CM2 campaign proposal, BTS please read.

[SenorBeef]

I want to propose a user-created campaign system that would not require much work or endorsement from BTS, but would allow those wishing a campaign system to have what they want.

This evolved from ideas started on my QB generator thread.

The mini-campaigns that are out there are currently are quite interesting, since you get a 'feel' for some of your men. But unfortunately, they're not implemented in a way where relative casualties and kills and such can affect them. The to&e always as they will be on the first, second, third, ect battle, not dynamic.

I'm thinking of a system wherein I (as a programmer) could team up with a good map designer to create a mini-campaign. They would, naturally, design the scenarios, historical forces, maps, ect.. while I would write a program that would keep track of unit kills, losses, accomplishments, ect, to keep track of their relative strength and their experience. And even supply situation.

Now, I've read that CM2 is going to allow more detailed AARs. This is great... one big feature everyone would like to see is the true (non-FOW blocked) kill lists of each unit after the game. With this, it would be relatively easy for BTS to write a quick function that would sequentially output the kill list of each unit to a text file, as well as the casualties and status (broken, ect, for fatigue reasons, perhaps).

My program would then be able to read this AAR text file and determine what units are to move up in experience, who needs rest, what units are disbanded to consolidate into new formations, ect, all automatically.

Additionally, a feature I requested for consideration was the ability to import a text format (of BTS' choosing) that would allow text files to be imported into the CM2 scenario designer units list. This way, my program could read the AAR files, interpret what units go up in experience, are disbanded, ect, and then create a new file that reflects this, which can, hopefully, be imported into the CM2 scenario editor, so that the next battle would reflect these changes automatically.

With the help of a good map designer, or several, mini-campaigns could be designed that would create a campaign-setting to CM that would be completely unsupported by BTS. It would simply be an add-on utility for those interested - no promises from BTS, and no 'caving in' to their idea not to have 'core units' and such. The work on their part would simply be to allow detailed data to be outputted to text files.

The fact that cm textures are modifiable has been one of the great assets to the game. Much free work has been done to improve the graphical environment of the game. All for free, from the talented CM fanbase that do it just for the love of the game. I propose the next form of user-based improvement of the game comes in the form of user-made campaign manager programs. All that is required on BTS' part is to allow the data (aar data, ect) to be used, changed, and imported back into CM in the same manner that mods do with the graphics. This is all free for BTS, improves the games for those people who want to use it, and doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't. All that is required of them is simply allowing the output of more detailed aars (already planned) to text files, instead of the screen alone, and to allow importation of standardized text files into the scenario editor.

Additionally, I could poll the intelligent people of this forum for basic rules on how replacements and such should affect unit quality.. and we could, together, devise a system by which unit replacements, supply, ect. are determined. My point being is that together we could work out a system by which this would work. I would be perfectly willing to write up the actual program that does all the work. All that is required from BTS is support for outputting AAR information to text files (easy) and allowing importation of standardized text files to the CM scenario editor (a bit more work, but still easy).

I'm sorry this is a bit redundant, but I'm sort of merging two posts into one with this.. and I'm fairly tired. But I feel strongly about this, and I'm willing to do all the programming myself if BTS gives us the extra features to do it with.

Thank you for your time, and any comments would be appreciated.

[M Hofbauer]

I feel strongly about this as well. Seriously, without exaggeration, I think such a campaign system would almost double the value of CM to me.

I hope there will be some such system, be it either BTS-designed or made by great volunteers such as SenorBeef.

[Panzer Leader]

I love you man. No I mean I REALLY love you.

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Now, I've read that CM2 is going to allow more detailed AARs. This is great... one big feature everyone would like to see is the true (non-FOW blocked) kill lists of each unit after the game. With this, it would be relatively easy for BTS to write a quick function that would sequentially output the kill list of each unit to a text file, as well as the casualties and status (broken, ect, for fatigue reasons, perhaps).

My program would then be able to read this AAR text file and determine what units are to move up in experience

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this mean that your system would rely on how many kills a unit gets to increse experience? Sounds like Dungeons and Dragons to me. Perhaps I'm misreading this. What other factors would you base "experience" on? I think BTS hit the nail on the head right in the manual when they say that increasing experience levels in the course of two or three games is unrealistic. I can certainly see a unit downgrading in experience as casualties are taken and replacements absorbed - but surely you don't mean to suggest that "kills" in any way contribute to a unit's experience...yes?

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Panzer Leader]

I would argue that kills increase experience. Think about a tank crew. How would they improve. at the gunnery range? Maybe a little. Through combat? Hell yes. Same with infantry. They learn to avoid artillery, know when to run, know when to sneak. Through combat.

In an operation I can totally understand not increasing experience levels. But are you suggesting that on their trek across the steppe 6th Army did not go from green to veteran (and better?)

There should (in this highly unlikely suggestion) be some formula for increasing experience along the lines of +combat experience,-recruitment.

[The Commissar]

Sounds like something I would enjoy myself.

A *bump* for attracting attention!

[ParaBellum]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Not that I want my forces to go from green status to elite after two battles, but if my green troops get into combat, fight well and don't suffer too many casualties, after two, three engagements I think it's pretty realistic for them to be modeled as a more experienced unit.

