No campaign or even close to it..

[Peterk]

Hey Count Zero,

Thanks for sharing that technique. I'm going to fool around with it tonight. My method (actually Wreck's system) involves quite a bit of book-keeping but it looks like in yours, the computer will track most of the boring stuff.

Looks like we better come up with something fast...the cesspoolers are starting to venture in.

[gunnergoz]

CM without a campaign system:

It's kind of like...this exquisitly beautiful girl who can't help but love you whenever she lays eyes on you...but she can't remember your name and who you are for more than a day...every day you have to romance her from the beginning. You know she'll go out with you and that she'll come home with you, but you still have to go through the numbers each time.

It's still fun, in a different kind of way.

[Captain Wacky]

Join a human campaign. It'll be more fun anyway

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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>

[Diceman]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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>

[aka_tom_w]

"Looks like it not only has to be the final file, but you must also copy the file into the Quick Battle Maps

file in order for it to work."

who knows a bit more about how to do this?

is it documented in the manual anywhere?

(pg #'s ?? :confused: )

Please don't tell me to RTFM because I pre-ordered the game and I am STILL waiting for it.

-tom w

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by vils:

..and this really destroys the game...

I reckon needless hyperbole really destroys the game, but that's jsut IMO of course

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

To win, perchance to lose?

Err....why does a campaign change this? The "battles" are still meaningless because the campaign itself is meaningless since it is merely a larger "battle"

*dissapointed* to say the least..

Me too - especially in myself for having replied to such a thread - I thought when I openeed it there might be somethign interesting in here....

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

"Looks like it not only has to be the final file, but you must also copy the file into the Quick Battle Maps

file in order for it to work."

who knows a bit more about how to do this?

is it documented in the manual anywhere?

(pg #'s ?? :confused: )

Please don't tell me to RTFM because I pre-ordered the game and I am STILL waiting for it.

-tom w

Page 162 talks a bit about it, specifically.

You can either take the last auto-save from a completed qb, and copy it into the quick battle map folder, then import it with/without the exhausted/spent/out of ammo etc, units, or not, and continue the battle, though you will start back in the start zones depending on what type of scenario you choose.

You can also generate a map in the editor, and assign forces (edited or not) which can then be imported into a quick battle to play with units that are "named" etc to make your own campaign.

[vils]

Thankyou all for all the answers, i will check the links out!

[DanE]

Originally posted by Abbott:

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.

Really? :eek: I was not aware of these compromises made by BFC. Please let me know of what compromises were made to the realism of CMBB. Please provide a link detailing these compromises.

Of course, I hope the you not referring to a simple name change and the removal of a couple of bmp files. I doubt many would consider those "compromises to realism to reach a wider audience." I think they would fall under "compromises (which have no impact on realism) made so that the game can be legaly sold in other conutries."

Also, I think there is some confusion between "reaching a wider audience" and "trying to reach a NEW audience." As far as I can tell, BFC's target audience for CMBB is the same as it was for CMBO. The distribution deal with CDV is in place to reach more members of that audience that would normally be unable/unaware of CMBB if it was only sold at Battlefront. It appears BFC is simply trying to reach more people in its taget audience. Now, I'm sure BFC won't mind if people outside of this taget audience buy CMBB, but I just haven't seen anything that would indicate that BFC has decided to abandon its stance on providing the most realistic wargame in an attempt to please and sell to the masses. If that was the case, I'm sure CMPW (Pacific War) would be coming out at Christmas and would have a campaign game that covered the entire war, would represent each individual member of each squad, would give the player the option of controlling land units and/or naval units and/or air units, and would have numerous other features collected from the many lists of 'missing features that would make CM a great game' found on these boards.

As always, Charles and Steve have decided what they want CM to "be". It is their baby and they can raise it as they see fit. As in real life, it is much easier to tell somebody how to raise their child than it is to have and raise one of your own...

[Abbott]

DanEeeeeeeeee , relax! I am not attacking BFC, I find their products to be excellent. Yes, I am referring to changing a few names and BMP’s. Yes, I am aware it was done to accommodate German law.

