There should be a Grand Campaign

[Andreas]

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

Hmmm. Using this logic, perhaps regular scenarios should be 1440 turns long and go something like this:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, I am not using any logic, or propose anything, I am just portraying how the war of 101st Airborne looked like post June 1944, and whether it could be done like an operation, since Terence used it as an example. My guess is that Ambrose focuses his book more on the few weeks (days more like it) of action, and not on the many months of rebuilding and barrack life (haven't read it, maybe I am wrong), thus giving a false impression.

Now if you want to go and clamour for your campaigns, go right ahead. I have my opinion, but I am not going to share that with you. Bit touchy, are we?

[Terence]

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

I am just portraying how the war of 101st Airborne looked like post June 1944, and whether it could be done like an operation, since Terence used it as an example. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bump. Ive edited my post to take into account some more cogitation on my part and the down time you mention in a given unit's war diary.

[MrSpkr]

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

Now if you want to go and clamour for your campaigns, go right ahead. I have my opinion, but I am not going to share that with you. Bit touchy, are we?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry .

I am a bit touchy about things that are popular with so-called 'wargamer lite' crowds but disliked by grogs. Based on my readings of this board, if you aren't a grog, then your opinion about these things is irrelevant and you are an idiot, unless of course you agree with the grogs, in which case you are a sage. Now, not that the grognards haven't been invaluable to CM's development -- they have. However, they are not the only people here, and I think it is wrong for them to slam on some people because they want some fun things in the game, like a grand campaign or (heaven forbid) a JS-III tank or somefink.

Anyway, sorry if I over-reacted Andreas. My bad.

Steve

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

P.S. Terence_

I agree with your vision/understanding of a campaign game. A player is NOT going to alter the course of the war - he is going to simulate the evolution of his units through the course of the war. In the end, the Germans will still lose, the Russians will still take Berlin, and the Allies will still swamp over the Rhine.

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

[Terence]

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

Post by Mr.Spkr <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Btw, glad to see you posting again, Andreas. Missed you while you were gone.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Campaigns may or may not be historically accurate, but they are undeniably fun.

When I played Steel Panthers, campaigns were all I ever played. I loved starting my Soviets out in 1939 with BT-5s and T-35s and stuggling until 1941 when I could upgrade to T-34s and KV-1s.

[Panzer Leader]

VERY FUN!

[Jeff Duquette]

I guess when I talk about a campaign layer for CM I am not talking about some layer where I can name individual soldiers, track their respective digital deeds of heroism, or look at Sgt Schlongs 5 medals of honor. Or weather Gafreiter Karl gains two experience points for surviving an artillery barrage. Although that is certainly appealing to some folks and there is nothing wrong with that since of immersion.

When I say I would like to see a campaign layer I mean something similar to Close Combat, Steel Panthers or Talonsoft’s East Front or West Front campaign layers. They gave some context to the continuous tactical battles and they added some fun to the game. There is nothing inherently un-grogy or flash bangy or even unhistorical about a campaign layer or an interest there in. If anything the vacuum environment that lack of a campaign layer creates results in un-grogy or unhistorical player conduct. Ala last turn suicide charges to capture VLs or using your trucks for recon elements. There is no since of having to “fight another day” which a campaign layer instills into the game.

A campaign layer is simply the addition of another engrossing aspect to game play. The advantage of a campaign layer is you don’t have to play it if you think it’s goofy.

My ideal would be an Operational Art of War “Type” of campaign layer in which a player move battalions or regiment about on an operational level map of the campaign. Individual combats are than resolved via playing a CM game. Battalion strengths are tracked, replacements allotted etc. Victory of the campaign is decided as a function of the player’s performance on the operational layer. And when I say “Type” I am obviously referring to a toned down version of Operational Art of War. The hart of the game should still be Combat Mission after all.

Will I NOT buy CM2 if it doesn’t have a campaign layer…hardly. Will I groan and moan for a campaign layer for CM3. Of course. Don’t matter how many …do a search comments I get either..so save your breath with me…I’m a lost cause. My 2 cents. Flame me if you feel the need.

[Schrullenhaft]

I too would like to see some sort of "campaign layer" to CM (and all of its wonderful progeny). However I don't expect BTS to create one for CMBB. Maybe if we're lucky they'll open up a part of the file format for a 3rd party to create an external campaign system. However all of the proposals that have been presented to BTS have required too much involvement on their behalf to support this as of yet. Nothing has been absolutely ruled out, but so far it doesn't look too promising.

