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

[Bruce70]

There are a lot of knockers of the CC series and rightly so. Personally I only played the first 3 after which I became completely disatisfied with the series. The first 2 of those, however, were quite good IMO, especially CC2. The campaign in CC2 was very, very good.

It didn't cover the whole war and that was probably one of its strong points. It did cover several mini-fronts and that kept the game interesting since you had to juggle resources betweeen the fronts. IMO something like this would work very well in CM.

An alternative campaign for CM would follow the career of a *single* officer throughout the war. This is in no way unrealistic and could even be based on the career of an actual WW2 officer. Obviously you would start off at a low rank and build your way up. A little bit of fudging may be required to make sure that you dont end up commanding too many troops. Also in the early part of the war you could still be involved in large battles by having the AI handle most of the friendlies with you giving orders to your platoon only. Furthermore a Coy CO should in general only be able to issue orders to his platoons not to individual sections/squads.

I think many people would find either of these two campaign options to be very enjoyable and no more unrealistic than any other aspect of the game.

[JunoReactor]

I am in total support of the idea. Even though the question has arisen intermittently over the years, so has the game kept evolving. I do not pretend to know the arguments arguing for the game's 'scope' but I can safely say this:

I think any of the two installments in the CM series so far could have been, and further games will be, better games with the addition of a so-called campaign.

The choice is ultimately the artist's. The moment it becomes the market's, CM will already have begun its decline.

[ April 15, 2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: JunoReactor ]

[OBJ]

Hi guys.

I'm a long term lurker, but couldn't resist throwning in my two sense on the CM campaign issue.

Probably nothing new here, but at least I'll keep the thread going. Maybe BFC will change their minds.

Scale: Not sure what all the discussion on strategic and operational levels is about. In my experience 'campaigns' for tactical level games allow the player to influence and follow a specific group of units' experiences from a player set start to end date. Unless the results of each tactical engagement influence the course of history in the game, there's nothing strategic or operational about it.

Realism: The added dimension of responsibility for long term unit viability a campaign feature brings to the game, increases realism. Near as I can tell, there are no last turn flag rushes in Iraq, nor is there a lack of consequences for sacrificing units to meet immediate objectives. I imagine the same was true in WWII.

Feature trade offs: I would like more realistic modeling of indirect fires and close air support, and I REALLY would like to see relative spotting. If I had to make a choice, I'd vote for the relative spotting first, then the campaign, then the improved indirect and close air support modeling.

Having been a combat arms officer, I know you don't stay with combat troops for long if you repeatedly get your unit wiped out, especially not if you're the only one that survives. On the other hand, commanders that repeatedly accomplish their mission while keeping their unit intact, do create units that are essentially elite at their level. These units typically are favored with first dibs on new equipment and replacements, and tend to be assigned the tough missions precisely because of their proven capability.

I'm a builder, and would enjoy the opportunity to follow a core group of units through a series of engagements spanning major campaigns, if not the whole war, just to see if I could be one of those officers everyone that serves with universally looks up to and respects for their proven ability to accomplish the tough missions and bring their units through.

Other than a campaign feature, I can't see a way to do that in CM.

IMHO best case is a built in feature, second best is more tools/flexibility to support campaign designers. Bitlong and his crew have done a fantastic job with what's currently available in CMBB.

tootle loo, past my bed time.

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Biltong:

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.

I should have said, "problem in most games with campaigns is".. That is the beauty of CMBB, since campaign can be be easily adjusted and in realistic way too. I agree that uninteresting campaigns are poorly designed, but in most games, they didn't have tools compared to CMBB. BCR is very good if not excellent, I have a campaign going on, especially now when Biltaid is going strong Now if I could just keep my forces intact

Problem with BCR has been the bookeeping stuff. If it's done manually, rules gets so confusing (while realistic) that it takes so much time to plot next combat. BiltAid had remedied lot of that, and BCRAV has brought another dimension into it

Maybe I'll get my BCR(Tank Commander Variant) ready someday For infantry guy I like tanks too much

Cheers,

M.S.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by 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.....

:confused: Edit forces in QB: Why not using the Editor with BCR Map Pack. All you say is already done by many in BCR campaign.

:confused: Automatic bookkeeping: Why not using BiltAid Java tool. It does all the calculations and it is ALMOST rules v2.2 complaint: I need to add the rule to determine whether CO is dead after his unit has suffered casualties.

[ April 16, 2003, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Seahawk-vfa201 ]

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by 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.

:confused: Ever heard of the Editor????? Ever heard of BCR Campaing, ever heard of BiltAid java tool?