____________________________

As always, Charles and Steve have decided what they want CM to "be". It is their baby and they can raise it as they see fit. As in real life, it is much easier to tell somebody how to raise their child than it is to have and raise one of your own...

______________________________

I take exception to YOU inferring that I am trying to tell BFC how to do their job. Have you been drinking?

Charles and Steve may change their minds/opinions, you never know. I believe an included campaign system would be a very fun addition and increase immersion. I believe it would also appeal to a wider audience. A wider audience equals more sales, which in turn equals more funds. More funds equal more success for BFC. I do not see a problem with that.

I posted my point of view, that is all. If you do not feel that way, fine. However if enough people voice their opinions, as I said above "You never know".

So take a chill pill, sit back and maybe fire-up CMBB, the best WWII game out there.

[ October 15, 2002, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Panzer Leader]

You know, Steve has said that they've looked into having a campaign element, so it's not like it's anathema to them or anything.

I would not be surprised to see a campaign element added to the re-write, either a full-blown campaign element, or a means for third parties (US!) to develop campaigns in the form of linked scenarios. Of course, like the rest of you, I'm talking out my ass!

[DanE]

Originally posted by Abbott:

So take a chill pill, sit back and maybe fire-up CMBB, the best WWII game out there.

No problem Abbott, I didn't mean to come across as slamming you, I was just curious if any other 'changes' had been made to the game. I could have worded my response better. Sorry.

The rest of the post was not directed towards you but was meant to be a reminder to everyone that, while each of us thinks we know what would make CMBB a better game, in the end it comes down to what Charles and Steve want to do. I'm sure user feedback is important to them, but there has got to be a point where we, the gamers, must respect BFC's decisions concerning the development of the game.

I'll add that I would have no problem with a well implemented campaign feature being put into the next CM game. I may or may not use it, but I would have no problem with one being added if it did not take away from the other aspects of CM.

Now I believe you mentioned something about a drink in your message. It is now late enough in the morning so I think I will take you up on that. Relax and enjoy, I know I will...

[daft]

I for one would very much like a campaign element in the game. It would add a great deal to the immersion factor and as long as nothing is changed about the way the game handles the actual combat, the realism factor will still be on the same high level it is today. All I want is the occasional medal, promotion and even demotion. No levels, no winning the war with one battallion, just a series of linked scenarios where the computer keeps track of my score and rewards me when I do something right and punishes me for doing wrong. A well designed campaign can really make the player feel like a small part of something monumentaly huge, and that is not only great fun, it's also highly realistic.

[Dirtweasle]

I am completely for an integrated campaign module with any future CM release, or for that matter a backwards compatible add-on to be purchased for $XX.00

Re: linking battles as currently allowed - The problem with linking the CMBB battles, IMO, by exporting the maps and units is that the existing units on the map do not get resupplied with ammo. The retain their position OK, and new reinforcements can come in, but the existing troops have only whatever ammo is left over from the previous battle. So in my estimation, the feature/benefit/value proposition is very low when reusing the OOB from one battle to another. Rather you have to repurchase the correct units and make an estimate based on the pervious battle and adjust for casualties, etc.... As already stated there are a couple of manual rules created by others for this sort of thing in addition to CMMC-1, CMMC-2, etc... I have not played with the new operations yet, so do not know if the front line is redrawn any better. In CMBO this was a problem that made operations largely un-playable.

re: Integrated game Campaign System - Why any current CM fan/enthusiast would be against having a first class integrated campaign system included with an upcoming new release is beyond me. Unless the fear is that the limited resources of BTS/BFC would be diluted and their pet feature would be left out. But much like the ability to use the editor now, it would be optional I should imagine. If you don't like campaigns then just play the individual scenarios. No one is saying to morph the game into solely a campaign generator are they? Yes you can join CMMC, but these things are not for a solo player. You cannot sit at your PC for a "lost weekend" of gaming away the hours.