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

[Redmow]

I would be perfectly happy if I could edit my forces in a quick battle. That would make BCR even more enjoyable. IMHO. Sure, there is alot of bookkeeping in BCR but it is worth it.

Having a blast in my campaign. Still in July, 1941 but have upgraded my PzIIC to another PzIIIG. Three battles so far and having a blast. Now, if I could only edit my QB forces.....

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Priest:

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). [/QB]

Well...if you were into ultimate realism, why didn't you join military like me or many others who play this game ? Heck, maybe you did, I don't know you.

C&C ? Starcraft ? Sudden Strike ? What the hell have those to do with CM ?

BFC makes "WARGAMES", not "WAR SIMULATIONS". Thus, they may listen customer feedback

As to "advancement"...there are loads of WW 2 vets who are quite more experienced in the end than they were when stating the war. You know, even in WW 1, all soldiers didn't die.

Yep, unit may fight in Market Garden, refit and fight on Rhine. So ? That's normal procedure to refit depleted units. How does that prevent campaign ?

No-one is asking to alter the game, just making enhancement to it. It'll never be "realistic". No game will ever grasp sheer horror of combat, I hope.

CM grasps well lot of small unit tactical aspects and especially CM:BB also models infantry very well.

I'm one of those folks who wish for more support to campaign. I'm not asking that BFC should implement it since it'd be waste of resources. I'm only asking to make it easier to make us campaining more fun, since this is game for enjoyment. It's like those folks who do re-enactment, I want to see and act history with all "what ifs".

Call me a romantic, but I wish to have a campaign enhancement addition

Cheers,

M.S.

[A.E.B]

When I read the review of CM:BB on Gamespy I immediately circulated it to all my friends under the banner of "this is the Game we have been waiting for". To a person they all asked "has it a campaign?".

Personally I think that BTS could produce a stand alone campaign pack - sold seperately - for those who wanted such a feature added to their CM:BO, CM:BB or CM:AK. More money to BTS, more CM gaming for us.

Those who aren't interested wouldn't have to buy it. But among my friends the lack of a campaign cost BTS several sales.

I for one no longer play QBs against the AI - I am hooked on PBEMs. But a campaign would definitely open up a far greater range of options - you can play your campaign while awaiting those PBEMs!

I agree that a fight once a week style campaign would be unrealistic. I see a CM campaign as being more of a series of linked operations. These operations could be "historical" in location and nature, with periods of rest and refitting in between, with an option to fight a random series of "Quick" operations if a historical timeline doesn't appeal.

It appears to me (I could be wrong) that BTS already possesses much of data that would be required. Yes it would take time and money, but it would take less time and money than developing the CM3 engine.

Perhaps BTS could have a poll on the Battlefront.com homepage asking how many CM owners would be willing to pay for a stand alone campaign addon?

Regards

A.E.B

[Caesar]

I think it would be enough if BFC added an interface to allow externally generated maps, units etc to be imported into the game (even if it was just a special published file format) and the results to be accurately exported. Once this is done a program can be written by anyone that allows a reasonably tight integration with their CMX games. They could even write one themselves and sell it as a separate program if they felt there was a market for it.

My hope is that they allow for this in their new engine. I think it is pretty certain from what they have said, that they are not going to do it in CMAK. It sounds as though it is not written in a way to make this an easy proposition. ISTR Steve saying that they had received detailed propositions from a group of programmers. He said that they had checked it out and ended up putting it in the too hard basket.

To all those who appear to see a campaign only as a way to follow a unit through the whole war, there are other reasons for such a campaign. Non balanced games where you have much less idea of the strength of your opposition, forcing troop preservation rather than the do or die approach in QBs, mismatched force types and so on.

The more people that run manually administered campaigns, who write campaign management tools, who produce campaign rules etc the better. If we want BFC to put effort into additional coding then it is only reasonable that we show there is a market driven reason to do so.

[Sergei]

I agree with the idea that BFC could allow more ways to utilise 3rd party programs. We already do have all sorts of campaign rules. But it would be better if a 3rd party utility could do all the book keeping and act as a campaign interface. This utility would give input to CM to create QB's with certain settings and unit selections, then the user would play that battle, and at the end CM would give output of the results, which the utility would then use to update the campaign status.

That way, BFC would save themselves from the obvious problems involved and satisfy alot of customers. I don't see a need in them personally making up some fantasy campaign rules, it's better if we can use rules of our own.

