No campaign or even close to it..

[Kwazydog]

Actually, I would suggest that the ability to important troops and the map (including battle damaged) from one battle to the next does kinda come somewhat close, at least for short camapaigns. Ive played this way myself several times and its quite enjoyable.

If you dont have the manual though then you may not know about this feature.

Dan

[dd]

I dont even have the game yet Dog - its just arrived at my US "intermediary" today - so wont get over to me in the UK till next week.

(I refuse to buy the CDV product)

The ability to move battle-damaged equipment from one battle to another explains the mod'd "pseudo-campaigns" though.

- - -

From that linked thread:

It was interesting nobody mentioned the campaign element in the manner in which the Total War series has been conducted.

Somewhat independent strategic and tactical elements. I suspect that this is what the user-campaigns do though?

The Talonsoft EF campaigns never really worked for me, at either level, though.

It will be interesting to see how CMBB works without a campaign element. I confess that some appeal for the arrival of the game has gone for myself though.

[DrD]

I realize that realistic campaigns would not be that fun as the average rifle company could expect 200-300% causalties in 6 months. Granted these were disproportionally among the new guys but the chances of nuturing a cadre of experienced troops through a long campaign is slim.

However, if only from a selfish perspective, I think BTS should try to include some kind of campaign mode in CM 3 because, as dd points out, this is a surprising omission to the casual gamer. Sales will likely be better in the non-hardcore crowd if a campaign is included, leading to better sales, more money for BTS, and then more booze and beach time so that ... oh wait maybe it's not such a good idea.

Seriously, there is one aspect of a campaign that enhances realism, and that is the need for force conservation. In real life a commander always has to weigh the importance of the current mission vs. the need to keep his force intact for future missions. I can imagine scenarios in which say the Germans are understrength and undersupplied so when faced by a large Soviet attack the player will be compeled to hit hard then retreat rather than fight to the death. This can lead to very interesting battles and more diversity.

I think BTS should consider SOME kind of more extensive campaign mode for CM3. I'm sure those clever guys can think of something that will enhance the game, enhance sales, and not sacrifice realism.

Maybe soldiers could get a letter from home saying their wife wants a divorce so their morale is lower..... JUST KIDDING!

[Canuck]

I just wish the scenarios were in chronological order so I could play the game through from the start of the war to the end (doesn't this make sense?)

Maybe they should have included an option to Sort by Date or Sort Alphabetically

or maybe this is already included I dont know

[Sitzkrieg]

Originally posted by Canuck:

I just wish the scenarios were in chronological order so I could play the game through from the start of the war to the end (doesn't this make sense?)

Maybe they should have included an option to Sort by Date or Sort Alphabetically

or maybe this is already included I dont know

I would also like the ability to sort by date. Not looking to play the scenarios in order. I would just like to be able to find a battle for a particular time period quicker, especially after I've hit the Scenario Depot a few dozen times.

Keith

[Abbott]

Campaign system missing due to the realism factor is fine, CMBO and CMBB are the best out there for tactical WWII battles. The game system can not be beat by anything currently available. I enjoyed CMBO for several years and expect the same from CMBB without a campaign system.

A campaign system adds the FUN factor, be it REAL or not. The deal with CDV was to bring CMBB to a wider audience and compromises were made to realism to do that. A campaign system (be it realistic or not) would add depth and fun for some people, thus more longevity to a great system and a wider audience. If a campaign system was built-in those playing for the realism factor available of course would not have to use it. Those who found a campaign system enjoyable could use it.

With BFC’s move to sell to a broader audience I for one believe the engine rewrite CMII will include a campaign system if for no other reason then a wise sales enhancement.

[Diceman]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Actually, I would suggest that the ability to important troops and the map (including battle damaged) from one battle to the next does kinda come somewhat close, at least for short camapaigns. Ive played this way myself several times and its quite enjoyable.

If you dont have the manual though then you may not know about this feature.

Dan

I've tried this several times, and I'm able to import the map, but no option to import the troops is given. I thought it was a slip of the tongue when Madmatt said you could import trooops, but there it is in the manual, and evidently it's an option, but I can't get it to work. What am I doing wrong?

