding)

March - jump around Wesel

April - operations in Rhineland

Not exactly riveting most of the time, and the other time could be covered by operations. Sorry if I forgot something, but I think that was about it.

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

[QB]

Haven't read it, but would assume a campaign would look like this:

June 44 - jump in Normandy

July - do nothing (rebuilding)

August - do nothing (rebuilding)

September (mid) - jump in Holland

October - do nothing (rebuilding)

November - do nothing

December (end) - Bastogne

January - do nothing (rebuilding)

February - do nothing (rebuilding)

March - jump around Wesel

April - operations in Rhineland

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, judging by your list, which I think good and pretty accurate, you could have 5 or 6 battles or operations out of that skipping the do-nothing months.

Perhaps the airborne troops spent less time in action being specialists of a sort - I don't really know. If you decided you wanted to run an infantry company or a tank unit for the war, maybe it would see more action.

Or at least, maybe there were infantry companies that did. I do know that casualties were high, and that many line rifle companies were wiped out nearly to a man at times.

But I think that what people are after is the sense of continuity, from battle to batle the "story" that develops when you have the nominally same unit from one engagement to the next.

I don't think anyone is asking for a campaign where one platoon or company changes the course of the war.

I think people expect to see a West front campaign start in Normandy and end on the Rhine or some reasonable facsimile thereof, and an East Front campaign would start with the invasion of Russia and end with the battle for Berlin, regardless of how well you did.

At least that is what I am hearing.

I personally have no problem with a campaign game, should BTS decide to put one in, and should it exist and skip months here and there where the chosen force type isn't doing much, I find that perfectly reasonable and acceptable.

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Terence ]

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Haven't read it, but would assume a campaign would look like this:

June 44 - jump in Normandy

July - do nothing (rebuilding)

August - do nothing (rebuilding)

September (mid) - jump in Holland

October - do nothing (rebuilding)

November - do nothing

December (end) - Bastogne

January - do nothing (rebuilding)

February - do nothing (rebuilding)

March - jump around Wesel

April - operations in Rhineland

Not exactly riveting most of the time, and the other time could be covered by operations. Sorry if I forgot something, but I think that was about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. Using this logic, perhaps regular scenarios should be 1440 turns long and go something like this:

--------------------------------------------

1-240: Troops sleep. Occasionally move one unit. (NOTE: For enhanced realism, players are encouraged during these turns to to sleep on several fireplace logs covered with a couple of blankets (to simulate hard, uneven ground) while fully clothed and soaking wet. Additionally, the player is encouraged to not shower for 5 days prior to this activity and to set an alarm clock to wake the player every five minutes for the next move).

241-360: More sleeping. Move one unit or two. (NOTE: For enhanced realism, see suggestions supra).

360-390: Chow call. Line units up in tight formation around a truck that enters this turn for reinforcements - and must exit by turn 391. Medical call - trench foot units, etc., must evacuate with truck.

391-480: Clean weapons. Try to stay warm. Write letters to home.

481-510: Staff begins planning for attack. Men get ready in foxholes.

510-540: (For Americans) Artillery begins. (For Axis) Wishing we had more artillery begins.

540-600: Word filters down that attack is delayed.

601-900: Wait nervously and do nothing. (NOTE: For more accurate simulation, player here is encouraged to drench him/herself with water, then go huddle in a traffic median for two hours to get the appropriate level of 'immersion' in the game).

901-930: Meeting engagement occurs.

931-1230: Count heads. Assist in evacuation of wounded. Dig holes and mark friendly dead. (NOTE: For more realism here, player is encouraged to go dig five holes approximately 4'x6' and approximately 3' deep in his/her backyard. Knowledge that you may hit a gas line or get slaughtered by your mom/dad/significant other leads to increased realism by simulating post combat stress).

1231-1235: Receive replacements and assign to foxholes. Have no other contact whatsoever with replacements for remainder of game.

1236-1440: Chow call - K-rats in the holes. (NOTE: for enhanced realism, players are encouraged to soak themselves in the shower again and sit in their backyard (preferably in one of the holes they dug earlier) eating SPAM and stale crackers).

-----------------------------------------

I think that is no more absurd than what you propose.

Perhaps, and this is a wild idea so just stick with me here, the schedule could go something like this:

June: Play operation or series of battles in Normandy.

September: Refitted formations adjusted for experience and improvement of commanders. Play series of battles in Holland.

December: Refitted formations adjusted for experience and improvement of commanders. Play series of battles in Belgium.

Mar-April: Refitted formations adjusted for experience and improvement of commanders. Play series of battles in Germany.

At the end of the campaign, receive final rating of your handling of the troops based upon losses and win/loss ratio (scores from battles). Receive statistics indicating losses/replacements under your command; number enemy killed, wounded, captured, etc.

That, too many of us, would be enjoyable, not boring. If you think it would be boring, don't play it. But don't force the rest of us to do without it just because you don't like it.

One other thing -- who said it would be limited to a particular division or outfit. IIRC, some baattalions operated independent of divisional authority and were moved around the front depending on need. This was, IIRC, particularly true of armored battalions).

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]