Campaign ???

[wolle]

CM 1-3 is a very good and exciting game!

But i have one question:

"Why is there no campaign mode ?"

I think it could be a more better game with a mode in which you must choose your troops and then fight one battle after battle.

[Robert Olesen]

I didn't call those shots, but as I understand it there is no campaign mode because the developers wished to spend their efforts on other issues (better AI, more vehicles, more realism etc.).

I don't know whether they actually disapprove of the campaign concept (they might), but I can understand the priority issue.

This topic has been debated several times in the past, I guess mostly in the CMBO forum and also to some extent in the CMBB forum. A search should bring up something, though it's probably a time consuming task to filter out the interesting parts.

That said, there is a campaign as I have made one. It should be just what you're looking for. But you may know that. Check my sig.

My campaing is currently for CMBB, but I'm working on a CMAK version together with a few others. Check this thread

[ December 18, 2003, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Robert Olesen ]

[Salkin]

The possibility of a campaign will be looked into in the next CM (CMx or whatever they call it these days ).

//Salkin

[AstroCat]

Man, I hope so...I think a campaign mode would take the cm games in to another whole level of immersion and fun! Here's to hopeing!

Jordan "AstroCat"

[86smopuim]

As mentioned abov ether eare several Meta Campaigns, out sid ethe CM engine itself

ROQC, listed above(single Player)

Biltongs Campaign Rules(single player)

the very serious, multi player

CMMC2, http://www.cmmc2.org/forums/

and the very not serious Onion Wars, multi player

http://www.onionwars.net/

All of these are CMBB campaigns(at this time)

[Sirocco]

A QB operation option would be great, as would a QB campaign option. I have no confidence either will actually be implemented, though.

[Robert Olesen]

It would be great if it was, but making a single player campaign is a lot of work. I'm sure Scarhead and Biltong will agree to that. A meta campaign is probably also a lot of work, though I haven't tried it. But I guess a single player campaign would be the most obvious one to implement.

Originally posted by Salkin

The possibility of a campaign will be looked into in the next CM (CMx or whatever they call it these days ).

Salkin, forgive me for being so ignorant, but what is your official status in relation to BFC? In other words, what gives you the authority to present that statement?

[Moon]

Originally posted by wolle:

CM 1-3 is a very good and exciting game!

But i have one question:

"Why is there no campaign mode ?"

I think it could be a more better game with a mode in which you must choose your troops and then fight one battle after battle.

There is no campaign mode because a campaign mode has been very very low on our list of priorities when making Combat Mission. It is a sad reality that games do not get developed in a vaccum, but every little thing takes time, and adding one feature means that other features have to be deleted off the list. A campaign mode is a MAJOR feature, at least if done right, and would have meant MAJOR shortcuts in other areas of the game. How about if we'd have shipped CM with half the units?

Additional to that, a campaign mode is highly unrealistic, and has therefore always been regarded as "not essential" for the game. With CMBO and CMBB we were perfecting the simulation aspects of tactical 3D combat (and it's maybe easy to forget, but just to remind everyone - before CMBO there was NO SUCH THING as 3D tactical combat that was halfway realistic; and some would maybe say that there still isn't ), so naturally a campaign system was low priority.

Priorities *might* change somewhat with the new engine, now that we have a good grip on the backbone of the simulation (physics, ballistics and so on), but it still remains to be seen.

Martin

[Kozure]

Originally posted by Moon:

*snip* Additional to that, a campaign mode is highly unrealistic, and has therefore always been regarded as "not essential" for the game. With CMBO and CMBB we were perfecting the simulation aspects of tactical 3D combat (and it's maybe easy to forget, but just to remind everyone - before CMBO there was NO SUCH THING as 3D tactical combat that was halfway realistic; and some would maybe say that there still isn't ), so naturally a campaign system was low priority. *snip*

*humbly supplicates, high-numbered forum nOOb cap in hand*

Ummm... if you please, sir? A campaign mode is highly unrealistic?

I assume by that you mean that campaign modes as they are typically presented are unrealistic?

Fighting in a campaign, with the same group of units through a series of connected battles, I thought was the major experience of most ground forces in real life.

Sure, they didn't see quite as intense or as prolonged action as depicted in movies, but reading the battle diary of any unit I've come across, they sure seem like the campaign I would envision something like CM to have, if CM put resources in that direction...

