Crank_GS Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Does anybody know if there is going to be a Campaign option in CM2? One of my favorite parts of SP was the ability to choose a "battle group" that you went into a whole series of battles with that was somewhat dynamic. Even now, I play for the most part with a US rifle company with a few tanks, and tailor QBs to fit that. It would be nice to have a continuous series of battles for them though, with the same names and such. Any thoughts? ------------------ Capt. Byron Crank, US Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mayer Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Well, the subject's been brought up before, and it seems IIRC that the general word is that the Powers that Be consider such campaigns a bit "gamey," and out of synch with the game's realistic bent. Me, I am with you; I love campaigns with carried over formations. I care not if that aspect of the game isn't realistic; I can play historical scenarios for that. I would love to be given a company, then a reinforced company then a battalion, etc. over the course of a campaign, with units gaining experience from green guys just out of basic to hardened veterans, etc. Who knows? Maybe it will happen one day.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 If people are interested in this idea, I would be quite willing to provide a series of scenarios to realize it. Because of time constraints, you'd play against the AI, not me. But I'd set up the defenses (or occasional counterattacks), write the briefings, give you options like "pick 250 points of reinforcements" or "choose between engineer support and cavalry support" then include the right units, etc. The fights would not be so even that you'd get killed in 2-3 fights. You'd face many more lopsided and short scenarios, with the odds in your favor and a definite tactical task. (E.g. scout this *almost* deserted village). Without, however, ever knowing beforehand, when you'd hit a force more nearly your equal in power, unless intel tips you off. There would thus be much more of a focus on getting your men through the mission without loss, or with little loss, and less on winning close and bloody battles. Those would still be possible, but they'd be more rare. The force sizes would also have to be small, reinforced company as the top size, because I would not be able to plan adequate defenses fast enough for larger fights. I cannot promise virtuoso terrain for such a series. I would rely heavily on the "auto generate" for new maps, just tweaking them enough to fit the tactical problem I wanted to pose, and picking the right base terrain type (village or rural, etc), same as one does with QBs. If there are many respondants, I also can't promise too much specific tailoring. I can put in the right forces for your "version". But I won't be able to "branch" the campaign structure to reflect every nuance. If your company "burns out" while others are succeeding, you won't "make it". If there are only a few who sign up, then it will be easier to keep the situations sensible for everyone. The force size might actually start smaller than a company, and only rise to it after a couple of short platoon and platoon+ "scenes". Also, unless I hear otherwise from most of those interested, I would plan on the "core" unit being U.S. infantry, since #1 it would realistically be attacking, and #2 it is more resilent in loss terms than e.g. a tank platoon or cavalry troop. (Others may try running their own, alternate "stories, but it would be impractical time-wise for me to handle several). If you are interested in this idea, email me, include your return email in the body of your note, and explain tome any preferences you have for how you'd like to see it go. If we settle on a format, we could start with the first game by the end of the week. A bonus is you can compare how you did to how others do, if several are willing to try this. Think of it as a GM'ed (or DM'ed - muhuhahaha) CM campaign, if you know what I mean... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 I am bashing out some "rules" for a "personal campaign game" like the old Squad Leader had - where you can assign your name and personality to one of the units in Combat Mission and watch him develop in attributes based on his performance. Jason, perhaps this is something we can do together; anyone interested contact me off forum at madorosh@home.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crank_GS Posted February 14, 2001 Author Share Posted February 14, 2001 That really sounds great. And you touch upon another aspect of playing QBs - I pretty much know what I am going to face, based on type of battle and how many points I chose. The idea of going into a battle with the possibility that attaining my objectives goes out the window (or up in smoke?) and just getting back to the start line with my force reasonably intact against vastly superior forces is attractive. Or, for that matter, maybe today will be a walk-over? ------------------ Capt. Byron Crank, US Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Yes, exactly, you don't know. And the walkovers are actually more common, the close fights rare, and the "forget the mission, where's my ass?" fiascos rarer still. Selecting the right level of aggressiveness or caution can be important. Careful and deliberate SOPs may increase losses in some kinds of lopsided situations, simply by prolonging a danger that could be neutralized by more decisive action. But letting the fangs get too long after a series of cakewalks, could be disasterous when the real buzz-saw is encountered. Combining these kinds of trade-offs with the need to preserve the force through a whole series, not just a 30 minute fight, seems to me to make for much more realistic and tougher command decisions. Info, and flexible thinking, will be important. And to Michael, yes I was thinking about increases in rank, force size commanded, command ratings, and unit quality levels, in the course of the campaign. Players would start with something like just a green rifle platoon, a commander with +1 morale only, a zook, then a few added teams. But they'd climb to more like a company after just a few outings - assuming they do not completely stuff up. I already have ideas for the first few mini-missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Jason - what criteria were you going to use for advancement? Perhaps we can compare notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 Bump I like your idea Jason, I think campaigns promote conservative and realistic game play. I'd like to be included if there is room. I've put together some thoughts on advancement, decorations, etc., for "personal" units I'd like to discuss with you off forum if you are interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 OK, folks, this is happening. I've gotten emails from a few interested people. Everyone else that is actually interested, I need an *email* sent to me, (you too Michael), with your addie in the body of the note (not just on the header - I need to be able to cut and paste it out easily, into a list, etc). The first scenario is already made and the first players have received it. So no waiting - LOL. It is going to be a U.S. infantry-based force, as the easiest for me to handle. Additions to the force will vary later, and the size will increase over time, toward a company team of all arms. The starting force is small - about 50 guys - and green. The bottom of the ladder. How hard can it be to command one platoon? (Muhu hahaha) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 OK, this one is now closed. Enough people wanted to do it, I've got my hands full. If it is a success, I will recommend others run their own. So far I've gotten reports back from a couple of players, and the second scenario is "out". Hey, the rest of you - finish your scenario and send me that AAR - LOL. If you didn't do great that is OK. Mistakes the first time are forgivable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts