In defense of campaign play: My argument to Moon and other doubters!

[Directive#21]

Moon said:

…a campaign mode is highly unrealistic, and has therefore always been regarded as "not essential" for the game.

I want to differentiate between “realism” and “historical accuracy”. There is no question that the accuracy and detail (i.e. armor thickness, ground pressure, striking velocity etc.) that BTS has provided in CM are basis for it appeal. It’s the reason CM has been my war game of choice for the past 3 ½ years.

Moon said:

…campaigns can be fun. In a "beating the odds" kind of way. Even if it might bend reality a little.

I disagree with this statement emphatically! War gaming is second to my interest in history and I have debated this point endlessly. I would argue the opposite; CM's current game play “can be fun” even if it “bends reality a little”.

In the CM Battle format, both sides commit relatively equal resources, with the goal to achieve some arbitrary locations on a map. CM becomes a game of “capture the flag” in a WWII environment. I can’t think of anything more “unrealistic” without mentioning hoverpacks.

I agree that CM provides the BEST player vs. player experience the genre has to offer. It is the reason a large majority of gamers are attracted to CM and this community. It does not, however, always provide the most accurate tactical combat experience.

Several years ago, Steve used Close Combat 3 as an example to defend BTS’s position on campaigns. The truth is, he was right. Very few war games have implemented a campaign format that achieves historical accuracy. Games like CC3 have created a stigma, which has limited the exploration of campaign play as the next evolutionary step for CM and other tactical war games.

This is particularly frustrating because a war game with the caliber of CM, offers the greatest opportunity to provide a quality campaign experience. Hundreds of CM players using Biltong’s system or participating in Meta campaigns attest to this.

A well-executed campaign system would allow the CM player to take the role of a unit commander on the same organizational scale that is already supported by CM. The player would the command his units through a series of engagements lasting from several weeks to several months depending on the situation.

Considerations like supply, reinforcement, enemy strength etc. dictate elastic objectives.

Example: You are the commander of an armored company with orders to capture a key rail junction in a small town. Intelligence reports indicate limited enemy activity in the area but after several turns initial contact reveals enemy units that are dug-in and reinforced with strong AT capability. Do you commit all of your forces with the prospect of heavy losses when you have limited supply and no reserves? When the temperature is dropping, the roads are covered with ice and snow and Moscow is hundreds of miles away? Knowing that the possibility of a counter attack is high and you may have to fight again tomorrow?

This scenario is the type of game play that campaigns offer! Depth and context, that is realism!

PS. I intend no disrespect to Moon. I appreciate the contribution he has made to BTS and this community over the years. This forum provides the rare opportunity to be heard by the very people whose creative inspiration produced CM. Out of respect for that opportunity, I feel obligated to express my opinion, especially when it is in opposition to the consensus. I hope that I have done so constructively and with respect. I feel very strongly about this topic precisely because I love Combat Mission so much.

regards,

Zach

[ December 20, 2003, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Directive#21 ]

[Ruthless]

Originally posted by Directive#21:

Moon said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />…a campaign mode is highly unrealistic, and has therefore always been regarded as "not essential" for the game.

I want to differentiate between “realism” and “historical accuracy”. There is no question that the accuracy and detail (i.e. armor thickness, ground pressure, striking velocity etc.) that BTS has provided in CM are basis for it appeal. It’s the reason CM has been my war game of choice for the past 3 ½ years.

Moon said:

…campaigns can be fun. In a "beating the odds" kind of way. Even if it might bend reality a little.

I disagree with this statement emphatically! War gaming is second to my interest in history and I have debated this point endlessly. I would argue the opposite; CM's current game play “can be fun” even if it “bends reality a little”.

In the CM Battle format, both sides commit relatively equal resources, with the goal to achieve some arbitrary locations on a map. CM becomes a game of “capture the flag” in a WWII environment. I can’t think of anything more “unrealistic” without mentioning hoverpacks.

I agree that CM provides a BEST player vs. player experience the genre has to offer. It is the reason a large majority of gamers are attracted to CM and this community. It does not, however, always provide the most accurate tactical combat experience.