(The selfish me here of course presumes that some of the devoted, selfless fans with program skills will do this for us free of charge so that the selfish me can then demand even more, but I know someone would do it )

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by A.E.B:

I for one no longer play QBs against the AI - I am hooked on PBEMs. But a campaign would definitely open up a far greater range of options - you can play your campaign while awaiting those PBEMs!

Additionally, if the campaign-module can determine the forces and map/weather conditions for one player VS the computer, it could calculate easily the reinforcements/conditions for two human players, too.

[ April 10, 2003, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Aaron]

Anyone complaining about realism in a Campaign just needs to look at Operations. I can imagine a Lt Col telling his men, "Men, we are going to fight four battles each day for the next three days. After fifteen minutes of fighting, the enemy will cease-fire allowing us to reposition our AT guns in preperation for the next fifteen minute battle. OK, Go."

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The -only- thing required for a campaign game is the ability to edit saved game files. If that were possible, there are dozens of programmers out there, myself included, that would love to hack out a variety of different campaigns.

Aaron

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I have long been a fan of the idea of, not a campaign, but a proper operational layer. What I mean is this.

As things currently stand I believe Static Operations are a hugely realistic way to play CMBB, the most realistic way in what is more than a wargame, but in my view, is a simulation. In all the reading I have done over the years it has repeatedly been the case that even successful battles to seize, say a small village, often lasted 3-4 hours. More tricky battles for villages would last all day, even successful ones. Within each 3-4 hour battle for a village there would be 2 or 3 assaults, or pushes in an attempt to make headway. Static Operations model these “battles” for objectives such as villages very well. Each “assault” being an individual battle within a Static Operation. I believe Operations in CMBB do what they do, very well. However, in addition to Operations as currently modelled in CMBB, this is what I would like to see.

I would like to see a full feature operational game, the usual thing, 1km/1 mile per hex, manoeuvre units being battalion combat teams, in which one could zoom down a scale and play any one contact battle as a CM battle. It would work like this. The operational game would be a genuine, playable, simultaneous resolution operational game that could be played entirely at the operational level if one wished. However, if two players agreed, for any individual contact battle within the operational game, say the battle for e crucial bridge, one could choose to play it at the CM level and then apply the results, export the results, back to the operational game. There would be a program very like the Quick Battle Generator but with the parameters for the Quick Battle taken from the operational game. If you follow me.

Operations as presently handled in CMBB, do what they do very well, but there is a lack of context, a demand to be able to set CM battles in some larger frame work. I would not like to replace Operations as they are now, but to supplement them as described above.

One day, my guess is that this will happen. I am optimistic. My reason for being optimistic is that the logic, and the clear demand for some greater context in which to place CM games, is so great that BFC will in some way get round to it. Maybe cooperate with some operational game designer, who knows.

Having said that it may happen one day, it is worth remembering that BFC are very small company and thus have to focus their work. With CMAK and a new engine version due over the coming 18 months they are already covering a lot of ground. But maybe some time later they will produce/out source an operational layer.

Lastly, with the use of Mapping Mission, where you can build 20km by 20km CM maps, plus just one small added feature in the next engine, one could very quickly build ones own operational layer. The added feature that is needed in the next engine is the ability to Save and then Edit units, in Saved Games. If one could Save the unit files from a game separately, and then launch them in the Editor, this alone would enable CM fans to construct operational or campaign games very easily. In my view.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Currently, there is also the very fine CMMC series of games as devised by James Bailey. But I understand that people wish to be able to play operational/campaign games just against one opponent or by themselves.

PPS. Do remember that in Operations in CMBB you can set each battle to last 60 turns, which is what I do.

[Priest]

SARD

Actually I was on track to go to the Air Force Academy at one point, blew out my knee and was told that it would restrict which fields I could go into within the military. It just happened to exclude what I wanted to do so I moved on.

As far as what Sudden Strike and the others have to do with it is that if you ask the greater majority of people in the world they will call them wargames. And they do have a "campaign" system to some extent.

Whatever, as I said I wouldnt mind a campaign system per say, I would just want it done right. I simply taking a realistic point of view. We do not understand the situation as BFC does, and since we do not have that perspective then anything other than an uninformed opinion can we pose (which I have stated on every post, this is all just my opinion). BFC is quite aware (again opinion but since this type of thread pops up about once every two weeks and the same people pile in I would say they are aware)and has held the same line each and every time. This may change and if done right that would make me happy. But I will be honest, I do not know what "right" is and my impression is that BFC does not think it can be done or is not interested in doing it.