[Hertston]

I don't miss a campaign option particularly, although it can work very well in some cases if done properly (i.e not just a dozen scenarios linked together). They are well done sometimes, I think in wargames probably Close Combat 2 and the SP:WoW mega-campaigns are the best example. The "Lost Victories" mega-campaign is just awesome.

Sims (airplane, submarine) really need a campaign of some sort, preferably a dynamic one, otherwise they can get a little dull (unless most of your play is online).

[akdavis]

The easy solution is to put more emphasis on operations. I was disappointed to find so few operations on the CD. In CM's operations I get satisfaction and continuity I find in other games' campaigns. I think the CM team should really put an emphasis on this aspect of the game in its advertising, try to sell it as their version of the "campaign mode."

[karch]

I've never played any campaign type games. With the casualties you regularly get in CM, it seems it would be difficult to both give your units enough combat to increase their quality and have enough of them left to fight in the next battle.

If you have a "special" squad you are trying to get from battle to battle and hold them back so they aren't actually fighting, why would they then get an experience bonus.

If you assaulted a tough enemy but lost 50% of your men and get greenie replacements, how do you factor that in.

What if they were vets and were ready to go to elite but lost 60% casualties and got green/conscript replacements, wouldn't you then have a green unit to baby back to veteran?

Sounds very difficult to make realistic to me. How do other games handle it. What would a platoon with mixed crack/conscripts look/fight like?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by karch:

What would a platoon with mixed crack/conscripts look/fight like?

Regular?

Basty (may I call you Basty?) - nice blast from the past.

[Hertston]

Originally posted by karch:

How do other games handle it. What would a platoon with mixed crack/conscripts look/fight like?

I don't think I've ever seen it done at Platoon level - unit replacements usually crop up in the divisional/army level stuff. The usual form is to balance the two in some fashion, the exact balance depending on an associated training and refitting time. For example, if a battered crack division in the field was brought up to numbers by just regrouping remaining troops and adding a green brigade, it's efficiency would be seriously impaired. If that same division was rested, and new troops integrated into the existing structure it could be almost as effective as it was before, particularly after the recruits had gained a little combat experience.

[Franko]

Originally posted by vils:

..Whats the point of playing meaningless battles irraticly [sic] over and over?

Because its fun.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Diceman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Actually, I would suggest that the ability to important troops and the map (including battle damaged) from one battle to the next does kinda come somewhat close, at least for short camapaigns. Ive played this way myself several times and its quite enjoyable.

If you dont have the manual though then you may not know about this feature.

Dan

I've tried this several times, and I'm able to import the map, but no option to import the troops is given. I thought it was a slip of the tongue when Madmatt said you could import trooops, but there it is in the manual, and evidently it's an option, but I can't get it to work. What am I doing wrong?</font>

[Mud]

I've played "Close Combat 2"'s campaign, and it is not particularly impressive, especially if you play the German side. It's partly because the AI cheats like a maniac when it ignores all supply rules (cheerfully reinforcing paras who have neither LZ nor road access), and partly because it badly handles areas that basically are settled. For instance, if you hold XXX Corps at the Son crossing, you can slaughter the Poles at Driel -- and you will have to, again and again, as it repeats basically the same deployment again and again on successive days. Grossbeek Heights is similarly absurd.

And Shogun is a beautiful example of a broken campaign. Aside from it again cheating rather blatantly (being able to spend into debt, for instance), it's overly simplified to the point where tactical skill trumps operational skill. For instance, nobody needs to worry about food or transporation issues, so each province of Japan gets to hold as many troops as he wants, up to the number of distinct pieces that'll fit (because it uses a board game model w/o overflow boxes) w/ no attrition except in battle. Don't worry about trying to flank a bridge position, because it won't let you; crossings must be forced, and with only one map per province... ugh.