I think the step from green to conscript or from conscript to regular could be simulated over the course of a few battles.

[Sergei]

In general I would find such, umm, "exporting battle report" option worthy of support. I'm sure there would be many uses for that.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Does this mean that your system would rely on how many kills a unit gets to increse experience? Sounds like Dungeons and Dragons to me. Perhaps I'm misreading this. What other factors would you base "experience" on? I think BTS hit the nail on the head right in the manual when they say that increasing experience levels in the course of two or three games is unrealistic. I can certainly see a unit downgrading in experience as casualties are taken and replacements absorbed - but surely you don't mean to suggest that "kills" in any way contribute to a unit's experience...yes?

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest, the methods by which experience and such would be determined are up to discussion. I have no real solid plan for that. I was mostly proposing the BTS include the option to have such a system - and then, once thats taken care of, we can all discuss how such a system might work.

I think kills might be a part of how experience goes up. A green unit that manages to kill twice as many as its own squad seems to be headed on the way to regular status... but that was just an example of the way these could be done.

In this thread, I'm just proposing to BTS that such a system could exist - and the specifics for such a system are totally up in the air now, in no way solid. Killings -> experience was just a possible example.

EDIT: On further thought - experience won't be one of the huge items that this system might track. Supply level, fatigue level, replacement level, ect will be just as important.

I'm thinking that perhaps not a war-wide core unit campaign (ala Panzer General) wouldn't be the best way to go about this - and is what BTS opposed...

But an operation-wide campaign of several units, perhaps (ala CC2, arnhem) might be a good place to represent control over a series of units. Experience gain isn't hugely important here (although some greens might go to regular, and some regulars to greens due to losses), but supply, fatigue state, casualties, ect. are. And I don't see anything patently unrealistic about a CC2 style operation-campaign, rather than the PG type that BTS really objects to.

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

[SenorBeef]

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

In general I would find such, umm, "exporting battle report" option worthy of support. I'm sure there would be many uses for that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true also. Other uses I have in mind are things like simplified scenario management for scenario designers - perhaps they want to design a scenario in which all units start on low ammo, and don't want to edit each individual ammo count for each unit. I could design a historical force selector that could automate such tasks.

Additionally, the AAR->text file would allow a program to organize AARs in a statistical fashion. Average kills per MG, that sort of thing. As well as re-organize (list) units based on kill/death ratio, or most killed tanks, or whatever you might want.. so that you could see the performance of your various squads in a statistical sense.

A "medal" system, to those who wanted it, could also be implemented on this basis.. evaluating the AAR and such.

A simple features, requiring little of BTS' time, would open the door heavily to user customization and additions in the same way that allowing graphics to be modified has improved the game through the mod community.

[Jeff Duquette]

I also like Senorbeefs proposals and love to see a campaign layer added to CM2.

[MrSpkr]

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

I love you man. No I mean I REALLY love you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eek! Just say "Thank you" and back away slowly, guys!

In all seriousness, I would truly like to see this implemented as well. While I recognize that in the scale of CM huge casualty lists are common, this feature would be fun, yes FUN, for some folks. Double the value of the game? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly would increase the "fun" value of the game.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I want it badly. Even if only one platoon out of the company improves during a battle. Plus what about veterans helping the newbies out before and during the battle. I mean if the newbies follow the lead of the vets, then its like fighting a squad of vets.

[Warphead]

Yeah, the optional "exporting battle report" would be nice. Not much trouble for BTS and there could be really interesting uses...

[Clubfoot]

A great idea!

And since CM2 will also model the general physical fitness of your troops (July CGM, pg. 60), the debilitating effects of harsh Russian winters and food shortages could be tracked as well.

grand fun.

[George-III]

Excellent idea SenorBeef. The more I work on the Random Battle Generator the more I miss a command line system to launch QB's. If CM also exported a comma delineated file with AAR and unit data info, the number of uses for player made programs would be HUGE.

I hope BTS responds to this idea. If it turns out to be possible to create this program I would be willing to help write it. I am a very old-school programer - (everything is in DOS Basic) - but if I can help in anyway just let me know.

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, I certainly hope it sees the light of day; many (including me) have expressed these wishes for months. It is nice to see some people taking an active part.

I am satisfied with the response to my question, also - I do agree that experience should not change much.

The example about tank kills is a not bad one - I was referring more to infantry - most infantrymen never see the enemy (I posted a good quote some months back about a platoon commander taking over a Bren and wiping out an enemy MG42 - without ever having seen a human being - I suspect this was the norm). Of course, perceiving that you have killed something will affect your morale - but morale and experience are two different things.

And I think that applies to tank gunners, as well. A few kills won't necessarily make you a better gunnner - expert marksmen with 1000 bullseyes under their belt still miss 100 percent scores occasionally. But they will indeed increase your confidence in yourself, and your morale.

Anyway, not to detract from the main issue - that this is a good idea, and that while details like this need to be worked out, it may be premature to discuss them now. Go to it Senor Beef, George III, et al... I wish you luck.

[killmore]

I already have a multiplayer campain system for CloseCombat.