While I don't consider a campaign system completely gamey/unhistorical, I would consider some players expectations of how it would work to be unrealistic and ahistorical. I think the truth of a campaign that followed a company/battalion/regiment/division would show that there would be a peak in experience and then a fall off as the war came into the final year/months of its conclusion. For the Americans you would be leading quite a few "greenies" into battle due to the "wonderful replacement system" that was instituted (speaking of CMBO). For the Germans you would end up with Volkstrumm and disillusioned Volksgrenadieres of varying quality all cobbled together in adhoc kampfgruppes. The Russians themselves went through a lot of manpower in their final offensives - while their coordination of combined arms increased immensely compared to the early part of the Great Patriotic War it still became a horrible meat-grinder of men and material. Uh... anyway...

The simple campaign systems of other games puts them on the course of players attempting to develop the Uber-kampfgruppe - newer and better weapons, troops and leaders gloriously increasing in competence, skill and experience. It just wasn't something that happened realistically. Sure new weapons came in, but the crews who got retrained on them often got rotated out of the unit for several months (depending on which country and what new weapon system). And as for troop leader competence that didn't always get better with time or quite often (if the individuals survived - dependant on a lot of other factors) they hit a "ceiling" and really didn't get much better. So you wouldn't have greenies to elite-super commandos in the matter of months. They more often would come to the maximum competence of CM's "regular" or "veteran" catergories.

Personally I'd like to see a campaign system that emphasizes the unit rather than the individuals (CM's squads/teams/leaders) in it since they probably will all be killed or rotated out at some point (depending on the length of the campaign being simulated). It could be a variable sized unit of company, battalion, regiment or division in size. The larger you go, the more the "campaign system" is going to need extensive code (such as a "TOAW-like" layer that others have suggested). A company or battalion could probably be easily (a relative term) accomodated by some external group (and could be their "first draft" at making such a system). It would mostly be geared towards tracking the stats of the units involved and the outcome of the battle/operation and then link to the next one. A lot of work would be in store for the scenario/operation/campaign designer to come up with a good series of battles. I see this is the most likely system that could be developed. Automating such a campaign system would be quite a bit harder, but possible if enough time and talent were available to the development team. Supporting the regimental and divisional sized campaigns could be a bit more trickier since not all of the units would be committed into a CM-sized battle. This is one of the more interesting aspects of creating a campaign system and there are a thousand different approaches as to what should be simulated and what the focus should be. At this point some of the large campaigns that have been run by GMs (such as CMMC and other smaller tournaments) would have a certain perspective as to what should be accomplished; while others would like something more geared for an individual or small team play. A LOT more code would be involved in such an endeavor and quite possibly it would be out of the reach of "recreational programmers" (people who have other jobs). At this point it would definitely be on the level of creating a game of commercial quality (or preferably surpassing anything commercially available).

To let me further babble on about my ideas...a regimental or division size campaign system would give the player the option to commit particular units for recce and reserve. You could creating your own reinforcement schedule, etc. Supply and unit rotation (to avoid unit exhaustion and excessive casualties) would take on an emphasis that would affect how you engaged the enemy in the tactical environment of CM (which is usually far more casualty-inducing than most real-world engagements of its size due to the "short-term" nature of its window for winning). This would all depend on how extensive the system is and how much info the campaign designer puts into it. On top of this could be the "TOAW-like" layer of having a map and coordinating or chosing your plan of attack. At this level CM becomes the tactical resolver for a operational level game. The near Holy Grain of computer wargaming, but A LOT of work for those who would code the campaign system and those who would design the campaigns.

If BTS is generous enough to support an external group to make a campaign system I would be VERY happy. I think any possible solution is going to require work and support on their behalf; which is something they are very leery of since CM is what they get paid to create and support - not a 3rd party (no matter how devoted they are - it ends up being another job).

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I too would like to see some sort of "campaign layer" to CM (and all of its wonderful progeny). However I don't expect BTS to create one for CMBB. Maybe if we're lucky they'll open up a part of the file format for a 3rd party to create an external campaign system. However all of the proposals that have been presented to BTS have required too much involvement on their behalf to support this as of yet. Nothing has been absolutely ruled out, but so far it doesn't look too promising.

