No campaign or even close to it..

[vils]

..and this really destroys the game.

Whats the point of playing meaningless battles irraticly over and over?

*dissapointed* to say the least..

[Gpig]

Heh heh heh.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Hopefully you can still get some fun out of it.

Or I guess you can send me your copy.

Gpig

[Juardis]

Meaningless? Obviously you're in the wrong place. EVERY battle I fight is for control of the world. I win, PENG is banned. I lose, PENG continues. Needless to say, I lose a lot. So don't talk to me about meaningless battles.

Besides, my conscript HQ unit just increased to veteran in the time it took to calculate the last turn in To The Volga. Yours don't?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:

Meaningless? Obviously you're in the wrong place. EVERY battle I fight is for control of the world. I win, PENG is banned. I lose, PENG continues. Needless to say, I lose a lot. So don't talk to me about meaningless battles.

Besides, my conscript HQ unit just increased to veteran in the time it took to calculate the last turn in To The Volga. Yours don't?

"Besides, my conscript HQ unit just increased to veteran in the time it took to calculate the last turn in To The Volga. Yours don't?"

OK you got me!!

I'm Still laughing! LOL

-tom

[vils]

*sigh*

[Panzer Leader]

Now Vils, I feel your pain. I too love campaign games, especially those in such games as East/West Front. It was a hard pill to swallow for me too.

Now, that said, this game is truly the best there is, bar none, and it can have endless amount of fun even without campaigns. Here are a few suggestions.

1.) Operations. These are BFC's answer to the campaign crowd. They are short, numbering only a few days and a few battles, but they still engender a feeling of accomplishment at their ends and are pretty fun too!

2.) Play a few PBEM games. I gaurantee when playing another player, the intensity, competitiveness and thoughtful tactical awareness will be much greater than playing the AI. Oh, and losses will sting too!

3.) The final step of the true campaign-loving CM-Addict. Either create a group of scenarios intended to be played in order, or join with a group of people playing with the aid of home-grown rules and/or game-master. With CMBB just being released, a number of these are sprouting up.

Have fun, the game only gets better with time!

[-Havermeyer-]

Well, you have to type a sequence of keys (email me and I'll give them to you), then look behind the factory next to the abandoned stug near the sewer entrance, rotate the screen 30 degrees to the right, slide left 20m and grab the potion.

Do this, and it will really improve your view of the game.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:

Meaningless? Obviously you're in the wrong place. EVERY battle I fight is for control of the world. I win, PENG is banned. I lose, PENG continues. Needless to say, I lose a lot. So don't talk to me about meaningless battles.

Besides, my conscript HQ unit just increased to veteran in the time it took to calculate the last turn in To The Volga. Yours don't?

I still think this is entertaining because I have HUGE problem with the concept of units gaining experience from battle to battle and moving up the career or experience ladder or whatever. That whole concept implies there are "levels" to "beat" or something like that and every battle is winnable (if you know the secret). Some battles are simply not winnable then you loose your whole force then there is no more campaign. I really don't think it is realistic to expect to play with same units in every battle and expect them to carry on with new "experience" points into the next battle as though there is some global over goal to accomplish after a series of levels or battles.

I for one am glad there is no campaign level where units gain experience a move from level to level up to the next battle to win the whole war or something like that. For me the realism that this ISN'T included is one of the Most refreshing things about both CMBB and CMBO!

IMHO

Cheers

-tom w

[Panzer Leader]

SO Tom, are you saying no unit ever gained experience?

Are you saying units gaining experience are the ONLY reason anyone would want to play a campaign?

[ October 11, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[Panzer Leader]

Are you saying "to win the war" is the only reason for a campaign? I don't kow how a reinforced battalion could win the war but...

[Peterk]

Vils. Are you familiar with the Wreck's Solo Campaign Rules for CMBO? _All_ you have to do is come up with an update of those rules for the east front.