I think the answers to those questions are: NO, NO, and NO

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by 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.

It is called BiltAid, it is in Java and constitutes the interface and calculations of BCR Campaign rules. Deos exactly what you say.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by 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.

A workaround is to use the Editor, exists since CMBO, works as well in CMBB, and it is used by many in Billtong Campaign Rules (look for the thread for more). BCR come along with a Map Pack (not to play silly QB generated maps), historical packs (locations and dates).

So this does exist already since long time but requires some effort. I guess you all guys could spend some time in the Biltong thread, asks few questions, download the rules and the Java tool for automatic bookkeeping, use the editor to import maps and units and set evolving experience and ammo levels, set names for units, upgrade units themselves, etc etc related to what happened to previous battles.

Essentially what you ask is the integration of something like BiltAid and the Biltong Rules physically INTO CMBB.

It won't happen. BUT, big but, the availability of the Editor in CMBB (was in CMBO as well) make this possible already, if you wish. Some BCR players are already in 1942 battles.

I am currently fighting the Kiev historical map packs (5 battles) from 14 September 1941 till the fall of Kiev 4 days later).

I do not think CM will come with something like BCR and BiltAid built-in.

[ April 16, 2003, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Seahawk-vfa201 ]

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by 76mm:

[...]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.

[...]

76mm

This aspect is being covered with the addition of historical packages. When the BCR campaign gets you in the time period of an historical battle you have the option to participate or not and play realistic settings. These battle will have (rules at work) special results outcomes enticing the player to participate to achieve goals and/or upgrades of the Battle Group not possible with just playing the regular battles.

If you guys in here have ideas, please do contribute. BCR is really growing into a very nice add-on to CMBB.

Cheers

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by 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

You should ask players involved in the BCR Campaign if their Battle Group becomes too experienced too fast. Quite the contrary. Moreover, rules are such that if you win too easily and too many times things get tougher and tougher so to get back to square one if you just assume you may walk the field and overrun the enemy.

Many times it happens you loose a veteran unit which took you some 15 battles to achieve and get conscript replacements in place. :mad:

And worst if you let your CO die on the battle field. You most surely end up with youngblood which will ruin your days for battles to come.

[ April 16, 2003, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Seahawk-vfa201 ]

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Sorry if I stated the obvious and repeated what was already said by some. It happened I had 20 min of spare time, read the whole thread and replied to points starting from page 1

Anyway, it looks there will be more BCR and BiltAid customers soon

[ April 16, 2003, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Seahawk-vfa201 ]

[Caesar]

Originally posted by Seahawk-vfa201

Ever heard of the Editor????? Ever heard of BCR Campaing, ever heard of BiltAid java tool?

I think the answers to those questions are: NO, NO, and NO

Actually the answers are yes, yes and yes (though I have only recently heard of Biltaid and have yet to down load it). Has it ever occurred to you that while Biltongs rules are a great idea and they fulfil the wants of many gamers, they may not actually provide the answers to all. Have you really read all of the above posts. Many of the wants are not provided for by Biltongs rules.

It seems to me that there are a lot of people involved with this game that are willing and able to put a lot of work into creating very good campaign systems that will provide endless pleasure to campaigners of all ilks. The addition of an API or the like will make these projects radically simpler, more robust and cleaner to use. I do not suggest that BFC try to retrofit one into the old engine, only that they consider it for the new engine.

What I don't understand is the vehemence of some of the opposition to the idea. If the API or file export/import interfaces are considered in the original design, they are not a massive amount of work.

[ April 16, 2003, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: Caesar ]

[Screeny]

My 2 cents on the subject:

IMHO the main reason for the "cry" for a campaign functionality lies in the the fact that a lot of "End game rushes" and Suicidal use of units is still an issue in Combat Mission. Even with the "Random end turn generator option" in CMBB players still can use suicidal tactics in one or the other way (for example having run a relative cheap unit doing the squad work etc). Some people consider this gamey, but there are enough threats and posts on the subject on gameyness.

In the light of this subject the follwoing statement can be made:

Tactical engagements, as we play in CM, in the real world could differ tremendiously....On the one extreme side orders for a tactical unit such as a battalion or company could be: advance untill enemy contact, stay put figure out what you are facing and report back to higher command unto the other extreme: assault and take that hill at all costs!!!

basically all solo PBEM and TCP/IP games in CM are leaning towards the latter extreme, due to the fact there is 1 or more flags on the map that should be captured. Ofcourse the flags are more or less a kind of modelling of strategic locations, yet we all run for the flag more or less.