While I don't consider a campaign system completely gamey/unhistorical, I would consider some players expectations of how it would work to be unrealistic and ahistorical. I think the truth of a campaign that followed a company/battalion/regiment/division would show that there would be a peak in experience and then a fall off as the war came into the final year/months of its conclusion. For the Americans you would be leading quite a few "greenies" into battle due to the "wonderful replacement system" that was instituted (speaking of CMBO). For the Germans you would end up with Volkstrumm and disillusioned Volksgrenadieres of varying quality all cobbled together in adhoc kampfgruppes. The Russians themselves went through a lot of manpower in their final offensives - while their coordination of combined arms increased immensely compared to the early part of the Great Patriotic War it still became a horrible meat-grinder of men and material. Uh... anyway...

The simple campaign systems of other games puts them on the course of players attempting to develop the Uber-kampfgruppe - newer and better weapons, troops and leaders gloriously increasing in competence, skill and experience. It just wasn't something that happened realistically. Sure new weapons came in, but the crews who got retrained on them often got rotated out of the unit for several months (depending on which country and what new weapon system). And as for troop leader competence that didn't always get better with time or quite often (if the individuals survived - dependant on a lot of other factors) they hit a "ceiling" and really didn't get much better. So you wouldn't have greenies to elite-super commandos in the matter of months. They more often would come to the maximum competence of CM's "regular" or "veteran" catergories.

Personally I'd like to see a campaign system that emphasizes the unit rather than the individuals (CM's squads/teams/leaders) in it since they probably will all be killed or rotated out at some point (depending on the length of the campaign being simulated). It could be a variable sized unit of company, battalion, regiment or division in size. The larger you go, the more the "campaign system" is going to need extensive code (such as a "TOAW-like" layer that others have suggested). A company or battalion could probably be easily (a relative term) accomodated by some external group (and could be their "first draft" at making such a system). It would mostly be geared towards tracking the stats of the units involved and the outcome of the battle/operation and then link to the next one. A lot of work would be in store for the scenario/operation/campaign designer to come up with a good series of battles. I see this is the most likely system that could be developed. Automating such a campaign system would be quite a bit harder, but possible if enough time and talent were available to the development team. Supporting the regimental and divisional sized campaigns could be a bit more trickier since not all of the units would be committed into a CM-sized battle. This is one of the more interesting aspects of creating a campaign system and there are a thousand different approaches as to what should be simulated and what the focus should be. At this point some of the large campaigns that have been run by GMs (such as CMMC and other smaller tournaments) would have a certain perspective as to what should be accomplished; while others would like something more geared for an individual or small team play. A LOT more code would be involved in such an endeavor and quite possibly it would be out of the reach of "recreational programmers" (people who have other jobs). At this point it would definitely be on the level of creating a game of commercial quality (or preferably surpassing anything commercially available).

To let me further babble on about my ideas...a regimental or division size campaign system would give the player the option to commit particular units for recce and reserve. You could creating your own reinforcement schedule, etc. Supply and unit rotation (to avoid unit exhaustion and excessive casualties) would take on an emphasis that would affect how you engaged the enemy in the tactical environment of CM (which is usually far more casualty-inducing than most real-world engagements of its size due to the "short-term" nature of its window for winning). This would all depend on how extensive the system is and how much info the campaign designer puts into it. On top of this could be the "TOAW-like" layer of having a map and coordinating or chosing your plan of attack. At this level CM becomes the tactical resolver for a operational level game. The near Holy Grain of computer wargaming, but A LOT of work for those who would code the campaign system and those who would design the campaigns.

If BTS is generous enough to support an external group to make a campaign system I would be VERY happy. I think any possible solution is going to require work and support on their behalf; which is something they are very leery of since CM is what they get paid to create and support - not a 3rd party (no matter how devoted they are - it ends up being another job).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I pretty much said all this a page ago....

The answer is simple. We get Gordon Molek to gamemaster a campaign like this for 200 of the most dedicated CMers. Treeburst can send out the invitations. SuperTed can be the war correspondent who reports on us.

Might even be better then WW2 On Line - then again, what isn't?

[Andreas]

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

Anyway, sorry if I over-reacted Andreas. My bad.

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No worries Steve, the nice thing about this board is (or was) that people got turned into Grogs (run!run!you're doomed!!).