I kind of don't mind that the CM games don't have built in campaigns. I see CM more as a battle toolkit and I understand why the designers would be loath to pollute their simulator with something that's purely fantasy. Doesn't mean that we can't come up with something.

What I'd really love is a Mega Camapign like the ones that have been done for Steel Panthers (by Wild Bill?)

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

SO Tom, are you saying no unit ever gained experience?

Are you saying units gaining experience are the ONLY reason anyone would want to play a campaign?

OK

Of course units gained experience.

I'm just glad it is not modeled in a game that has the small unit scope adn time frame of CMBB or CMBO. I am saying I agree with the design decision to model operations as a series of battles. (usually they happened within a few days, I think in Combat Mission operational battles, so no experience is gained in that short a time frame).

Strategic Level games that model divisions and fight all of WWII usually have units that gain experience, so at that scale, over that time frame it seems reasonable. My point is I like CMBO that way it is and I found Juardis' sort of cynical or satryical comment quite amusing.

-tom w

[ October 11, 2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Vils, join one of the many CMMC (Combat Mission Meta Campaigns) out there. They range from the huge and intricately detailed to the lighter Onion campaign. All allow you to gain unit experience.

[Juardis]

thank you tom, i'll be here all week... lol

On a more serious note, I read somewhere (Citizen Soldier I believe) that 50% of all green horns died in the first 3 days of combat. If they survived 3 days, they were considered veterans. Using that scale I truly believe that for longer ops, green units should move up to regular and regular to vets, provided they saw action and more than half the squad lived through them. The fact that they do not does not befund me though.

[Hans]

I found this post a few days ago......"Friend and I are moving one month at a time through the war.We are now in oct 42.Using QB's with our own random set up parameters.Fight a meeting engagement.Winner goes on offensive till he loses and we use a point system..."

Might work

[Chad Harrison]

Everyones a critic.

Listen, if you want a campaign, make a operation the maximum number of battles possible, and make it static. Give each side around 10,000 points or so, and have it all come in waves. I promise you that if you did that, with the largest map possible, you would spend more time playing that than any other campaign in any game out there.

Chad

[benpark]

Last time I checked you can import maps and forces into QB's. This is the perfect solution to those people with the desire to follow a single unit through a series of different engagements.

No need for dissapointment, there are so many aspects of this game that are open to DIY.

Now all you need are maps. Get my Berlin one at the Scenario Depot (shameless plug), and there are many more to follow. OR, just use the QB's "import map" and choose "import forces" as well.

Maybe this is something for the patch-a choice of"import axis" or "import allies".

[Vergeltungswaffe]

vils, campaigns come from the community.

Look at some of these:

http://www.cmmc2.org/

http://www.nodejavu.com/CMBT/version5.html

and even a new one for CMBO:

http://www.cmcampaign.com/

Don't be disappointed. Join a campaign.

If all you want is to play one against the AI, you can do that too. Make, or autogenerate maps in the editor, select your units, edit/name them to your hearts content, and save them in the Quick Battle Maps folder and you can play against the AI in linked battle after battle.

[dd]

/em coughs

It seemed most "odd" to me that this thread received such negative answers (initially) - especially on a forum where in other threads the "blatant" need for BF to shift more boxes is a reason to not critise the usage of CDV distribution.

Its a contradiction.

If BF want to make the game more popular to a wider audience - put in a campaign element.

As an extra element it detracts nothing from the game and can only add to overall appeal.

Does a campaign require continuance of units? No.

Does a campaign require the same force to fight "everywhere"? No.

Does a campaign require the same units to constantly advance in "skill/experience"? No.

Do campaigns tructures require a linear "win only" advancement system? No. (the list goes on and on)

The overall lack of objectivity and negativity displayed is rather surprising for such a , generally, proactive board.

From the games journalist perspective the lack of a campaign mode is highly unusual, and whilst it may not detract from the game engine, it doesn't add to its broader appeal. It's absence remains a slight negative, or "missing feature".

Although, the reticence displayed is common amongst grognard heavy games forums, so its not all that surprising...and is really nothing more than the "reality versus gameplay" arguement.