Several years ago, Steve used Close Combat 3 as an example to defend BTV’s position on campaigns. The truth is, he was right. Very few war games have implemented a campaign format that achieves historical accuracy. Games like CC3 have created a stigma, which has limited the exploration of campaign play as the next evolutionary step for CM and other tactical war games.

This is particularly frustrating because a war game with the caliber of CM, offers the greatest opportunity to provide a quality campaign experience. Hundreds of CM players using Biltong’s system or participating in Meta campaigns attest to this.

A well-executed campaign system would allow the CM player to take the role of a unit commander on the same organizational scale that is already supported by CM. The player would the command his units through a series of engagements lasting from several weeks to several months depending on the situation.

Considerations like supply, reinforcement, enemy strength etc. dictate elastic objectives.

Example: You are the commander of an armored company with orders to capture a key rail junction in a small town. Intelligence reports indicate limited enemy activity in the area but after several turns initial contact reveals enemy units that are dug-in and reinforced with strong AT capability. Do you commit all of your forces with the prospect of heavy losses when you have limited supply and no reserves? When the temperature is dropping, the roads are covered with ice and snow and Moscow is hundreds of miles away? Knowing that the possibility of a counter attack is high and you may have to fight again tomorrow?

This scenario is the type of game play that campaigns offer! Depth and context, that is realism!

PS. I intend no disrespect to Moon. I appreciate the contribution he has made to BTS and this community over the years. This forum provides the rare opportunity to be heard by the very people whose creative inspiration produced CM. Out of respect for that opportunity, I feel obligated to express my opinion, especially when it is in opposition to the consensus. I hope that I have done so constructively and with respect. I feel very strongly about this topic precisely because I love Combat Mission so much.

regards,

Zach </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Ruthless:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Directive#21:

Moon said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />…a campaign mode is highly unrealistic, and has therefore always been regarded as "not essential" for the game.

I want to differentiate between “realism” and “historical accuracy”. There is no question that the accuracy and detail (i.e. armor thickness, ground pressure, striking velocity etc.) that BTS has provided in CM are basis for it appeal. It’s the reason CM has been my war game of choice for the past 3 ½ years.

Moon said:

…campaigns can be fun. In a "beating the odds" kind of way. Even if it might bend reality a little.

I disagree with this statement emphatically! War gaming is second to my interest in history and I have debated this point endlessly. I would argue the opposite; CM's current game play “can be fun” even if it “bends reality a little”.

In the CM Battle format, both sides commit relatively equal resources, with the goal to achieve some arbitrary locations on a map. CM becomes a game of “capture the flag” in a WWII environment. I can’t think of anything more “unrealistic” without mentioning hoverpacks.

I agree that CM provides a BEST player vs. player experience the genre has to offer. It is the reason a large majority of gamers are attracted to CM and this community. It does not, however, always provide the most accurate tactical combat experience.

Several years ago, Steve used Close Combat 3 as an example to defend BTV’s position on campaigns. The truth is, he was right. Very few war games have implemented a campaign format that achieves historical accuracy. Games like CC3 have created a stigma, which has limited the exploration of campaign play as the next evolutionary step for CM and other tactical war games.

This is particularly frustrating because a war game with the caliber of CM, offers the greatest opportunity to provide a quality campaign experience. Hundreds of CM players using Biltong’s system or participating in Meta campaigns attest to this.

A well-executed campaign system would allow the CM player to take the role of a unit commander on the same organizational scale that is already supported by CM. The player would the command his units through a series of engagements lasting from several weeks to several months depending on the situation.

Considerations like supply, reinforcement, enemy strength etc. dictate elastic objectives.

Example: You are the commander of an armored company with orders to capture a key rail junction in a small town. Intelligence reports indicate limited enemy activity in the area but after several turns initial contact reveals enemy units that are dug-in and reinforced with strong AT capability. Do you commit all of your forces with the prospect of heavy losses when you have limited supply and no reserves? When the temperature is dropping, the roads are covered with ice and snow and Moscow is hundreds of miles away? Knowing that the possibility of a counter attack is high and you may have to fight again tomorrow?

This scenario is the type of game play that campaigns offer! Depth and context, that is realism!

