Uedel Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Hello, Since Operations in CMBO are a little problemous to voarious known problems, i come to the Idea to Fix this Easy. Linked Scenarios.... Sceanrios (single Battles) are working very fine in CMBO, so enhance them by allowing a Scenariodesigner to set a following scenario. Just a select field what scenario comes next, optional the current Rooster of Men and Vehicles could be overgiven to the new map/scenario like in operations now (with some vehicles repaired etc) but also the scenario designer could assign a complete new force with setups for the new map as he want. As supreme we could link the follow up scenario to the state of the victory loose condition Maj. Victory --> Scenario xxx1 Give Units over to new map = yes Minor Victory --> Scenario xxx2 Give Units over to new map = no (as example) draw --> Stay on same map Minor defeat --> Scenario yy1 major defeat --> Sceanrio yy2 (state of Victory or defeat is bound on the Attacking force) This would give scenario designers a wide flexibility and could make some very intressting Linked Scenarios. In short Linking Scenarios together depending on the status of Victory, and possibility to give troops over to new map Yes or No. Shouldnt be to hard to implement i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bry Barnard Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 That's what they did for the game Steel Panthers - worked a treat there. Gets my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uedel Posted February 28, 2002 Author Share Posted February 28, 2002 just 1 comment ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon xBMCx Posted March 3, 2002 Share Posted March 3, 2002 Hmmmm ... very interesting idea. Maybe this could be worked in with the Strategic Layer form the other thread. If nothing else, I could make it a little easier to incorporate. Talon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 3, 2002 Share Posted March 3, 2002 Terrific; you could conveivably run an entire campaign this way - by throwing in the chance or reinforcements in between scenarios. What about for PBEM - would you want to move both sides' forces to the new scenario, or just the one? Would be nice to be able to designate a fresh enemy OOB for each scenario - either preset or random. Plus the ability to withdraw certain units. ie say you have an infantry battalion you want to campaign through ten scenarios. For scenario 1 you want to have a tank company in support - but only for scenario 1. When scenario 2 comes along, you carry over the infantry battalion - but not the tanks. I guess you could differentiate between "core" units and "support" units - ie those you want to move on to the next scenario and those you don't. Random replacements would be a nice thing to, with say a percentage level between each scenario... Hmm, not sounding so simply anymore, but I like it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon xBMCx Posted March 3, 2002 Share Posted March 3, 2002 Michael, I dont think your suggestions make it any more complicated, just a few additional parameters to work in. Since all this would occur between battles, I dont see any reason why it cant be done. In fact, your idea of "core" vs "supporting" units is exactly the way Steel Panthers campaigns worked. You purchased your core units at the begining and then purchased support units as necessary or specifically for the next scenario . Im sure there was a cost involved ... I think Ill revist that for some ideas. This tends more towards a scripted type of a campaign for sinlge player use ... which isnt necessarily a bad thing ... could have additional options for PBEM ... hmmm ... maybe even work in multiple players for larger engagements ... uh oh ... feature creep ... but I like it. I do think it capitalises on what we can do. Since we cant get the exact results from battle to battle, we'll leave it to the designer to define how unts carry over ... it just may be a little tricky to work in the "supporting" units portion. Hmmmm ... with a little more thought and a few more suggestions, this could get flushed out and become a new project. My wife is not going to like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 3, 2002 Share Posted March 3, 2002 Originally posted by Talon xBMCx: Michael, I dont think your suggestions make it any more complicated, just a few additional parameters to work in. Since all this would occur between battles, I dont see any reason why it cant be done. In fact, your idea of "core" vs "supporting" units is exactly the way Steel Panthers campaigns worked. You purchased your core units at the begining and then purchased support units as necessary or specifically for the next scenario . Im sure there was a cost involved ... I think Ill revist that for some ideas. This tends more towards a scripted type of a campaign for sinlge player use ... which isnt necessarily a bad thing ... could have additional options for PBEM ... hmmm ... maybe even work in multiple players for larger engagements ... uh oh ... feature creep ... but I like it. I do think it capitalises on what we can do. Since we cant get the exact results from battle to battle, we'll leave it to the designer to define how unts carry over ... it just may be a little tricky to work in the "supporting" units portion. Hmmmm ... with a little more thought and a few more suggestions, this could get flushed out and become a new project. My wife is not going to like this I have given a thought of doing a manual version of this with CMBO, but there is not enough flexibility in the mission editor for my likings - I hope CMBB will allow us to do something like this - at least manually. We shall see... One small example - I had hoped to have a random mission creator which allowed a player to command a Canadian company throughout Normandy and Holland - but the one disadvantage to the mission editor is that the default always