Just my thoughts. I treat CM games as a tactical simulator based on WWII equipment and formations. Anyways I think a lot of people here are thinking that I am insulting with them, disagreeing, and/or flaming them. I am not on any of those accounts. But the answer to this question has already been given, at least as how it pertains to the present (again just my opinion).

[76mm]

I am very also interested in a campaign aspect to CMX, and agree with Caesar and Aaron that all we need is for BFC to allow for the export/import of game save info (or edit game save files). From the many posts on this thread, it is obvious that there is huge interest in some kind of campaign element, but also that almost every player has their own ideas about what a "campaign game" should look like.

For that reason, I don't think it is realistic for BFC to come up with an operational/campaign layer--it is too much work, and it is not clear that there is critical mass for a campaign game with any particular feature set. That said, as pointed out over and over again on this thread, there are many players out there with the skills and interest to develop a their own campaign overlays if BFC would simply provide some basic tools, particularly an export/import features for troops and, ideally, maps. I really hope that this makes it into the game sooner rather than later.

76mm

[Blackhorse]

I would be happy to just be able save end game unit files and import them into QBs or premade maps.

This way players would be able to create their own campaigns in whatever realistic or unrealistic way they desire.

[Double Deuce]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

Lastly, with the use of Mapping Mission, where you can build 20km by 20km CM maps, plus just one small added feature in the next engine, one could very quickly build ones own operational layer.

PS. Currently, there is also the very fine CMMC series of games as devised by James Bailey.

Not only is there the well known CMMC but there are several others as well. They are just on a smaller scale. Anyone who has looked at the Mapping Mission and COCAT utilities and has some free time (OK quite a bit of it) can work up some exciting campaigns, unfortunately not as a player but as a game master/referee. I guess what I am saying is most of what is needed to do something like this is already out there BUT it is nothing that is as simple as a few mouse clicks.

[benpark]

The great thing for me about BCR is that it is single player. I do not have time to organize against a group of people's schedules at this point, so it is perfect in that respect...

If someone could work out a program such as Biltaid (as there is talk of...) for single player, it would be the ideal for me, and many others I suspect. I am willing to make maps of historical areas for input for specific battles, but I lack any programing know how.

Simple to use and understand, yet as in depth (and as short/long) as the player likes and light on paper work are my wishes.

[Lt Bull]

I haven't read all the posts here just yet but I would just like to say that compared to other game developer companies, BTS has physically far fewer staff and resources to actually code their games. There has been a lot of talk about the IL2/FB-spinoff RTS WW2 land combat game Battlefield Command. If we go by the programming credits in FB and asssume this upcoming Battlefield Command game will have the same resource/staff structure, I count at least 11 different programmers ranging from sound and graphics through to AI and dynamic campaign. Look at the CMBB credits and you will see that there is only one actual programmer for CMBO/CMBB: Charles. It is a testamant to this guys ability to have credit for every bit of code in CMBO/CMBB. No wonder it is rumoured he really is just a brain sitting in a glass tank connected to a keyboard that programmes 24hrs a day, 356 days a year as long as they keep replenishing the nutrient bath he is immersed in.

We may all think freely about what we would like to see in CMX2 and compare it to what say Battlefield Command might be shaping up to be (if anything, the graphics engine and campaign model) but in the end it takes people to make games and more people to add more complexity and features to games. BTS currently does not seem to be as resource/manpower rich as some other (competing?) game developers. They must have an idea of what they can and can not achieve based on their past experience with CMBO/CMBB, the current company structure and their current manpower resources. It may come to a point where BTS will have to make a big decsion as to whether they are willing to engage in further company growth to meet all the "market demands and expectations" or stay basiucally with what they have and make do with that.

Either way, the end product will basically be a refelction on the amount of resources/manpower they choose to throw at the project.

Lt Bull

[benpark]

I personally am talking about a user made program, like Biltaid-just a bit more open ended. Those of us who have been around these parts fer awhile know BTS' stance on the campaign thing. Doesn't mean people have to stop thinking of ways to do it.

I couldn't care less about that other game (Battlefield whatsitsname) right now, seems like it's the new hip thing though.

[ April 11, 2003, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: benpark ]

[76mm]

Lt Bull is correct that BFC is thinly staffed, and that they've got to pick their programming and other priorities carefully. That said, I think they'd get huge bang for the buck by simply providing a means for importing/exporting unit data from CMX. Once they do that, player/programmers can take over and create the type of campaign applications for which there seems to be huge demand.

Until and unless BFC allows for import/export of unit data, however, it is much more difficult to create any sort of campaign application that does not involve massive manual data entry at some point, which makes any campaign mode much less attractive (because you spend most of your time entering data rather than playing the game).