PS. I intend no disrespect to Moon. I appreciate the contribution he has made to BTS and this community over the years. This forum provides the rare opportunity to be heard by the very people whose creative inspiration produced CM. Out of respect for that opportunity, I feel obligated to express my opinion, especially when it is in opposition to the consensus. I hope that I have done so constructively and with respect. I feel very strongly about this topic precisely because I love Combat Mission so much.

regards,

Zach </font>

[markl]

A campaign mode would be nice as long as it is only an extension to what is already available.

One thing I do not like about some campaigns is the necessity to get codes or finish one part to see the next. For people with little time this can mean not seeing all that you paid for, or the possibility of the hated cheat’s cods to see the maps.

I would like to see a campaign mode using the existing maps used for single scenarios with possible different forces etc.

That way every one gets the best value out of the game, and value is one thing we currently get out of this game. No matter how good or how bad the player is, the player has access to all the features of the game. Nothing has to be earned.

CM is the best value for money in a game I have seen so far and suits the majority of players I would guess.

I am sure the developers will get a good balance next time around.

[Salkin]

I'd like to see some form of dynamic campaign where the war around your immediate area and where and how you steer your troops impact resupply of men and units.

I don't need it to be super realistic, for instance the resupply doesn't have to be ammo and fuel.

It could be points that you buy replacement for the men/armour you lost.

I want to feel that I make a difference in the campaign. I don't want to go on some predestined rail to the end of the war where it happens exactly as in the history books.

This is a real stretch for the reality grogs out there but I think it might be alot of fun.

Using the QB generator to generate the terrain for the battles should free up lots of time for programmers and it would keep the campaign fresh.

What do you think ?

//Salkin

[Moon]

No need to defend Campaign play, Zach, because it's not like we're totally against it.

The reason why there is no campaign play (as people know it from other games) in CM is not due to one single factor (e.g. realism issues), but due to a combination of issues. Realism (or lack of it) is only one of those issues, and in fact one of the last and least important ones in a long chain. As I tried to explain in another thread, other priorities were set by us during development, because they were more important (and we still stand by our decision for CM1-3) to get the tactical simulation right.

Those priorities might shift in the future as we're able to take stuff we learned from CM1-3 and implement it, with new additions, in future titles.

BTW, you said: "In the CM Battle format, both sides commit relatively equal resources, with the goal to achieve some arbitrary locations on a map. CM becomes a game of “capture the flag” in a WWII environment. I can’t think of anything more “unrealistic” without mentioning hoverpacks."

This is simply not true. It totally depends on how people play their scenarios. I like playing QBs against the AI with vastly unequal resources on imported maps without flags. I like defending against an AI several times stronger than me, using QBs and the import feature to connect several battles for example.

CM allows you to fight heavily unbalanced games - it's the only reason why we have the "Axis/Allied Bonus Points" feature in there - to allow unbalanced scenarios. So if you're saying that a lot of people are playing CM in an unrealistic way, then yes, I agree.

But be it as is, this kind of argument ("this and this is unrealistic because it's a game, so let's add other stuff that's unrealistic") does not, has not and will never work with us to add anything to future installations.

One final comment; you said: "This forum provides the rare opportunity to be heard by the very people whose creative inspiration produced CM. Out of respect for that opportunity, I feel obligated to express my opinion, especially when it is in opposition to the consensus. I hope that I have done so constructively and with respect."

And this is precisely why this forum is here. And we value the contribution, as it allows us to make better games. Your previous post about this issue was... different than this one.

As for what others said - all good points. Believe it or not, it's not easy to make a good campaign system. I can think of a number of games which got it terribly wrong. Balancing is one of the key words here - the balance between fun and realism; really, it's the same thing that we try to achieve with the entire game concept and execution.

Give us some time and extend a little trust - we have a few surprises up our sleeves.

Martin

[_Axe_]

Originally posted by Moon:

we have a few surprises up our sleeves.

I hate surprises. Tell me now.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I am a big fan of the idea of being able to set each CM battle/operation in greater context. For me, this is the key. What I would really like to see is this, similar to what was mentioned above.

My dream is for BFC to design a full feature operational game that can be played to its conclusion, if you wished. However, where one can also “zoom down in scale”, for any given contact, and fight the battle as a CM game, if the players wished. The program being very like the Quick Battle program but taking the parameters for a given battle from the Operational game. Units, terrain and such.

Sadly, I realise this is very unlike to happen. BFC are a very small company and man hours are limited. A computerised version of Squad Leader was always my number one dream and BFC do that to a standard that still stuns and shocks me years later. CM is in a stratosphere apart from all other wargames… in my view.

However… what I am hoping for is that Moon and co will give us fans of campaigns a helping hand by making one or two changes to the file format. The really big request is that units should be saved separately such that they can be re-launched in a new game with a new map. That is when you save a game; the units file is separate and can then be married to another map in the editor and edited in the usual way.

This single feature, but I admit a fundamental change from Charles’ point of view, would make it possible for groups of chums to run their own private campaigns with ease. At the moment the lack of an ability to edit saved games makes running campaigns a very complex and time consuming operation.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Simply from an intellectual point of view Moon and co. may find it fun to spend six-nine months designing a genuine operational game that could be married to CMX2. Something along the lines of a simultaneous resolution Panzer Campaigns/ John Tiller style game but just in 2D. Sold separately… as an add on. If they did do that… I think a huge percentage of their CM customers would buy it. Not just the CM addicts like me.

PPS. When it comes to simultaneous resolution and war games BFC were indeed correct, and the doubter wrong. So I do trust BFC… but like all other fans am always very keen to know what they are up to.

[Ruthless]

Originally posted by Moon:

No need to defend Campaign play, Zach, because it's not like we're totally against it.

The reason why there is no campaign play (as people know it from other games) in CM is not due to one single factor (e.g. realism issues), but due to a combination of issues. Realism (or lack of it) is only one of those issues, and in fact one of the last and least important ones in a long chain. As I tried to explain in another thread, other priorities were set by us during development, because they were more important (and we still stand by our decision for CM1-3) to get the tactical simulation right.

Those priorities might shift in the future as we're able to take stuff we learned from CM1-3 and implement it, with new additions, in future titles.

BTW, you said: "In the CM Battle format, both sides commit relatively equal resources, with the goal to achieve some arbitrary locations on a map. CM becomes a game of “capture the flag” in a WWII environment. I can’t think of anything more “unrealistic” without mentioning hoverpacks."

This is simply not true. It totally depends on how people play their scenarios. I like playing QBs against the AI with vastly unequal resources on imported maps without flags. I like defending against an AI several times stronger than me, using QBs and the import feature to connect several battles for example.

CM allows you to fight heavily unbalanced games - it's the only reason why we have the "Axis/Allied Bonus Points" feature in there - to allow unbalanced scenarios. So if you're saying that a lot of people are playing CM in an unrealistic way, then yes, I agree.

But be it as is, this kind of argument ("this and this is unrealistic because it's a game, so let's add other stuff that's unrealistic") does not, has not and will never work with us to add anything to future installations.

One final comment; you said: "This forum provides the rare opportunity to be heard by the very people whose creative inspiration produced CM. Out of respect for that opportunity, I feel obligated to express my opinion, especially when it is in opposition to the consensus. I hope that I have done so constructively and with respect."

And this is precisely why this forum is here. And we value the contribution, as it allows us to make better games. Your previous post about this issue was... different than this one.

As for what others said - all good points. Believe it or not, it's not easy to make a good campaign system. I can think of a number of games which got it terribly wrong. Balancing is one of the key words here - the balance between fun and realism; really, it's the same thing that we try to achieve with the entire game concept and execution.

Give us some time and extend a little trust - we have a few surprises up our sleeves.

Martin

Just wanted to comment on this:

(1) I agree that a campaign system is probably one of the more difficult things you could add to CM--might even warrant a separate release just to add something like that without other major changes (In this case, I'm not speaking of just adding hooks for the community--that should be fairly easy; I'm talking about implementing the campaign system yourselves.)