opens you to the at start German forces - my manual system would have required the player to alter his forces in the mission editor before playing any game in the "campaign" - and seeing the German forces every time he went into the editor would have ruined it! [ March 03, 2002, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon xBMCx Posted March 3, 2002 Share Posted March 3, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: ... the one disadvantage to the mission editor is that the default always opens you to the at start German forces - my manual system would have required the player to alter his forces in the mission editor before playing any game in the "campaign" - and seeing the German forces every time he went into the editor would have ruined it![/QB]Dang ... hmmm ... that is a show stopper. A work around could be to have the scenario umpired by a third party ... similar to TacOps. It would be the umpires job to modify the scenario for both parties. That would insure proper unit purchases too. It does leave single players out in the cold ... although I suppose they could be refereed as well ... but definately not as much fun as having an automated process to do it. Talon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted March 3, 2002 Share Posted March 3, 2002 although it would work and is basically a workable workaround for the notwroking operations/campaigns, it will not satisfy all out of the crowd calling for improvement on the multi-battle aspect of CM. namely those who would like a certain role-playing aspect in an operation/campaign, id est, the ability to follow a certain unit (certain platoon commander, a certain tank et cetera). it would be funny to see Uffz Flitzpiepe in his Pz IV positively get killed (~whole crew is taken out) in battle 2 yet he reappears in battle 3. Or vice versa, you have that tank crew killed yet it magically appears again in the next battle. Destroys any hopes for immersion. That is why the "Against all odds" linked scenario campaign didn't work for me - those which were reported as promoted during battle in the next battle's briefing had been killed in the last battle, and those that did wellwere suddenly gone between battles. It would only work with heavy editing between scenarios, where basically you would set up your next battle yourself based on the outcome of the last one. Now such a campaign where you would manually build each battle before you play it would be on the same fun and adventure level as playtesting your own scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 3, 2002 Share Posted March 3, 2002 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: It would only work with heavy editing between scenarios, where basically you would set up your next battle yourself based on the outcome of the last one. Now such a campaign where you would manually build each battle before you play it would be on the same fun and adventure level as playtesting your own scenarios.This is exactly what I was referring to, and I came to the same conclusion - especially if, when editing the scenarios, you see the German order of battle right off as soon as you open the editor. I had fooled around with the idea of using all 5 random reinforcment slots, but they are not flexible enough - only the time of entry is randomized. You could have 5 disparate groups with a ten percent change of entry, but the player would always know which groups there are. This wasn't much of a solution. My second thought was to create 6 scenarios for each situation, with say 200 scenarios in total - you play one scenario, make a 10 sided die roll on a matrix, and select a numbered pre made scenario. Adjust your own forces accordingly as you describe, and go from there. ie you would have premade scenarios - say 6 a piece for Advance in urban terrain Probe in urban terrain defence in urban terrain advance in farmland probe in farmland defence in farmland etc. It would be great if you could have QBs in CMBB that pick enemy forces but allow you to keep friendly forces from a previous battle - or at the very least edit their attributes - then this all might work out a lot better and be far more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon xBMCx Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 hmmm ... I see your point on the following of specific characters in the game. I was looking at it from a different perspective. For me its not the individual characters within the game as much as it is my units ability to fight from mission to mission. I was looking at it more from the strategic level. Well ... looks like we will have to wait for the rewrite of the game engine ... or I guess we could always wish for a CMBO SDK? Talon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uedel Posted March 4, 2002 Author Share Posted March 4, 2002 I would be happy when we only could link scenarios together and the option to overtake the Attacking forces and the defending forces to the next map. Also Reinforcements could be assigned like now in the Operations (Btl. Regiment. Brigade. Division Reserves etc). Nothing to complicatet but easy to implement IMO but i am not a programmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cauldron Posted March 4, 2002 Share Posted March 4, 2002 The main reason that is not a solution is because it is using the existing system..... It also sounds a lot like the Close Combat games ... The whole idea is to get a BETTER operational game, things such as perimiters, reinforcements still won't have been fixed using your method. Certainaly the placements of units is a bit generous in [between] operations having a armored division replace a halftrack held flank for example but incoporating "fixes" is surely not what it is about. Operations ARE linked that's why you get more map to fight on if you do well. Let's see what game engine 2 is like before resorting to fixes.. eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts