My opinion of the main problem of this game : The lack of campaign

[Stelteck]

This game is very interresting. I remembered the first time i played it, on operation barbarossa..

It was wonderfull !! But but... At the end of the operation....FINISH...

The game lack of campaign.

We need a campaign that let you conduct a platoon for the entire war, from operation barbarossa to the end of berlin.

A platoon that you use operation after operation, manage, upgrade with better equipment, show them getting experience.

Not all the units of each operation, of course, but only a groups of core units.

The game needs a grand campaign.

With it, it will be quite perfect.

Without it, the game gets very boring, at long term, in solo games.

I hope it will be implemented in the next games of the series.

Stelteck.

[SaTyR]

I would love a campaign engine for CM also, but there will be none for the existing games, nor will there be one for CMAK. We could hope for one in the first game powered by the new engine, but I doubt that´ll happen. In the meantime, try this: BCR makes you look CM in a completely new perspective. Have fun

[Engel]

The problem with those external campaign rules is that they require tedious book-keeping and other such things which would be best handled by a computer in the first place.

Campaign mode for CMX2 should be on the list, it's a sensible suggestion that has been asked for many times, and the fact that people are using BCR and other such external rules proves that they want campaign play. Adding a touch of roleplaying into a wargame can't hurt, and would only deepen the commitment to it (one of the reasons that I never really got into CMBO was the lack of campaigns in addition to it not being an interesting front). And about the only reason why I still play SP:WAW is that it has a campaign mode (a bit silly one, but still).

[ April 09, 2003, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Engel ]

[Boo Radley]

I think it needs weapons upgrades and energy crystals, too.

And aliens.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Boo_Radley:

I think it needs weapons upgrades and energy crystals, too.

And aliens.

I, too, Boo, can't wait to pilot my plucky 'Eternal Platoon' through the vagaries and twists of the entire war. After all, the very heart and soul of historically based gaming is the ability to take a group of young soldiers from first combat through five years of war, watching as they gain in wisdom, strength, and experience until your single platoon can take on even the most powerful enemy formations and come away the victor.

And, after they've trained long and hard, fought enemy after enemy, what could be more fitting than the equipment upgrades that they deserve? I'm looking forward to the moment when my infantry squads receive their first shipment of laser sights and night goggles, or when my first tank unit is able to equip with 'Leopards', and can really kick some Soviet arse, showing those Ruskies that even though Germany might be on the brink of military collapse, this German unit has the tools that automatically come with superiour fighting ability!

Now, having poked a bit of good-natured fun at our 'Campaigners', let me just say that I think the main problem with this 'request' is that coding a game that would handle both strategic and tactical combat well would be a rather large task. Most games that attempt both do neither particularly well, and I think attempting to graft some sort of jury-rigged 'strategic' level onto an excellent tactical combat game would do nothing more than detract from it overall.

On the other hand, to spend the time and resources to make the strategic and tactical combat games seamlessly interface, and do both well, would, I imagine, be time-consuming and resource intensive, and seriously interfere with the engine re-write that most of the people on this forum would rather see sooner than later.

There are many strategic level games out there, and some of them are good. There are even some operational level games out there. There are some tactical games out there, and Combat Mission seems to be the best of them. There aren't any games that I can think of that handle all three of these levels well. I see no point in Combat Mission becoming another of them.

[Engel]

You don't need a strategic level to have a playable and interesting campaign. Even having a certain set of troops you could steer through a string of battles, getting some replacements, seeing some changes in your troops, getting promoted or demoted to command a whole different set of troops (going from commanding a company PzIII's to commanding a company of IV's or some such, though kampfgruppe-sized command would probably work best), even without having a chance of affecting the final outcome of the war would be enjoyable, and in the long term more interesting than single, unrelated scenarios where you really don't get any real sense of accomplishement; you either win or lose, it doesn't matter beyond that single scenario. Most of the things required of it are already there in QB's, it would only require a way of keeping track of the units in between games, and a way of determining replacements and experience (so your green troops could some day become at least regulars if not veterans).

[ April 09, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Engel ]

[Baron von Beergut]

Agree. The game should have a campaign element similar to SPWaW. It may not be realistic at the scale, but is entertaining/enjoyable and an extra selling point if revenue is a consideration in the game's design.

