africa korp question

[Laffertytig]

is the new game going to have any sort of campaign system similar to billtong rules? combat mission is a great game but after having it for months im bored just playing battles.

i wouldnt buy africa korp if the format was identical to combat mission 2

[Blanar]

I doubt it, but then in a way I really hope they don't include a campaign system. One of the best things about this game is the ability for the many dedicated fans to invent their own versions to play. Besides the obvious TCP/IP or pbem tourney's, you've got the biltong rules, the RobO Quick Campaign system, the Franko Iron man rules, and numerous other suggestions that have appeared over the years.

A great gaming system should not be limited to what's in the box. Would you never buy another deck of cards just because the rules to Old Maid are not included?

Later,

Carl

[Major Jerkov]

Originally posted by Laffertytig:

is the new game going to have any sort of campaign system similar to billtong rules? combat mission is a great game but after having it for months im bored just playing battles.

i wouldnt buy africa korp if the format was identical to combat mission 2

I guess you wont be buying it then, Laffertytig.

But contrary to Blanar's post, I dont see how a campaign would 'ruin' the other 'mods/rules'. They would still be usable... no? It would not negate them methinks.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Major Jerkov:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Laffertytig:

is the new game going to have any sort of campaign system similar to billtong rules? combat mission is a great game but after having it for months im bored just playing battles.

i wouldnt buy africa korp if the format was identical to combat mission 2

I guess you wont be buying it then, Laffertytig.

But contrary to Blanar's post, I dont see how a campaign would 'ruin' the other 'mods/rules'. They would still be usable... no? It would not negate them methinks. </font>

[Laffertytig]

thanks for saving me $40. the people that say it would ruin the rest of the game piss me off. you would have a campaign or career button and the QB would still be there as well.

and im not talkin operational or strategic campaigns. a campaign where u lead a platoon through various ops where they gain experience. basically what BFC is without all the paperwork bull****. i jut dont have the time or patience for that. thats what conputers are for right?

it cant be that hard to add as a lot of new gamers would buy it.

[Steiner14]

Lafertytig, a fully automated campaign mode similar to Biltong's would be nice but that was already discussed in depth a few times ago, so don't expect a lot of useful replies.

And i share your feelings:

yep, here are many people that want to forbid the neighbour to buy a second car although they can keep their's anyway and nothing would change for themselfes.

But that doesn't mean, that they have to be left alone on the battlefield, only because they want it.

It's hard to believe, CM is already becoming boring to you (due to your member#, i guess you haven't been playing it since years):

have you already started to play PBEMs?

[ September 03, 2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Becket]

Originally posted by Laffertytig:

it cant be that hard to add as a lot of new gamers would buy it.

I don't understand why the number of potential new purchasers makes coding a new feature easier -- perhaps you could explain?

In any event, major structural changes like this will not occur for CMAK. If they occur at all, it will be as part of the new engine, CMX2.

They are creating CMAK because they can offer the product without jeopardizing the timeline for the development of CMX2. There isn't an option for "CMAK with a lot of massive changes to the engine" -- there are only two options: CMAK, or wait til CMX2.

I, for one, love the basic game structure and will happily spend $35 to get the same structure with North Africa/Italy/Crete and the associated forces, plus the new features like dust clouds, multi-turrets, etc.

If, on the other hand, you don't have any particular desire to play with those forces or in those settings, but rather want a campaign system coded into the game, then it would seem that you could find better uses for your $35.

[Thomas Norton]

Laffertig, your question/request, goes all the way back to the early days of Combat Mission. It does get repeated frequently. The conflict, as reported here on this board, is realism v. game play. I believe it is really over resource allocation.

It has been demonstrated many times on this board, that the causality rate at this level of combat makes it too unrealistic to support a sustained campaign, at the scale you envision.

The desire is out there to have a operational campaign that allows a "command" to be the subject of a campaign; with reinforcements/replacements being funneled through the parent structure. You see variatins of this in the campaign rules mentioned above as well as the excellent, Operation Sforfang.

It is probable that BFC has studied this issue a number of times. That is why they have posted in the past that such a concept is outside the scope of the game. The paradox, of course, is in the fact that it is a game, and many gamers, you and others, want to have it as part of the immersion into this great game.

I think the real issue is resources. How much time and energy does BFC devote into adding a operational campaign system into the already existing game engine?

Face it, the "target" customer of this game is already defined. They are going to purchase this product absent the added operational campaign, if they have any interest in the war in the Mediterranean theater.

So comes the bottom line question. If they do not have an interest in the theater of conflict, would they buy the game if it did have an operational campaign, and, how many potential customers are you talking about? Absent a significant number, how do you justify the resource allowcation to make it happen (read "cost")?

[deilthedog]

ok, obviously a dead argument. forget i mentioned it

[JonS]

Originally posted by Laffertytig:

and im not talkin operational or strategic campaigns. a campaign where u lead a platoon through various ops where they gain experience. basically what BFC is without all the paperwork bull****. i jut dont have the time or patience for that. thats what conputers are for right?

conputers r alzo kwiet guid 4 cheqing sbelink and greymer. u mite wunt too tri et sum tim

[deilthedog]

uve gotta be scottish with an accent like that!

ken whit ah mean

[deilthedog]

uve gotta be scottish with an accent like that!

ken whit ah mean

[HeinzBaby]

Summing up, campaigning is outside the scope of the CM series, as Thomas Norton explains.

Hook into senario design, [yeah tough] I'd guess the closest to a Campaign would be to have several close linked Operations or battles, the Kursk package by the 'Boots & Track' people come to mind.

[ September 05, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: HeinzBaby ]

[Ryan Crierie]

Then why not just code the game to dump all

the results of a quick battle into a convient

text file that people can use to do their own

automated campaign rules with? Biltong has

mostly automated his campaign system, but the

big stumbling block is the amount of time it takes

to track every squad and tank, and then reinput

that data into the next battle...

And then you can import the text file generated

by Biltong's campaign rules into the quickbattle

generator as the new OOB

[David Chapuis]

i think an import/export function would be fantastic. The possible uses are huge.

[Ryan Crierie]

Originally posted by Cpl Dodge:

i think an import/export function would be fantastic. The possible uses are huge.

I agree. We would be able to track statistics

or save our best battles for publication on the

web.