/em shrugs

I see CM more as a battle toolkit and I understand why the designers would be loath to pollute their simulator with something that's purely fantasy.

I don't and asking around others who don't play CM it appears that one commonality is a lack of a campaign mode.

One man's "pollution" is another mans bread and butter.

It's a bit "hasty" to dismiss it so casually.

- - -

IT's good to see their are some attempts at community "workarounds" but it still doesn't explain (to me) the abscence of an "official" campaign.

(Talonsofts EF/WF and EiF camapgins weren't all that great or extensive but were put there for the very appeal of a campaign to the gamer. The popularity of campaigns can only be highlighted by the succes of other RTS semi-realistic games such as the C&C series, PG series and TW series)

If anybody could point me to developer quotes/articles/posts on this issue i'd be most interested. It seems a logical extention to the game engine/game - but i may well be missing something.

[Juardis]

Originally posted by dd:

/em coughs

It seemed most "odd" to me that this thread received such negative answers (initially) - especially on a forum where in other threads the "blatant" need for BF to shift more boxes is a reason to not critise the usage of CDV distribution.

Its a contradiction.

.

It shouldn't seem odd. Your member number indicates you've been here as long as I have. So surely you know that BTS has stated repeatedly that they will not add campaigns where units gain experience or requires strategic thinking. No promise was made that CMBB would have campaigns, no hint ever given that CMBB would have campaigns, and certainly BTS has stated that they are not interested in campaigns. This is a tactical simulation. If the original poster bought the game thinking there were campaigns, then he/she was wrong and it's entirely he/she's fault. Now, we can argue all we want about having campaigns, but to come here dissing BTS for a feature they never even advertised is BS.

[dd]

I dont know anything about why BF wont do a campaign element, or i wouldn't have asked.

My member number simply indicates when i signed up - it says nothing about activity, ownership of the game nor how religously i follow every thread or post (rather that i dont).

A customer is dissapointed there are no campaigns - its a perfectly legitimate question even if its one in error. He says he is dissapointed. How on earth you can construe that as him dissing the game or BF is beyond me entirely.

I hardly see the need to attack others for asking about it.

Do you, perhaps, work in CR for Microsoft or Sony Interactive? (j/k)

As, clearly indicated the utilisation of campagin features in Strategy games IS a popular one.

Im interested in why BF hasnt done it - a link, rather than a personal attack, would be preferable to both myself, and i would imagine, vils.

[Bastables]

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=007718

A much more intresting thread dealing with why campaigns as we know them are a game artifice.

[dd]

Thnak you bastable.

/tips hat

Edit - still no link to BF commentary though - anybody?

[ October 11, 2002, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: dd ]

[-Havermeyer-]

CMBO weened me from the campaign "hook." I no longer feel I need to hunt the seas for the entire war racking up tonnage (or shooting down planes, or whatever the "hook" is in campaign type simulators to keep you playing).

That is the remarkable thing about this game. I'm content to play set pieces without the baggage associated with nuturing some fictitious fellow along.

And I was a sucker for those things. I played games that had become cabbage over time just because I had created such a stud commander (fighter jock, whatever). BUT they didn't keep my interest as long as this game has (and CMBO, while stunning, is cabbage relative to the eye candy of other games that don't share it's intent).

Honestly, whenever you try to broaden the appeal of something, you begin to appeal to a more and more unsavory sort.

I prefer this targeted game, and am comfortably ensconced in this niche.

[dd]

Honestly, whenever you try to broaden the appeal of something, you begin to appeal to a more and more unsavory sort.

lol - true, but it also shifts boxes, which....

always a difficult choice.

Personally im not only "Not against" niche games im very pro them. I'd like to see how the deelopers state their intent on the issue though. IF its a case of putting off potential sales to retain a focused niche product - well, Kudos to them I say.

(Still, it wont stop the question being asked over and over again.)

[ October 11, 2002, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: dd ]