[scoop88]

I can appreciate some people's desire for a more operational or strategic level version for future CM games, but if Battlefront makes any effort to do this, I hope it is not at the risk of lessening the attractiveness of the current tactical level of the game. Let me explain.

To me, realistic strategy games, especially those on the Eastern Front, ultimately become very boring because they ARE realistic. If the German player doesn't achieve victory by December 1941, the game becomes a stalemate for a while, and then a rout of the Germans as the Russian war machine snowballs, quickly replacing losses and adding huge numbers of tank and infantry divisions. It's no fun for the German player to get steamrolled and it's no challenge for the Russian player because of his overwhelming superiority of numbers.

The beauty of Combat Mission is that you can wage a fairly equal fight at any time of the war on the small tactical scale of the game. And it's realistic ... even late in the war, there were times when the Germans could achieve somewhat equal numbers with the Russians on the purely local level.

[Stelteck]

The problem is not the strategic level of the campaign.

In fact, there is no need of strategic level.

I thought about campaign such as the campaign of the game Close Combat III.

You use a group of core unit thought the entire war, operation after operation.

It is, in fact, not difficult to code.

I think Battlefront may even do it in a patch.

Stelteck.

[Snoob]

In my opinion the ultimate argument in favor of a campaing for CMBB is the number of people who turn to external campaing rules, such as BCR. I understand that there are many who value "realism" above all else and feel that the concept of one company fighting through five gruelling years at the bloodiest front of WWII is somewhat - if not outright- unrealistic. However, there must have been examples of such veterans -I could mention tank ace Wittman, for example. If memory serves me right, he started in anti-tank duties, then through his superb performance he was tranfered in a tank division, and I would venture to guess that before he ended up in a mighty Tiger he must have struggled in one of the less prestigious tanks of the German army. So, in "gamey" terms, that is gaining experience and upgrading equipment. I mean no offense to the more hardcore players of CM; I'm no expert in military history and I know that many of you could decimate my feeble historic argument. However, my point is that the people at Battlefront make "superior war and strategy games". Yes, they are getting ever closer to producing a highly realistic game, but at the end of the day CM is a game. If I wanted utter realism I wouldn't be playing a turn-based game. One of the reasons I love CM is that I can take my time thinking over my strategy, admiring my beautiful assault gun (5 seconds into the next round it's blown into pieces), changing orders, showing off the beautiful game engine to my friends. That is fun. CM is a game. So many of us are asking for a campaign. If it would be too problematic to program a campaign for CMBB, how about incorporating BCR in the game so that the computer could do all the calculations?

[Sirocco]

I don't understand why a campaign option is such a difficult issue for some people to handle. It's basically just a "grand operation", and would add another dimension to gameplay. It doesn't have to diminish the game, rather it could add immensely to it. It just depends how it's handled, and I've plenty of confidence in BTS to do it just as well as the rest of the game.

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by Stelteck:

The problem is not the strategic level of the campaign.

In fact, there is no need of strategic level.

I thought about campaign such as the campaign of the game Close Combat III.

You use a group of core unit thought the entire war, operation after operation.

It is, in fact, not difficult to code.

I think Battlefront may even do it in a patch.

Stelteck.

BFC, please take time out from completing CMAK and CMX2 to add this trivial bit of coding ... call Stelteck if you have any questions.

Stelteck, please forgive me for also having a bit of fun at your expense. The fact is that this question has been asked many, many times before and has been answered as many times. The concept you favor is not within the scope of the game.

Consider this ... you have a squad involved in a CM battle. Let's even assume that it's a LOOOONNNGGGG CM battle, 60 turns or one hour. How much "experience" do you think your squad would accumulate in that hour? Now realize that in order to really get some experience you'd probably have to have that squad on the line for a least a week of solid combat. How many CM battles would that be? Five, Ten, Twenty? And that's just a week's worth.

The point is that the scale of CM simply isn't suited to this sort of experience gain. I understand the comments of some who say that they don't care that it's not realistic, they'd still like to see it. The bottom line is that BFC DOESN'T like it, don't agree with the theory and are very committed to keeping the entire game structure as realistic as possible. So it isn't likely to be happening.

Finally, I doubt that the coding would be as easy as you think it would be.