Regarding campaigns, the only thing I would be interested in is grafting CMMC onto the game for easier integration of combat resolution and whatnot. That would be realistic, fun and really add to the game.

Terence - thanks. Real-life intervened, and I should not really be here now, but instead try to save the world from climate change (dons blue cape and red pants and disappears into the sunset)

[Jarmo]

Yeah campaign!

But I'd just want an improved operation system. ie not based on one map. Something a bit like in (gasp) CC2! :eek:

Or maybe I'm more like looking for a way to link a couple of operations together. Some attached units would be taken away, new attachments added.

Self-made "campaigns" dont work too well. You'll have sgt Jenkins and his trusty Sherman back in action despite the fact that it was blown up with no survivors just a few days ago.

And self made campaigns have to assume the outcome of every battle. Usually a roaring success is expected. Move to next one. There's nothing to handle the fact that you had 70% losses. Or if there is, then it's assumed you lost even if you did in fact achieve the roaring success.

Sure, all these problems can be overcome by using a human game master. I've been a part of a few of these thingies and man are those fun!

All the more reason to include some kind of campaign system.

[Jeff Duquette]

Nice post Schrullenhaft. I especially agree with you points on uber-kampfgruppe creation. This seems to be a holder over from “Panzer General”. Some folk’s perception of a campaign layer seems strongly rooted in this system.

It’s a mystery to me why people seem so transfixed by this experience level thing. Limit campaigns to month long operations…several divisions involved on each side. Forget this experience-raising thing that folks keep running up the flagpole.

I am thinking (or fantasying) more along the lines of a system that tracks unit’s strength; auto generates tactical battle maps, and allows players some operational level leeway. Say a campaign that traces some aspect of Mainstein’s Backhand Blow following Stalingrad, etc. If the campaign layer is regimental\divisional level than some amount of abstraction would obviously be required in combat resolution. A battalions tactical action results is somehow reflective of the entire regiments performance. So you don’t fight three separate tactical battles in CM mode for a regimental action. One battalion action reflects entire regiment action.

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

It’s a mystery to me why people seem so transfixed by this experience level thing. Limit campaigns to month long operations…several divisions involved on each side. Forget this experience-raising thing that folks keep running up the flagpole.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A couple of points, Jeff.

First, the "experience thing" as you put it would come into play even in a one month long operation because the unit's losses would presumably be replaced at some point with less experienced replacements, while the guys that had been in combat on and off for more than a week would already begin to show their experience level by their actions (i.e., afte rthe first couple of days at the front, men learn not to light cigarettes at night, not to stand around in groups, not to move in the open in daylight, that the enemy tends to open up his infantry probes with a two minute mortar barrage, that the best way to stay alive is to hug the ground when fired on, etc.). So, to have any sense of 'realism' (whatever that means), the experiences would need to be considered.

Second, I think a lot of people (myself included) WANT the ability to trace as much of the war as possible to see how a unit evolves over time (with equipment upgrades, experience, etc., etc.). We WANT to see how that green infantry company from 1941 developed into a veteran or (if casualties have been light) a crack unit by 1943, then devolved back to a green unit by 1945. We want to see what we can do commanding a company throughout a war, not an operation.

Other thoughts:

As far as taking into account replacements, etc., I think this would have to be modeled. Casualties would be normally replaced by green or regular troops (or even conscirpts depending on the country and year). If a squad 10 veteran troops is cut back to 3 guys, then receives 5 regular replacements and two green replacements, the squad's new experience level would be regular (most likely). If a veteran squad of ten men lost onlyl one guy, who was replaced by a green recruit, then the squad would almost certainly retain its veteran status. An advantage of this type of penalty effect of replacements on a squad's experience would have the added benefit of making players think long and hard before they sacrificed that crack platoon to hold a victory location to the last man, because it might be a long time before any unit in a player's force gains that level of experience again.

I think the number of battles AS WELL AS the particular sub-unit's participation in the battles (# kills, amount of ammo expended would be two factors to consider) should help decide the unit's accumulation of experience (i.e., I could not buy a regular German Heer platoon in June 1941 and keep it on the back of the map until 1943, at which point it is suddenly a crack or elite unit because it has been in so many battles without suffering any casualties).

Another factor to consider is the number of men 'wounded' and their potential for returning to action -- some might merely be stunned and return to action almost immediately, thus preserving the unit's experience level; others might be a l;ittle more severely wounded and not come back for months (at which point they mmight come back as regular or veteran replacements, depending on how experienced they were to begin with); others would be more seriously wounded and never come back.