[Moon]

Yes, a campaign mode as they are typically represented (or requested), i.e. involving hand-picking of one's forces and fighting from the beginning of the War right down to downtown Berlin while keeping the same troops who rise from green to elite troopers in the process.

A more realistic campaign mode is represented by CM's "operations".

Martin

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Kozure:

Sure, they didn't see quite as intense or as prolonged action as depicted in movies, but reading the battle diary of any unit I've come across, they sure seem like the campaign I would envision something like CM to have, if CM put resources in that direction...

Doing a realistic campaign requires very specific data concerning particular units. In Steel Panthers you could play fantasy type campaigns with the weirdest types of unit compositions sticking together (like engineers and Panzer III's). Over time units would be upgraded, but how, was up to the player. So a player could change part of those PzIII's to Panthers and the other part to Brumbärs. On the upside, SP type system allows greater freedom for the player. On the downside, it is absolute fantasy.

The other way is to take the choice away from the player and stick to historical OOB's, like was done in the East Front series. The problem here comes with all the extra work required, as you'd have to put in the data on a specific unit.

Or then you could have short campaigns which would last a month at most. In that case it wouldn't be so unrealistic to assume that there is this ad hoc task force formed of various bits and pieces available, and you don't have to trace any changes in TO&E. In a sense, it would be a computer-generated operation, which I am all for.

But I have to admit that of all the generated campaign systems that I've seen in computer games, none have been really good. In Steel Panthers the long campaign sucks, fighting against the AI doesn't offer any excitement in the long run. I much prefer playing hand-made scenarios. In any case you have to put in a lot of effort to design and implement a good campaign system, effort that could be put into better use to improve the actual game that we all play.

I've said this before, but to reiterate: I'd like some serious improvements be made regarding the operation scenarios. These, if improved and refined, could fulfill a lot of the needs here. There should be operations on single big maps as well as on smaller separate maps.

Another thing I suggest would be allowing exporting and importing AAR data for third-party campaign programs (or hand-written if the format is documented well enough). The program writes CM a file for creating a certain kind of battle, then after the battle CM exports a file that tells the program what happened and what losses were taken and so on. It would take some extra programming effort from BFC, yes, but less than if BFC had to design and implement a campaign system. At least it is more realistic to expect to happen, and it'd allow people to create as good or bad campaign system as they could.

[Kozure]

Originally posted by Moon:

Yes, a campaign mode as they are typically represented (or requested), i.e. involving hand-picking of one's forces and fighting from the beginning of the War right down to downtown Berlin while keeping the same troops who rise from green to elite troopers in the process.

A more realistic campaign mode is represented by CM's "operations".

Martin

Oh.

How about picking a standard mechanized infantry or light infantry with support units, or even a mechanized company/squadron, and play them from point A in a chronological campaign to point B in a chronological campaign, with skills and experience being gained, losing troops to attrition and gaining new troops to replace them.

I don't really see that as being unrealistic, since I'm pretty sure that happened relatively frequently in real life. Start of war to VE day, no, since many units were pulled out, reorganized, and sent back in, but I know many units fought for extended periods in front line service without extended refit and reorganizations.

The operations are nice and all, but they don't give you the same sort of "sweeping epic" feel which you might get from a campaign as they are traditionally understood.

I understand of course the massive logistics involved in that, so I'm not denigrating your efforts in the least. It's just a "nice to have" item. Thanks for the answers.

[Tha_Field_Marshall]

When you finish a 10 battle operation on a static map, and look back at the map and see shell craters, destroyed buildings and burnt out tanks across the landscape that feels rather epic to me.

[Kozure]

Originally posted by Sergei

Doing a realistic campaign requires very specific data concerning particular units. In Steel Panthers you could play fantasy type campaigns with the weirdest types of unit compositions sticking together (like engineers and Panzer III's). Over time units would be upgraded, but how, was up to the player. So a player could change part of those PzIII's to Panthers and the other part to Brumbärs. On the upside, SP type system allows greater freedom for the player. On the downside, it is absolute fantasy.

I'm not looking for a fantasy unit. Say you pick one of a dozen or so common types of larger units in WWII. Commonwealth light infantry regiment, Heer Panzergrenadier battalion, American armoured regiment, what have you.

You fight, say for the sake of argument, at the landings in Sicily. The losses are recorded and replacements of varying quality assigned to try to fill out the OOB. Some units gain experience, some units suffer due to casualties and or morale loss as a result of being exposed to combat.