Joe

[Sirocco]

If BTS don't want to include it, that's one thing, but arguing that it's not possible, or not realistic, is nonsense.

[Sardaukar]

Well, I like campaign idea. Due to battle attrition in CM battles results may be even realistic. Lot of your men will not live to see next battle and will be replaced.

I can think reasons why not include campaign system to basic CM, primarily because it'll take resources from what is the real forte of CM, small scale combat. I don't want to see too much effort directed away from that.

CM:BB offered great tool to external campaign designers (I made one for CMBO recently, and CMBO doesn't allow even 1/10th of versatility in external campaign making compared to CM:BB...no disrespect to CMBO though, it's just older game). CM:BB editor and QB generator allows you to edit your core force squad by squad (or tank) and then import it to Quick battle. That feature allowed true campaing rules developed by Biltong.

I don't necessarily need campaign in next CM engine. I'd sure love to see some aids for external campaing designers to be added. If there are huge amount of modders, there are also bunch of external campaign designers/designer-wannabees who would love to fill the gap.

Easier bookkeeping of core force and easier importing to Quick Battles would go far to make people want to play those external campaigns. And there would be probably be also externally designed specific campaigns with linked scenarios if core force could be imported to scenarios too.

Frankly, we don't need campaign system included into CM, just few modifications to make designing them easier.

1) "slot" for "core" force in QB/scenario system to easily edit/replace/resupply/etc. where you can import them into QBs/scens/operations.

2) ability to import forces to scenarios/QBs in way of it can be done to QBs, but from that "slot" instead of having to create a scenario (ok, that's easy) and use autosave import.

3) ability to link several operations/maps together with above abilities too (that'd probably mean they'd be playable only from one side, but that'd fine with me)

I think we don't need more. Thus, the specific campaigns and even dynamic ones in way of BCR could be more easily maintained/designed. Maybe there will be as many long campaigns designed for CM as there are for Steel Panthers series someday.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

If BTS don't want to include it, that's one thing, but arguing that it's not possible, or not realistic, is nonsense.

True.

IMO BTS is making a big mistake, if they are ignoring such wishes. The long term motivation, of putting the single battles into a bigger context, shouldn't be underestimated.

To me it's non-understandable, if the wishes are ignored, even more, if all that the community is asking for, is an option, that the game can export the results of a battle and all units-data (incl. commander's names) into a text-file and that CM is able to import such txt-files for setting up battles.

All the other work would be made by the community anyway and i'm sure after a few months we would have simple programs that make an automatic-connection between battles, like an automated version of BCRs up to programs handling hundreds of multiplayer-games or even offering operational or strategic effects.

For example, i don't have enough time anymore, for multiplayer games and in the meanwhile playing the AI only is getting less and less interesting.

I'm losing long time motivation and i can't believe i'm the only one.

A campaign-mode would fill the gap of motivation from finishing one battle until the wish is strong enough to start another one.

[ April 09, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Legio]

Steel Panthers had a basic campaign game as did all the Close Combat series games.

Cant someone do this for CM CMBB?

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

To me it's non-understandable, if the wishes are ignored, even more, if all that the community is asking for, is an option, that the game can export the results of a battle and all units-data (incl. commander's names) into a text-file and that CM is able to import such txt-files for setting up battles.

All the other work would be made by the community anyway and i'm sure after a few months we would have simple programs that make an automatic-connection between battles, like an automated version of BCRs up to programs handling hundreds of multiplayer-games or even offering operational or strategic effects.

For example, i don't have enough time anymore, for multiplayer games and in the meanwhile playing the AI only is getting less and less interesting.

I'm losing long time motivation and i can't believe i'm the only one.

A campaign-mode would fill the gap of motivation from finishing one battle until the wish is strong enough to start another one.

I definitely agree. Even though I play PBEM a lot and participate to externally run campaign in Band of Brothers, I still want quality time spent offline with AI. Besides, I can only do mostly PBEM games and not fast paced TPC/IPs nowadays.

We don't necessarily need "campaign engine" in CM, just tools to make it work. I think there are plenty of willing if tools are available.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Priest]

Entire Campaigns are unrealistic. Even in CMBB terms, so lets forget the war for a minute. Go to www.cmmc2.org and I think there are some AARs for the CMMC1 battle. The units active in combat were so shredded that many would have to be pulled back for long lengths of time or broken up or compeletely reformed.