Keeping in mind that BFC has, what, /one/ programmer (Charles), I'm inclined to think that they have other priorities for the rewrite. Campaigns, even when they /don't/ have a detailed tactical layer underneath them, can be remarkably complex -- see _Empires in Arms_, for instance. It's a very, very nicely done Napoleonic board game... and one whose rules nest rather deeply and whose Grand Campaign (1803-1815) is estimated at taking up to 200 hours to play. Tactical layers complicate things because it limits how much abstraction you can do. For instance, for consistency, all covered formations would need to be tracked in terms of manpower and vehicles, not just abstract attack/defense ratings and step levels... because they're going to be shown. If maintenance, fuel, ammunition, et al are problems, then again, the user may need to be shown which units are having shortages of parts or ammo -- it doesn't make sense for a PzV to be abandoned when withdrawing from one about-to-be-liberated town for lack of parts, and then for that particular PzV to reappear but a PzIV to take its "disappeared" state the next battle. Plenty of stuff to worry about...

- Do not repeat battles with foregone conclusions, like dropping Poles day after day into Driel with identical forces and deployment, to face the exact same defenders, with predicable consequences. This is remarkably dull.

- Do not force players to take blatantly stupid approaches when, actually, other decisions would be much more realistic. For instance, if an attacker has forces on /both/ sides of a river, and they coordinate to attack a position that's on one side only, the attacker should not be forced to move /all/ his forces across tiny bridges under fire, ala Shogun.

- Do not completely abandon realism just to please the players who believe that their small set of German tanks (uber-, of course) and all-fanatical all-elite SS troopers facing faceless hordes of incorrectly stereotyped barely-armed Russian peasants could have, by themselves, changed the course of the war and utterly somehow neutralized the logistical nightmare intrinsic to invading a country that big.

Making CMBB a bog-standard RTS where standard bolt-action rifles can whittle down tanks by depleting their "hit points"; where mechanics can repair tanks during a battle; and units have LOS limited to how far they can move in about, oh, 15 seconds might have increased sales even more, but at a pretty huge cost.

I think I'd rather see them fix more fundamental issues, like the huge biggie of Borg spotting; stopping a vehicles in the back of a column from cheerfully firing their cannon through those ahead of them; the inability of MG teams to abandon their heavy gun, extra barrels and belts and run away; and so forth.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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.

Tom, I am a long-time advocate of a campaign system. To mee, it is just that much more immersiveness.

An accurate campaign system that allowed some units to gain experience would make it EXTREMELY difficult for units to evolve and gain experience due to the high casualty rates. In fact, some units could go DOWN in experience due to excessive losses. I think it would feel more 'real' to have such a system.

And if immersiveness isn't important, could we have some English translations of all those .wav files, please?

Steve

[Da Beginna]

My don't set up a poll. Campain or not? I would like to see one - but it will be hard to do one that isn't gamey, boring,...

We will get to know in some years...

[von shrad]

And where are the power-ups and armor packs? Can you make it real time too with first person view and unlimited arms carried? I want grenade launchers and night vision goggles. And let us not forget about the brothels....

Meaningless? Not on my monitor!!!!!!!!!

von shrad,

still looking for the Boots of Elvenkind

[ October 12, 2002, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: von shrad ]

[cpurkiser]

Let me add my $.02 for a campaign game. I have two friends, who I loved to see get the game.

One is veteran Squad leader player, and the other loves the Panzer General series. All three of us like but didn't love Steel Panthers. I think the lack of a campaign game will be a big factor in keeping them from purchasing.

CMBO was a huge step forward to war games, and I did enjoy the game solo and the 2 PBEM games I played. However, what stopped me playing it fanatically was the lack of a campaign game. The operations were a very poor substitute for a campaign game.

Now I'll admit the concept of core units is a bit gamey, but the idea that units can experience in only a few days of battle isn't. Both literature (I think of Von Luck's book in particular) and common sense suggest that a unit where few member had seen combat, would lose there green/conscript status after surviving a few days of tough battles.

Regardless of the realism the fun and immersion factors, I think make for any other failings.

People who find it unrealistic and silly can simply not play with it.