76mm

[Tactical Wargamer]

I agree 150% that a campaign option needs desperately to be added to any up coming releases. This is what really shined in Steel Panthers. It has been requested many times but never seems to make the cut. That is very unfortunate as it would certainly add 10's of hours of playability to CM.

[Abbott]

I do understand BFC’s argument against such an option, realism. However you can add me to the list of those who would like a campaign option. I play games to relax and have fun. While enjoying the accuracy of the Combat Mission games very much, my schedule does not allow a lot of multi-player options. A solitary campaign mode would offer a lot of entertainment value.

[Hunter]

Kip,

I agree with your analysis

I think it will be TERRIFIC when a campaign game for CM comes out.

Naturally, it would want to include a single player version (AI), relative spotting, multiplayer, weather, logistics, etc, etc...

Later,

Hunter

[Sailor Malan]

Hi all. Several points, before this thread wanders off into the realms of fantasy.

1 Do a search, you will find that this issue has been discussed many times, and BTS have said that they wont be doing a campaign. They may have changed their minds recently, but I doubt it

2 Any time spent on a campaign mode comes straight off time spent on game features, other theatres etc.

3 Why does everyone think the game is incomplete without a campaign game? I admit it would be another facet of the game, but only if done properly. Then again, improved command control arrangements, better artillery modelling, relative spotting, or dust from vehicles/barrages are all aspects that would improve the game. Do you all think Monopoly's big mistake is the lack of a campaign game?

4 Are you sure that you are playing the right game if you think the thing wrong is lack of a campaign? In another forum, about an ultra detailed, ultra 'realistic' WW2 game, someone complained that critical hits didn't do enough damage, because ships didn't immediately blow up and sink. When it was pointed out that in RL, ships rarely did that, the implied tone is 'well I want it to'. Ergo - wrong game, go and RTS or something.

I am biassed, I want CMAK, dust, the new engine, the world. I can live without a campaign...

[Sardaukar]

Priest :

Sorry it I sounded bit harsh, wasn't my best days I just got bit annoyed about comparison to Sudeen Strike etc. Maybe better comparison might have been East Front/East Front 2/West Front and Steel Panthers series. They are definitely wargames..and contain (while not realistic) campaign that enhances their appeal, IMHO.

I think BFC shouldn't take too much focus trying to implement campaign system themselves, since it's lot easier just to allow external designers tools to do that.

We have already tools like MappingMission and BCR/BCRAV rulesets. It would not take lot to have all kinds of interesting campaigns made by groups of grogs Historical/hypotethical research and design would be responsibility of campaign designers and not burden BFC.

Cheers,

M.S.

[76mm]

I'd like to respond to a couple of points made by Sailor Malan and other posters on this forum who have argued against a campaign mode.

First, I thnk that everyone agrees that BFC doesn't seem likely to do a campaign/operational layer--developing a campaign/operational application would be a huge distraction, and BFC doesn't seem to have the resources to continue developing the CMX games AND add a whole new campaign/operational application. However, we are only asking that BFC provide the limited tools necessary to allow player/programmers to develop campaign/operational applications, such as being able to save, modify and/or export/import unit files. This is orders of magnitude easier than developing a whole campaign/operational layer and would add enormously to the attractiveness of the game to many people. If developing the game engine should have top priority, BFC should not have included the scenario editor in the game because it took time away from their modelling of this or that, and the editor allows players to roll-their-own scenarios, even if they are, god forbid, "unrealistic" (see below). I suspect that it has taken BFC much longer to research and model many of the obscure and historically insignificant vehicles included in the game than the time it would take to provide unit export/import/edit saves capability that will allow for the development of a campaign/operational layer.

This game is incomplete without a campaign game for several reasons discussed below, but first it is necessary to distinguish between a CMX "campaign" application and a CMX "operational" application--people generally use them interchangeably in discussions on this forum.

You can have a campaign application without an operational level application (ala Biltong's rules, etc.), the main purpose of which is simply to utilize the same core units over time and thus help ensure that players give proper regard to casualties and avoid flag rushes and other gamey tactics common to isolated scenarios without any context. As long as the units do not accrue experience points/levels too quickly, and players don't get in the habit of restarting battles because their favorite unit got plastered, I don't see how this can be regarded as unrealistic. This "campaign" mode is only a half solution however, because basically the battles themselves are still randomly generated and thus do not have any operational-level, or any other, signifigance. In other words, "campaign" applications give more significance to unit casualties, but not to the battles themselves.