Also having "external" factors on a battle you fight matter means that what you are doing has to matter. The level of impact at the higher level of a campaign is usually not effected by the actions of a platoon or even a company. Maybe a battalion, maybe not. You are talking about a new interface, AI, core coding, existing coding redone with regards to AI, and in essence asking for something (this is the big one) out of the scope of the CM games.

You could make the arguement that the Madden football game you bought should include a baseball game also. I mean both are sports right and you have to sim the offseason and you need something to do right??? In reality they are both different sports in the same genre or in other words while both are sports they are not in "scope" of one another.

And just so you dont think I am ignoring the whole Steel Panther CCIII thingy, those were meant to be games, CM was meant to be more towards (IMO) the simulation aspect.

[Sirocco]

An operation is a mini-campaign. I don't understand why anyone would think an entire new game engine would be required to expand that. I can only imagine people are bringing baggage from other games to this that needn't apply. I certainly can't understand why anyone would think simulating a unit across a more developed timeline would be less realistic. I don't think that commanding a unit over an extended period necessarily transforms CMBB from a simulation into a game. It just seems to me that some people are trying too hard to justify the choice BTS made. If it's something they don't want to do, that's their choice.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Priest:

[QB] Entire Campaigns are unrealistic. Even in CMBB terms, so lets forget the war for a minute. Go to www.cmmc2.org and I think there are some AARs for the CMMC1 battle. The units active in combat were so shredded that many would have to be pulled back for long lengths of time or broken up or compeletely reformed.

I find it interesting, that people not interested in simple campaign-modes anyway, are telling others who want it, what they really need.

It was clearly stated, that realism is not the main-feature of a campaign mode, but long term motivation.

Also having "external" factors on a battle you fight matter means that what you are doing has to matter. The level of impact at the higher level of a campaign is usually not effected by the actions of a platoon or even a company. Maybe a battalion, maybe not. You are talking about a new interface, AI, core coding, existing coding redone with regards to AI, and in essence asking for something (this is the big one) out of the scope of the CM games.

No, all the external effects can be simulated by the external add-on program(s) and the units/parameters are choosen accordingly (like BCRs).

You could make the arguement that the Madden football game you bought should include a baseball game also.

No, but why not expect a complete football-season?

[Engel]

Originally posted by Priest:

CM was meant to be more towards (IMO) the simulation aspect.

Yet it includes QB's, which are about as realistic as campaigns in the style of SP and the rest.

CM is still clearly a game, despite what anyone might say. A game with a lot of effort put into simulationist detail, but still a game at heart. The simple campaign systems suggested aren't going to detract any of that, so those who want to take the hardcore simulationist approach can still simulate to their heart's content, while those who like such things could have their bit of not-quite-that-realistic-but still-fun.

Having a campaign mode doesn't suddenly turn CM into an arcade game or a C&C like RTS, so I can't really understand why some people are so opposed to having some tools included to facilitate such play.

Since realism isn't an absolute requirement, the external factors can be simulated by extrapolating from your in-game performance.

For example, a simple extrapolation could go something like this: multiply casualties by x, increase unit experience by y, take into account re-enforcements, detract unit experience if more than z% are replaced, fast-forward X days to next battle (depending on replacements and total unit attrition); you wouldn't play all the events or battles that happen in between, such as having Schützen Schultz marked off as a casualty after having fallen off a bridge while drunk out of his skull on vodka.

The variables would change according to your in-game performance and the known historical events, crossreferencing them so that a total victory in year -42 would have a different factor than in -44. Not realistic, but still enjoyable, providing long-term interest into what is happening to your troops, and if the tools for using that information would be in the game, you could do the whole thing in an external program even.

[ April 09, 2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Engel ]

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Priest:

Entire Campaigns are unrealistic. Even in CMBB terms, so lets forget the war for a minute. Go to www.cmmc2.org and I think there are some AARs for the CMMC1 battle. The units active in combat were so shredded that many would have to be pulled back for long lengths of time or broken up or compeletely reformed.

Yep, and that'd be entirely realistic. While the men and vehicles as single entities didn't survive, units usually did. Gaining experience was also normal, since those who survived were definitely altered after first battles.