(2) I agree with BFC's focus so far. BFC team is so small that they can't get overly ambitious with each release--and this is a good policy because none of your titles end up half-finished in some way or buggy. I'm glad you chose to focus on tactical part first and you've done a credible job separating it from the operational/strategic. Of course, now that the tactical engine is pretty good (still could use work, as we all know), might be time to work on modelling how the battle affects the war

(3) The problem with playing unbalanced scenarios is that most people would not be satisfied getting a few shots off, then getting overrun or routed, but relying on bonus points to make up the difference. Most players look for a "balanced" (which usually means ahistorical) scenario. However, with the inclusion of a campaign system, perhaps if the player knows he/she must conserve their forces and that they will fight again will be motivation to play more unbalanced (historical) scenarios. If one has higher-level concerns, then they might not mind trying to make do with a lot fewer troops. Just a theory.

(4) Glad to hear you guys are considering it! Now that you let that piece of info out, would you mind telling us what the next theatre/time frame will be?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Ruthless wrote,

“(3) The problem with playing unbalanced scenarios is that most people would not be satisfied getting a few shots off, then getting overrun or routed, but relying on bonus points to make up the difference. Most players look for a "balanced" (which usually means ahistorical) scenario. However, with the inclusion of a campaign system, perhaps if the player knows he/she must conserve their forces and that they will fight again will be motivation to play more unbalanced (historical) scenarios. If one has higher-level concerns, then they might not mind trying to make do with a lot fewer troops. Just a theory.”

Exactly, setting battles/scenarios in their context is of huge importance as an incentive to people to play, and enjoy playing, in a truly historical style, i.e. the real world absolute importance of force preservation in nine out of ten engagements.

The briefings in scenarios and operations do give some context, but nothing like a quality operational game or system would.

CMX2 first, then six to nine months to build a quality operational add on would be great. Hopefully, fun for the guys at BFC too as it would be something new and different.

All the best,

Kip.

[Urban Shocker]

I am in 100% agreement with Kip on campaigns. Including things like supply or lack there of and opportunity cost decisions at larger scales and then fighting out the tactical battles on CM would be groundbreaking and fabulous and enriching and interesting and so on.

Truthfully, I would take anything on the campaign front. Once the ball gets rolling...

Personally, I don't care at all about dynamic lighting (whatever the hell that is?!) and other eye candy issues or even (gasp) that the wrong MG bitmap is sometimes used! My main interest is the thought process and application of military strategy and tactics without getting shot myself! Do I appreciate the great leap forward made in the war game genre by CM...oh yes!...but I think a good number of us are looking for the next great leap forward and not a series of tweaky add-ons.

Carry on, BFC! Job well done!

[Haohmaru]

I would love to see some kind of campaign system. At the moment I'm involved with the Onion Wars Campaign and it's incredibly fun, because the battles that you fight affect the big picture, and you are playing not for yourself but for a whole team of players. At the moment the way CM is you play a battle and you either win, lose or draw, which is fun in itself but doesn't really mean very much apart from boasting rights. A campaign system which affects a bigger picture, and where a poor performance can really set you back in later battles would be great. But there are different things people want I guess, do we want a campaign where we fight battles over a larger map with our results affecting control (ala Onion Wars)? Do we want a campaign where we lead a group of soldiers through the entire war, not really making a difference but just trying to survive (ala Biltong's Campaign Rules)? Some kind of combination of those two things? Is this campaign idea just to spice up single player mode or is it to improve multiplayer too? The fact that all these variations on the way CM is played exist out there just shows how much devotion its fans have for the game, but like someone else said, they probably can't make everyone happy. But whatever BFC can do to expand the way it is played would be greatly appreciated I think.

[Sirocco]

I hope this thread has underlined the popularity of expanding operation and campaign play.

[MeatEtr]

Ok, i'll try this thread with my question.

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

Hmm, am i missing something here, QB's with no flags. Everytime i try and load up a flagless map into QB, it automatically places flags. Am i doing something wrong? :confused:

P.S. Yeah i agree with everybody else here. We need some kind of campaign system in the big ole engine rewrite.

[First Mate Detrius]

Keep it up boys!

Allready looking forward to next CM

[Moon]

MeatEtr, you're not missing anything. The flags are automatically placed depending on Battle Type. I simply ignore them.

Martin