See: http://home.san.rr.com/apiotrow/MMCC3/

(You can create your own campains in minutes)

I wanted to make one for CM but I need at least a saved game file format.

So far BTS is not responding...

You can specify weather, maps, campain points, make your own campaign map, supply point, surrounded areas get less points and tons more

I can EASILY add DAY/NIGHT ...

[HawkerT]

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

.. and I'm fairly tired. But I feel strongly about this, and I'm willing to do all the programming myself if BTS gives us the extra features to do it with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear SenorBeef, I am very very tired too right now, so I will not elaborate on your exellent idea, but just give you my warmest thanks and support, I also feel very strongly about the issue raised and will help you in any way I can.

This praise also goes to PanzerLeader, Canuck and everybody else who actively supports the idea of campaigns in CM . Your positive and solution focused attitude serves you credit.

Thank you again and good night.

Frans.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Well, I certainly hope it sees the light of day; many (including me) have expressed these wishes for months. It is nice to see some people taking an active part.

I am satisfied with the response to my question, also - I do agree that experience should not change much.

The example about tank kills is a not bad one - I was referring more to infantry - most infantrymen never see the enemy (I posted a good quote some months back about a platoon commander taking over a Bren and wiping out an enemy MG42 - without ever having seen a human being - I suspect this was the norm). Of course, perceiving that you have killed something will affect your morale - but morale and experience are two different things.

And I think that applies to tank gunners, as well. A few kills won't necessarily make you a better gunnner - expert marksmen with 1000 bullseyes under their belt still miss 100 percent scores occasionally. But they will indeed increase your confidence in yourself, and your morale.

Anyway, not to detract from the main issue - that this is a good idea, and that while details like this need to be worked out, it may be premature to discuss them now. Go to it Senor Beef, George III, et al... I wish you luck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about a PG style campaign necesarily (although its possible). I'm talking about, really, extended CM operations with more detail. Or something similar to the close combat 2 campaign system.

Units, after a few battles, might go from green to regular if they consistently inflict decent casualties on the enemy, don't take huge ones of their own, and generally don't end the game in a "broken!" morale state (which I hope the AAR might be detailed enough to report.. or perhaps the AAR can include whether the unit went to "!" status at all. This would help determine whether a unit would be 'promoted').

So I'm not talking about commanding units that go from green to elite over the course of a mini-campaign/operation. I'm talking about a unit with staggering losses going from regular to green or conscript, or a conscript going to green, green going to regular.

Units will also be destroyed, their remaining members consolidated into other units.. and their experience will 'mesh' and such. Or you might get whole new green or conscript replacement squads...

As I said, specific implementation is currently in the air. Currently, I just want to get BTS to make this all possible. We have all the time in the world to work out the details of the system.

But as I said, my idea is to generate a 'campaign' game more similar to close combat 2 than panzer general. Although.. if I made my system modular enough, I suppose either can be done.

I'm willing to dedicate alot of time to this project. I truly love CM, and I want to do what I can for people who wish to have a bit more continuity to their CM games.

Again, this is a proposal I want BTS to accept here, not a program-design thread at this point.

If you support this idea, please make a post, so that they can see the popular support behind this.

EDIT: Clarity and spacing

[ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

[Panzer Leader]

Loved Panzer General, never played CC2, what is the difference in their campaign system?

(bump included)

[SenorBeef]

An additional feature I request is this:

Allow victory flags to have names, or at least values (flag 1, 2, 3, ect), and report it in the AAR.

This way, my campaign system, rather than having 'generic' victory points, might have something like 'VL 1: Hill 101' and VL2: 'German supply road'

In this case, my campaign manager could read the AAR and execute a predetermined action if a certain victory condition were met.

For example. Perhaps the mission briefing might state something like "Division wants you to take hill 101 if possible for observation. If you can do so, you can use some of the divisional spotters located there for artillery support".. an action that triggers the player to have an FO in the next game.

Or, similarly, if a russian force holds an important road junction, labelled 'German supply road', or somesuch, then the german forces in the next battle can be less supplied, with less reinforcement.

This adds a layer of strategy above the tactics, in deciding which objectives are important to you as a player, an adds variety and an extra layer of complexity to the simulation.. and again, would be easy to implement.

[Thomas Norton]

I would very much like to see this become part of the CM package too. I know, right now, some parrot is about to tell us that the BTS line is that the game scale is not right for this concept. Great thanks for that insight. Now, on to this great idea.

We are going to be dealing with nations at war that did some rotation of units for R&R, but not on the scale of the American Army.

Thus, the units will be in and out of action for almost four years. That will mean equipment changes, so a key issue will be how long should you model this op? I would love to fight Stalingrad from start to finish, but other battles on the eastern front lasted many months too.

Anyway, any idea, that really could add value to CM has got to be a great idea. I think this is one.

[Warmaker]

Nice ideas SenorBeef. Bring some spice for the campaigns...

[Kestrl]

What happens to your new veteran tank crew after they get their tank knocked out or disabled? do they return as veteran or regulars in the next battle. I don't think a campaign option is needed in CM. I don't think its going to happen in CM2.

[ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Kestrl ]