Fight another four to five battles in different locations throughout the island. Campaign finished. If you like, you start the next campaign, with the veterans and replacements from the previous campaign, in the first battle of the Italian mainland campaign. Etc. etc.

No fantasy All-Star Team of weird and whacky units. Pick an TO&E for a specific nation and type of unit (regiment or battalion-sized, for example) and that's what you have for the campaign. Occasionally units are attached, occasionally units are left out of battle, but at the core, it's the same type of unit.

I know - everything I'm saying has been said before, elsewhere and with better elocution. I think I'll just adopt the standard "see what we get" attitude for CMx2. Better than spinning elabourate dreamcastles and watching them come crashing down.

[Kozure]

Originally posted by Tha_Field_Marshall:

When you finish a 10 battle operation on a static map, and look back at the map and see shell craters, destroyed buildings and burnt out tanks across the landscape that feels rather epic to me.

Aye, but it's still always the same map.

No changes in weather, no changes in overall location, no advancement of the front.

[tar]

I would think that one killer issue is that campaigns make a lot more sense in single player games than in two (or more) player games.

While it may be realistic for one of the players to follow a particular unit throughout the war, what about his opponent? Take, for example, everyone's favorite: Band of Brothers. They certainly didn't fight the same Germans in Normandy as they did in Holland or at Bastogne.

You would be really hard-pressed to come up with a campaign in which the same units repeatedly fought against each other over long periods, except perhaps in relatively minor theaters like Burma, or North Africa.

And this is not to mention other issues, like differential rotation out of the line. Generally troops didn't suddenly get a new model of Panzer delivered to them at the front lines -- they had to be pulled out for training with the new equipment. Now clearly one would just skip those training time periods, but considerations like that certainly make it even more unlikely that the same units will consistently fight against each other. I don't see how you can make a campaign work with any historic fidelity in a two-player setting.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by tar:

I would think that one killer issue is that campaigns make a lot more sense in single player games than in two (or more) player games.

Operations are ideal for two players, campaigns for single players.

[Dawg Bonz]

Is there a public catalogue of BFC priorities for the new engine?

Is there a posted catalogue of consumer priorities for the new engine?

[StoneAge]

Another thing I suggest would be allowing exporting and importing AAR data for third-party campaign programs (or hand-written if the format is documented well enough). The program writes CM a file for creating a certain kind of battle, then after the battle CM exports a file that tells the program what happened and what losses were taken and so on. It would take some extra programming effort from BFC, yes, but less than if BFC had to design and implement a campaign system. At least it is more realistic to expect to happen, and it'd allow people to create as good or bad campaign system as they could.

I agree with Sergei here.

I dont think a campaign system from BFC will suit everybody. Just take a look at operations some like them but a lot don't.

If BFC gave us a forces data file that was imported into a game and then exported at the end of the game. That would give Campaigners at least a place to start.

[Robert Olesen]

Yes, that would be a Killer feature, and it shouldn't be hard to do. I'd even be happy (for the first version) to have a generic filename.

It doesn't take all that much to help us make our own campaigns. Importing maps into the editor is another example. And allowing the import of reinforcements from the editor into a QB. Wel, those might be somewhat harder to program, but still useful. And finally: the ability to edit the number of men in a unit.

[First Mate Detrius]

Humm.

Now I do believe a campaign would be a great idea. Not for the harcore realism gamers that makes up most of the forum here, but for the broader gaming community.

I work at a major national consumer site. We ragularly test prdocts like Cellular phones, Computers, digital cameras and not the least...games!

As it is CM is a niche product. An added campaign mode would appeal to the broader gaming community. Without knowing any sales figures, I do believe games like "Close Combat", "Heroes og Might and Magic" and such appeal to a broader audience because many gamers out there grows attached to their characters and units. We like to develop them.

Please understand that I consider CM to be the game of the decade! I have bought all three and play AT LEAST 1 operation against a friend per week.

But I must confess the campaign, thou unrealistic, would add value for me. Then I would be able to enjoy the game single player and not being dependant on any other being able to play against me.

And I do believe there are others like me out there...

Please do not delete my account..

[Directive#21]

Moon said

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

I am so tired of hearing this nonsense! :mad: So moon tell me, is playing a campaign mode less realistic than moving dozens of units, that represent squads of individual soldiers, around a map of a battlefield? Truth is that CM is a game and realism is in the imagination. Bottom line is that Steve and Charles don't want a campaign mode! Lets all be honest and leave it at that.

regards,

Directive #21

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Robert Olesen:

Yes, that would be a Killer feature, and it shouldn't be hard to do. I'd even be happy (for the first version) to have a generic filename.