An "operational" application is much more involved than a "campaign" application, because it is essentially an entirely seperate game which is integrated with CMX. With operational level maneuver, the battles themselves finally acquire context and significance, and scenarios become much more interesting, with a greater likelihood of mis-matched forces, flank attacks, fighting retreats, last-stand defenses, rear-area raids, supply considerations, direct or indirect impact on future operations, etc. I actually think it will be very difficult to create an "operational" application that is anything close to realistic but think that the CMX battles generated by such an application will much more realistic, and fifty times more interesting, than your average QB. I've basically lost interest in QBs because it's pretty tough to get too excited about the isolated and meaningless battles that they represent, even when the AI puts up a good fight (which is rare enough). I often literally don't care whether or not I win, or whether that platoon in the advanced position which is almost out of ammo can make it back before they're overcome by the attacking hordes.

While I understand (but don't fully agree with) people who argue that developing a campaign/operational application because it will take BFC's time from other things, I don't understand people who argue against a campaign/operational element because it is "unrealistic", and even mock people ("wrong game, go and RTS or something") who ask for a campaign/operational layer. Let's face it, any game, even one as advanced as CMX, is riddled with unrealisitic features, ranging from force balance, fudges introduced by limitations of the game engine (borg spotting, etc.,), excessive use of vehicles rarely seen on the field of battle (Sturmtigers, JS-IIIs), flag rushes, etc. Why single out a campaign/operational layer as an unpardonable "unrealistic" element? On the contrary, I consider the introduction of a campaign/operational layer to be a means of increasing the realism of the battles in CMX.

Finally, regardless of whether a campaign/operational application can be considered "realisitic", many people on this forum have stated that this layer would greatly increase their interest in the game. The sporting analogy made earlier on this thread was good--creating CMX without allowing for the creation of a campaign/operational element is equivalent to creating a football simulation that only allows you to play individual games rather than a whole season. The individual games are technical exercises almost entirely devoid of emotion--you've got a set of resources and you need to command them against the other players resources, and if you win, well, you win and that's it. Ultimately, I don't consider this is either realistic or fun.

76mm

[dw]

This is the first time I have posted here. I have purchased both CMBO and CMBB and found it to be a remarkable representation of WWII combat. I started many years ago on SL and then onto ASL. Like many who started with those games, the Close Combat Series and Steel Panthers were very welcome, but the Battlefront series was really a huge step forward.

However, as much as I think BFS has done right, I believe this wargame needs a campaign component - not because of the high demand from customers, but because it would increase realism in decision making on the "digital" battlefield.

Generally the denisty of units represent about a battalion level conflict. In mangaging a battalion there are a variety of elements that a campaign game would introduce to make decision making more realistic.

1) Attacking Objectives - Decisions to make "final assaults" to achieve objects are quite different in a campaign game. Losing most of your battalion in assualting a position, when you are likely to be on the defensive after the present battle is over is a key decision. Is it worth experienced soldiers to temporarily achieve an important position that you will give up shortly?

2) Use of Troops/Leaders - In a single scenario or opertation you might conclude the action with an assualt with your best troops. In a campaign game you might assess whether the situation warranted risking your best and instead presented an opportunity to use other soldiers/leaders.

A key difference with a campaign game is that there is clear motivation to balance victory points against keeping your guys alive to fight another day.

These items alone create a different and more realistic decision making tree.

Like others I would be more than willing to pay for this as an add-on - even if the cost were the same as a new release.

[Sardaukar]

Very good points, dw, I agree.

Lethality and casualties in CMBO/CMBB is lot higher and more realistic than in most wargames. Thus, in campaign game you'd have to balance sacrificing your best troops to gain objective against need to save them for next battle.

Problem with most campaigns are that your "core force" becomes ither too experienced or too well-equipped..mostly both..that battles become cakewalk. That's the main problem with keeping campaigns intersting.

Cheers,

M.S

[Biltong]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

...

Problem with most campaigns are that your "core force" becomes ither too experienced or too well-equipped..mostly both..that battles become cakewalk. That's the main problem with keeping campaigns intersting.

Hmmm - it does not have to be so. IMHO it simply means the campaign was poorly designed. In the case of CMBB it is quite easy and realistic to increase the difficulty level as time progresses(from the Axis pov).

High casualties (winter/counter offensives) - replacements progressively deteriorating in quality - Allied quality and quantity progressively increasing. No need for boredom to set in at all. Equipment gets better, but on both sides.

In BCR there's also a player experience modifier that kicks you up to a more difficult level if you win too many battles...

Boredom means sloppy design - that's all.