As for headquarters units and the accumulation of skills: while I agree that promotions would occur, moving a commander up to a higher level of command and necessitating his replacement, I don't think the HQ unit would nescessarily suffer all that much unless it had continually suffered losses. It is my opinion that a talented commander's skills begin to rub off on his subordinates as they attempt to emulate his accomplishments. Thus, an HQ with +2 stealth might drop to only +1 or maybe even stay at +2 depending on losses, experience, etc. Meanwhile, the promoted commander might actually stay in the playuer's force pool (ex. - a platoon commander moves up to take over a company; the company commander moves up to take over the battalion).

As to the programming - I don't know lots about programming, but I don't think this would be that difficult. You just set up a database for each campaign. The DB would contain stats on each unit as far as # replacements, battles, etc., etc., etc. A simple algorithm could be used to determine whether losses in units containing mixed experience troops (units with both veterans and green replacements, for example) to determine whether the losses occurred among the vets or the replacements (most likely, the algorithm would be slightly weighted towards killing the replacements). The algorithm could be based on known casualty rates among front line infantry units. It would seem that any such database would involve a simple addition to the CM engine as opposed to a major rewrite - just add an option, and set the program up to use that database as the player's core units rather than allowing the player to purchase all his units.

Just a few thoughts -- I think it would be fun, it has a lot of support, and would not be a massive project.

[Jeff Duquette]

Sounds good to me. The "experience level thingie" seems to be some sort continued point of contention with the anti-campaign folks\bts party line folks. Frankly I could care less either way. If there is a method of increasing a units experience during a campaign GREAT! If there aint a fancy experience creep engine built in, well that's fine too. I am interested in a more elaborate campaign system that allows some operational level decision making. In addition the campaign obviously would need to track unit casualties, equipment levels, replacements etc. All the other whistles and bells are good too. I just think the "experience level thingie" is a rather vague point as to why there is no campaign layer.

[Panzer Leader]

This is a very instructive post on how a campaign layer could be added to the game. would anyone else care to continue this discussion?

To me, experience and "upgrading" is less a draw to the proposed idea than the simple fun of linking battles with a constant battlegroup over a variety of battles.

For a visualization of how it might work, imagine some of those scenario "packs" some people have released. They are 6-10 linked battles that follow a group through a series of battles. Now, with a campaign layer added, we could have much better control over the outcome, the options, the reinforcements and attrition, and the final score (or wrap-up) of said campaign.

I think it could be done so as to remain fun, playable, and realistic.

[Pzman]

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

This is a very instructive post on how a campaign layer could be added to the game. would anyone else care to continue this discussion?

To me, experience and "upgrading" is less a draw to the proposed idea than the simple fun of linking battles with a constant battlegroup over a variety of battles.

For a visualization of how it might work, imagine some of those scenario "packs" some people have released. They are 6-10 linked battles that follow a group through a series of battles. Now, with a campaign layer added, we could have much better control over the outcome, the options, the reinforcements and attrition, and the final score (or wrap-up) of said campaign.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How could you control the outcome? A battle is diffrent every time.

[Panzer Leader]

I meant something along the lines of differing paths depending on the outcome of a battle. For instance, if your force decides to retreat rather than suffer heavy losses, then the next battle would be one of hasty defense. If your force pressed the attack and succeeded but at heavy loss, then the next battle might be an assault/overrun but with a depleted force.

I guess you aren't controlling the outcome so much as using the outcome to set the parameters for the next battle.

And all it would take to accomplish this is 1.) Battle Results Exported Text file, 2.) Command-line game start, and 3.) Sceanrio designers with lost of time on their hands to account for all the variables when designing campaigns.

I think in other games they call this "dynamic campaigns" or "diverging path" campaigns.

[Chad Harrison]

just to throw in my two bits, i played Close Combat V (normandy) for awhile. a complete waste of time, the game was a huge diaspointment, EXCEPT i really liked the grand campaign option. that added a flavor that is hard to find in war games. i spend months developing a simple campaign system for advanced squad leader, and i think CM2 could benefit from somekind of campaign option. just my opinion.

[Joseph Porta]

Erm...

(BUMP)

Campaign. Good thing. Yes.

But i'll still buy it without one, so don't ban me yet !