It doesn't take all that much to help us make our own campaigns. Importing maps into the editor is another example. And allowing the import of reinforcements from the editor into a QB. Wel, those might be somewhat harder to program, but still useful. And finally: the ability to edit the number of men in a unit.

The existence of an exported AAR report would allow keeping track of units's deeds and losses during a battle.

Allowing an import of maps into the scenario editor (while keeping the units) would allow to use the same core.

Allowing finished battles to be imported into the scenario editor (I can use them for QBs again, not for Scenarios) would allow to use the core after a battle (e.g to get the troops without any reinforcements).

Then I'd like buttons or shortcuts to set global fitness and ammo of all units already bought - but these are a bonus.

These things would allow third party campaign designers to create campaigns that do not need a large amount of bookkeeping by the user.

It would still mean the campaign designers have to spend considerable time on their rulesets and automated spreadsheets. But I guess Robert and me have fun with that (alas RL limits time for fun).

These campaigns can not and will not be "historical". In the event a commander survives long enough he would get promotions, commanding larger forces leading to huge battles.

But if you restrict the campaign to following a specific units career during the war, the campaign can do that. Rules can state you don't get the (ahistoric) fancy stuff. If you take it nevertheless - hey, it's the players decision. How many PBEM QBs do exist where the player uses Tigers or 80mm front StuGs as soon as he can get them? Often you have "gamey" losses above 50%. A rare result when not encircled. So are PBEMs not historical?

What is more realistic in campaigns is that you have to care for your men. Excessive losses will have effects in the future - thus you avoid them and prefer to withdraw to fight another day.

But in the end I don't want to recreate WW2 but to have fun. Campaings result in much more immersion than scenarios.

PBEM (or TCP/IP for those with faster connections) is better than fighting the AI - but you can't play it whenever you want for a whole battle in several hours.

Gruß

Joachim

[ December 19, 2003, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]

[Edward Windsor]

:mad:

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Moon:

Yes, a campaign mode as they are typically represented (or requested), i.e. involving hand-picking of one's forces and fighting from the beginning of the War right down to downtown Berlin while keeping the same troops who rise from green to elite troopers in the process.

Personally I would like to see another type of campaign than the "pick forces in 39 and fight to 45".

Is this a good or bad idea for a CMX campaign:

You guys pick one division from a combatant included in CMX, for arguments sake, lets say US and Germany. The choise of division would be based on variant factors such as how easy/hard it would be to research it and how much combat it saw, etc etc. Lets say just for arguments sake that we pick Grossdeutschland for the Germans, and 1st infantry division for the US.

You then put the player in a very specific spot in that division. For example, you let the player command one infantry battalion in one regiment. Then you build the campaign around that. Whatever battles that battalion took part in, you let the player take part in by creating an operation or battle, depending on the historical situation. All these operations and battles are made historical, so in battle X where the players battalion had tank support from unit Y, the player also controls these tanks.

If the battalion was in reserve or if it was sent on R&R, or if it was on a quiet sector of the front, the campaign just skips these dates. If teh battalion was upgraded, from motorized to mechanized, or whatever, the players battalion is upgraded.

The campaign keeps track on all squads and all hq's (assuming that this is the units you will be using in CMX) letting them gain experience depending on previous behavior.

So on the one hand you will let the players build that special type of relationship to his little pixel-troops that only true übernerds can have or understand... Like me playing Steel Panthers 1 ages ago and keeping track of all the kills made by all my units on a separate paper, awarding them medals for heroic actions.

And then I would scream in agony as Lt Hansen...the hero of Smolensk, where he singlehandedly held the left flank against a platoon of BT-7s in his PzIII, was killed in his Panther by a IL-2 Sturmovik on some unknown polish hill in 1944.

Yes *nods* I was/am quite the übernerd.

*hrm* anyway

But on the other hand since you still keep the CM operation as the largest type of battle the unit takes part in. So you wont have to track ammo and stuff like that from 1939 to 1945. And since you lock the player to a unit and a division, you wont have the totally-ahistorical effects of having one task force or kampfgruppe being created in 1941 and then fighting all over the place once/month to the end of the war.