I'm not in favor of unrealistic campaign game enhancement a la SP or (*gosh*) CC series. I'm just asking tools to make it available..since non- "diehard grog" gamer wants (IMHO) is not to play "Private Newbie" who dies during his first battle (which is realistic) but follow the footpaths of "Major Tankslayer" in footpaths of tank aces for example. Both are historical entities, latter just with lot less probability.

I definitely want CM stay realistic war game (it's just a game, though). Thus, it'd be tough to include realistic campaign engine until AI can play as well as human to have comparable casualty figures. But since AI is no mach for competent human in most games (except maybe in chess with Deep Blue) I see no problem including tools to make campaigns easier. They are interesting, you know..and you grow detached to your units.

Cheers,

M.S.

[BlackVoid]

I support a campaign game idea.

Just look at how many people were attracted to Biltong's campaign rules. I also checked them out, but it is just too much hassle for me.

Also any kind of campaign does not have to follow through 5 years of war. Rather it should be distinct campaigns stretching through several months.

Eg: Barbarossa, Uranus, etc. This would be quite realistic as well.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I too support a campaign game, because it would slighly increase enjoyment but very much increase longevity of the game.

What happens to a game now. even in a long campaign I don't really care about my units. If my Firefly knocks out Tiger after Tiger, so what? I'll finish the game and never see it again. A unit get's toasted, I don't care I'll just have to fight on without it. This doesn't have to be this way.

Take X-COm Ufo Defence/Enemy Unknown. Great game and in 1999 when the game took place (made in 1991 I think) I started a game with the rule that gametime progressed no further then real time. With my soldiers fighting, in 2001 I long since could have destroyed the Alien homebase but didn't, just didn't because I wanted to play on. Make my soldiers even better. And in March 2002, my last soldier of the orignal 14 you get at the start got killed. I can tell you I felt sad all week after that. I knew his name, I cared for him, he meant something for me. I was involved with the troops that fought for me. Now THAT's involvement with a game, and I still play it mainly for that reason. I recently stopped playing SP:WAW, and that while I never really liked the game, it was the long campaign that had me hooked.

I only need to have BCR-like rules applied to a random map generator and a random opposing force chosen for me, and an engine wich takes experience gained over timer into account. Not for this engine but easy enough to do for CMX2, I would think. Nothing fancy, I don't to win any wars, just be taken through them at vaguely historical settings. Kinda like Talonsofts Westfront allowed you to take a regiment through the war, gaining and loosing experience.

And over time, I will care for that tanker that was with my force since the time of Sedan, El Alamein and any fictional skirmish in between. That will not just increase my enjoyment of the game. Realism will be served aswell. Will you needlessly risk the life of that tanker you have known for such a long time, no you won't, because you don't want him to die. Just like a commander in RL. As it is now, I'll send the unit in without even the slightest prospect of survival if it suits my purpose. That's not what I call realistic.

So no fancy campaign structure/game, just a sense of continuation from one battle to the next. I'm curious to hear from BFC, what do they think? Ar we preaching to the converted or fighting a lost cause?

[Priest]

Scheoner (forgive me if I spelled it wrong)

First off when did I say I did not want a campaign style game or functionality? Simply understanding reality does not signify lack of want. I want a Ferrari, the reality is that I cannot have one. There are a variety of factors that make this so, just like the overall issue of this thread.

If I did not want a more in-depth or lengthy campaign mode why did I bust my hump in CPX and CMMC1?

Anyhow any request you make is more work for BFC, which means more time, and more attention taken away from the core focus of the game. There is also a risk of feature creep and losing scope of the project. There is also the whole "WE MAKE REALISTIC AND SUPERIOR WARGAMES" thing they have going (I am not speaking for them, just my opinion). All this has been said again and again and again and again. Might it happen at some point? Sure. Likely? As far as I can tell, no.

One last thing, if you are so willing to throw reality out the window then might I suggest C&C Generals or maybe Starcraft, Sudden Strike????

Oh one more last last thing, units did not often "Go Away" but there would be no "advancement" on a operational with regards to "experience". And you might fight in Market Garden and then not fight again really until the Rhine, wow two large battles for the whole of the war depending if you got plastered at some point, WOOOHOOO! Not really worth it. (meant to be somewhat extreme).