The cry for campaign mode is in my opinion an outlet for the fact that CM is on a tactical pretty realistc as we can have a game nowadys (despite the soem issues like borg spotting etc) but on a higher operational and/or strategic level the game is pretty one track minded: capture the flag.

Note on my self: I tend to play sometimes pretty realistic...if i notice the enemy force is too strong or the opponent is just to good for me I don't even try to capture the flags anymore or at leats not all te flags. i focus on 1 flag (most of the time the smallest isolated one figuring my opponent will go for the two big ones) even if I loose according to the CM game rules I consider it a win for myself knowing that it was the best i could have done in that specific circumstances. Even if I could have capture all te flags at extreme heavy costs I don't do that. Some how I try to play with having as low number of casulaties myself.

In other words: I more or less fantasies or imagine the bigger picture of what the tactical engagement is part of !!! And I think this is what we want a campaignlike mode in CM.

Now there are two kind of campaignmodes:

1) the Panzer general kind of mode. Many other games have this kind of campaign mode, despite the differences of the games the basic idea of the camapign is the CORE units that move on form battle to battle. This kind of campaign is the one that is most critised by hardcore Combat Mission players: it is not realistic in the sense that the same bunch of guys actually can survive all the all. Secondly it is very highly suicidal mission sensitive using the auxillary units (the NOT Core units) as the recon and "strumtroopers". In my opinion this kind of campaign is NOT suitable for combat mission.

2) The other camapign mode appeals to the lack strategic/operational settings of a tatctiacal battle as mentioned above. This are the kind of campaigns that are numerueos played on the web, in which a number of players play a kind of RPG with a team of Game masters running the show. This kind of campaign is very suitable for combat mission. tatctical battles reallly make sense no more suicide missions loosing 50% of your men, because you will need them the next battle again, so battles are fought more realisticaly. The BIG problem is as mentioned in another post is the fact that it takes a lot of time and energy to run such a show. A team of Game masters is required. Despite the fact there is a good tool liek COCAT for such campaigns it is tsill a big bunch of work. IMHO a good capamign tool could be created including COCAT kind of tool, a forum kind of communication tool etcetc. All in order to make all the tracking and decision making of the GM's easier and automated as much as possible. Ideal would be a overlapping game "on top" of Combat Mission. For example (just an idea how it COULD look like) is a operatioanl game where the player can move tactical unist on a mop, make his OoB's, give arty orders and orgainse supply trains etc. When tatcical units actually engage each other the battle wll be fought in CM, with the parameters settings derived from the higher level game status. Well actuaaly just as all the online campaign but then automated in a game.

Well like said I guess the latter kind of campaign mode would be very suitable for CM, question is only whether it is commercially enough to e developed.....

I sure hope so!

gr

Screeny

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by Caesar:

Originally posted by Seahawk-vfa201

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Ever heard of the Editor????? Ever heard of BCR Campaing, ever heard of BiltAid java tool?

I think the answers to those questions are: NO, NO, and NO

Actually the answers are yes, yes and yes (though I have only recently heard of Biltaid and have yet to down load it). Has it ever occurred to you that while Biltongs rules are a great idea and they fulfil the wants of many gamers, they may not actually provide the answers to all. Have you read all of the above posts. Many of the wants are not provided for by Biltongs rules.

</font>

[Seahawk-vfa201]

This said,

I was not against what you said.

[ April 16, 2003, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: Seahawk-vfa201 ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I think it all comes down to a wish to set CM games in context. BFC may enjoy taking six months out to build an Operational game that could be married to the next generation CM games. It may be fun for them to have a go at something on a different scale. I do not know.

However, I am as confident as one can be without actually “knowing” that the Units file will be able to be Saved separately and therefore launched separately in the Editor. This alone would be a massive step towards being able to build quality operations/campaigns easily. My guess is that the Map file will also be separate as this would allow the use of the same maps in all sorts of games/operations. It would be rational to separate out the Units and Maps files and be able to launch them in the Editor; hence my guess is it will happen.

Time will tell. But one way or another I believe it will be a lot easier to construct campaigns/operations with the new engine. Remember, BFC are out to keep us all happy. If small changes like separate Units and Map files would help, they will not exclude the features just to annoy us.

All the best,

Kip.

[benpark]

Good posts Screeny and Kip. Really the main frustration is the ability to import troops as we do maps at this point.

Other than that, the community at large (In no small part through the efforts of Biltong and his elves and nefarious associates) has managed to fill the gap for this addition about as well as any campaign I have ever played-and probably more in depth. Having an amazing platform from which to work like CMBB helps, too.