My game hasn't arrived yet, I hope I can recommend it to my friends but it would sure be an easier sell with a campaign game.

[dd]

Heh there's no doubt that some campign games have been less than well done on either the "historical" basis or indeed from a good gameplay basis. Having said that some were and many are getting much better.

The individual criticisms of some game's manner of doing campaigns are valid, "lets have hit points and laser guns" simply a knee-jerk reaction that is essentially meaningless.

CC2 was a fun game, but definately flawed in the areas of resupply and the necessity to refight the same ground over and over in entirely fantasy situations.

Shogun was terribly flawed, MTW (Medieval) is a big improvement but still lacks supply lines (although it does now have support costs etc) and many other things are less than "great".

Ironically both TW and CM have diverged from the "classical" RTS scene for similar reasons. "Clicking to manage your pig farmers whilst your supoosed to be fighting a battle" isnt very realistic or much fun. The desires of the TW gamers is pushing the next TW incarnation more towards realism with supply lines and such like and the "borg" command element of the tactical game overview is also not something entirely welcomed by the fanatics i.e. they want more realism.

The bottom line is:

a) Is it feasible to make a campaign. (WE know the answer is yes)

Would it add to the popularity without detracting from the current gameplay and playerbase?

Obviously the only way to do this is to not change the current "engine", but i dont see that it involves hitpoints, etc etc and a move to becoming another Sudden Strike or CC.

Remember, or take note, that the evolution of the Total War series on the campaign side is taking place without any changes to the tactical engine at all.

Making a campaign without changing the "game" (as it stands now) seems emminently possible.

Remember that an awful lot of gamers like to have "something" that ties the game together, call it story, chronology or campaign. Without that element they can easily seem disjointed or simply less appealing.

Grogs and MP'ers generally dont need this, happy to contest single battles or relive well-known or partly known battles, knowing the background chronology and the historical emphasis of each battle...or simply enjoying the MP side of things.

So, by no means, does the exclusion of a campaign make a game "bad" but it is "odd" not to have one. Thena gain, a "bad" campaign element would be far worse than no campaign element.

Ive got the task to review CM when it arrives - and im allready wondering how to approach this side of it. The audience (readership) is not grog-heavy. How will CM appeal long-term to non grogs without a campaign? How will it appeal to non-grogs and newbies without something "central" pulling the battles all together?

Should be interesting and im looking forward to it.

[ October 12, 2002, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: dd ]

[akdavis]

dd, just be sure to play several operations.

[Peterk]

Not really what people are looking for but...

I hope to have a set of rules up in about 2 weeks or so that will allow people to carry a company of infantry from the opening of Barabarossa through to the Russian counter-offensives at the gates of Moscow in winter in December of '41. I've started playtesting and it's going pretty well so far. It's based on generating quick battles. Players will have to track their boys' progress manually however (using provided charts) and roll a few dice before each battle to generate the parameters.

A subsequent set of rules (hopefully) will send your company to the south towards Stalingrad in '42.

[Mannheim Tanker]

A campaign already exists here if anyone is interested. It's not purely historical, but it does allow one to take control of a unit and lead it through an entire war.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by karch:

What would a platoon with mixed crack/conscripts look/fight like?

Regular?

</font>

[Count Zero]

Originally posted by Peterk:

Not really what people are looking for but...

I hope to have a set of rules up in about 2 weeks or so that will allow people to carry a company of infantry from the opening of Barabarossa through to the Russian counter-offensives at the gates of Moscow in winter in December of '41. I've started playtesting and it's going pretty well so far. It's based on generating quick battles. Players will have to track their boys' progress manually however (using provided charts) and roll a few dice before each battle to generate the parameters.

A subsequent set of rules (hopefully) will send your company to the south towards Stalingrad in '42.

I´m toying around a bit with a platoon of PanzersIII´s; keeping the Core units in a scenario-file, generating a new map for each battle in the scenario editor and then importing the map and my "Core Pz-platoon" into a QB.

This way I can keep the leader bonuses and names, bump the experience when they deserve it or drop it when they lose crewmembers. Works like a charm so far