[Biltong]

Have faith friends – over the years I’ve noticed that BFC don’t say much, but they do listen and they have a propensity to surprise us – time and again…

[Bruce70]

They [bFC] answered NO so many time they do not answer anymore.

If this is true (and I am not yet ready to believe that it is) then they should at least create an FAQ or something explaining their position.

There is another option for those that want a campaign mode and that is to look towards other games. I am not that loyal to CM that I am not prepared to consider the oposition. CM filled a niche in the market and filled it extremely well, now they must be prepared to consider new ideas.

There are sound strategic reasons why BFC will not make the editor practically open source as some are suggesting. But I have not heard any reasonable argument why they should not consider a campaign option (not necessarily the Panzer General type) for CMX2.

[dw]

Screeny - I agree that those are the two likely methods of setting up a campaign environment. The Panzer General idea of campaign was intended for fun, not realism. I do think that the standard that CMBO has established for a focus for realism should be kept in place for all spects of the wargame.

A campaign game should refelct that realism. You are a battlion commander. Most of the time you will be fighting with your battalion. There are times when an external unit might be added to help you in a particular situation, and certainly there would be times when you have access to both off-board artillery and air support - but most of the time it would be just the battlion you have as your only unit(s).

Replacements and upgrades should be done as they historically might have occured. If you are a German commander late in the war and suffer severe losses - you are likely to be stuck. If you are not a Guards or SS unit - getting the biggest and the best is less likely. If you are a Russian in the early part of the war the chances of getting soldiers with minimal weapons is higher.

Since most units are likely to take losses, the mix of replacements versus veterans will balance out experience - some units may avoid extensive losses, so some units will be better, but a commander is likely to have a mix. The leadership might be different - a loss of an experienced company commander could change things dramatically - and hopefully you have a good platoon compander to take over.

All of this items I think would greatly enhance the game - and given BFS remarkable (and very much appreciated) focus on being accurate - I think they could really present the complexity of tactical decision making and command that would both increase the enjoyability of the game, and create another jump in quality similiar to the jump from Close Combat to CMBB.

[Robert Olesen]

Aah, the old campaign subject again

I actually went ahead and did a Panzer General type of campaign, obviously because I think it is worthwhile. I do not expect BTS to support that project, however, nor do I expect them to program something like this themselves.

My main reason for making this campaign is that I expect to have a lot of fun using it. And ofc. have fun making it

I fully realize that it is not in any way a realistic simulation of what happened to a unit during the east front war. I'm using the simulation aspect of MBB to expand on the gaming aspect. Nothing wrong with that IMO, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.

The only reason I can think of for BTS to do such a thing would be to sell more games to the mass market. Frankly, I'm glad that they seem to prioritise the simulation aspect instead. he suggestions to provide some export (and possibly import) facilities are good though, provided they don't take up too many of the scarce programming resources.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Seahawk-vfa201:

It would be sad if BCR went from a "way to play a campaign while waiting for BFC" to an "excuse why BFC doesn't need to do a campaign."

Aaron

[Biltong]

Originally posted by Aaron:

...It would be sad if BCR went from a "way to play a campaign while waiting for BFC" to an "excuse why BFC doesn't need to do a campaign."

Aaron

Well – I for one hope BFC never provides a campaign. It gives me strange pleasant feeling in my nether regions knowing I’m burdening hundreds? of guys with hours of non-sensical paperwork. Just a pity Seahawk has brought out his Biltaid program and automated the whole bloody thing… Takes away half the tingling feeling

[ April 22, 2003, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Biltong ]

[Snowbart]

Must have a campaign in CMAK!!!!!

Adds tons of depth to a great game.

BCR rocks if you like that sort of thing. I personally love working on the Battle Group sheets and keeping track of my men.

Biltong and Seahawk have done a ton of work already towards a computer simulated campaign, so I think some of the hard work has been done.

[Snowbart]

Yes Biltong, I really have no desire to use this Biltaid program I here about....I kinda like doing the paperwork for the fights. Of course at the start, and hell, you know I'm still asking you questions, I never thought I'd start doing it b/c it looked very intimidating.

Without BCR, I wouldn't be playing this game 10% as much as I am now.

I guess the bottom line is a campaign feature on CMAK would be cool, if it done right, but it doesn't really matter too much. I mean we're all going to buy it anyway, and play it till our eyes hurt There are people like Biltong who write these great games so us campaigners can get our fill of the good stuff. :cool: