3rd Party Campaign development

[Directive#21]

How close are we to a 3rd party solution for the campaign issue? During the past two years, I have read and contributed to many long and often heated discussions regarding the integration of campaign play with he CM game system. (I changed my username in honor of CMBB so please disregard the apparent contradiction of this statement with my junior member status) It is obvious that Charles and Steve feel that a campaign system is secondary issue on a long list of priorities. Given the anticipation we all share for the release of CMBB, I don't completely disagree. However, for CMers like me, who don't enjoy the tedious chess-like style of player vs player game play, Campaigns provide the long-term playability that CM lacks in the Battle and Operation format.

Ultimately, WW2 was won and lost on the logistics level. (i.e. availability and allocation of resources, supply chains, development of experienced units and officer corps etc…) Despite Allied bombing, German industry was producing more tanks and planes at the end of 1944 than during any other period of the war. However, the German High Command was unable to project their industrial success into military victory because of a lack of fuel, experienced personnel etc. All of these aspects can be provided through the effective implementation of a campaign system.

Thanks,

Directive #21 (formerly Dilger)

[Slapdragon]

Come to the Magenta Onion grasshopper. WE have a very unique campaign for you.

[McUnknown]

Where??? Is there any URL for downloading the metacampaign? Would be great

[Directive#21]

Magenta Onion?

[Lah]

I agree, even something very simple would open up a lot more interesting possibilities for CM games.

[Priest]

CMMC, DUH!

[Slapdragon]

Magenta Onion is a metacampaign run for a small number of players that relies on humor and ease of play to provide an excuse to have a strategic layer and to fight lots of battles.

[Panzer Leader]

Geesh, ya know why I want a campaign? So I can play the game ALONE!!!!! sometimes. Is that so wrong?

[Directive#21]

I guess this answers my question:

Will there be a campaign system added to the game?

"We currently have THREE folks asking to make a huge campaign system of one form or another. All three have made multiple detailed pitches to us. All three have started by saying all they need is the file format. All three have then described a system that requires much more involvement from us than just that to make their system work. We haven't ruled any of the three out (yet), but to be honest... I just don't see how it will be possible to do any of them. We know there is interest (though we don't think it is more than a decent minority of customers), but on balance it isn't as important as the other things we have to do. Remember, any campaign system is only as good as the tactical battles they contain. If we skip something major in order to do the campaign stuff, everybody suffers the loss.{correction. I made this sound worse than it really is. Let's just say that we are skeptical that "just an export file" will be enough. So we proceed with caution, but are still looking at the proposals I mentioned seriously." -Steve

Still, I find it difficult to understand why a campaign feature is favored by only a "minority of customers"! Logistic and strategic layers provide the meaning and context for tactical level engagements! Sometimes I think this genre is doomed by the influence of its board gaming roots. Rowan's Battle of Britain garnered a lot of positive attention for its implementation of this concept. Combat Flight Sims suffered for years from pre-scripted scenarios and boring linear campaigns. Also, IL2 Sturmovik benefited from a brilliant 3rd party campaign generator that added enormous value to the game!

-Directive#21

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Directive#21 wrote,

“Ultimately, WW2 was won and lost on the logistics level. (i.e. availability and allocation of resources, supply chains, development of experienced units and officer corps etc…) Despite Allied bombing, German industry was producing more tanks and planes at the end of 1944 than during any other period of the war. However, the German High Command was unable to project their industrial success into military victory because of a lack of fuel, experienced personnel etc. All of these aspects can be provided through the effective implementation of a campaign system.”

I too am very keen on the idea of a campaign layer, but not quite what the above seems to imply. The above seems to me to represent a strategic layer, not a good match-up with the CM scale. What I am hoping for is an “operational” layer.

The Soviets define operations as “two battles separated by time and space, but where the outcome in one battle affects the outcome in the other”. Given that the Soviets were the masters of the Operational Art it is no surprise that they use such an elegant definition.

What this really means is that operations is all about moving around battalion combat teams, when in CM the maneuver units are squads and individual AFVs. As of yesterday BTS have a very high quality operational wargame team in-house, Panther Games. I would like to see an operational layer similar to Airborne Assault but with the ability to zoom down a scale to CM in order to resolve any given contact battle at the lower scale, if one wished. The operational game would export a file into CM where a program very similar to the Quick Battle Generator would construct the battle. The result of the CM clash could then be re-exported back to the operational game.

From reading this forum I believe there is real demand for such a feature. CM was an enormous leap forward in terms of the realism of the modeling, i.e. it is a real simulation, in my view. However, allowing two separate games to match-up, one a quality operational game the other a version of CM, would also be a great leap forward. Some one will do it one day, I hope it is BTS, I trust them to get it right.

All the best,

Kip.

[Holien]

Kip,

I am sure that there are lots of players who would like and want what you describe and I will chime in to show that it is so.

I am sure that the gods will listen to us if we speak gently and often in favour of such a boon.

I must go back to my chanting and meditation in the hope that the dream will be answered.

H

[JasonC]

I like campaigns too, and I am running one. It is currently on hold due to real life time constraints, but should start up again in a week or two. But this points out a piece of the answer to Directive-21's question.

He asked "why a campaign feature is favored by only a minority of customers". The answer is the time commitment involved. PBEM games can last a few months. Practical campaigns can use TCP resolution to get each set of tactical battles done in one sitting, but the requirement for the players to be present simultaneously for a long block of time winds up making that a weekly event, at best. You just can't schedule around the rest of people's lives for more than that. Then some operational periods pass without tactical battles, vacations and holidays occur, real life time crunches distract key players now and then.

As I result, a campaign game I began last November, set at the opening of the battle of the Bulge, has made it through the whole first day and night. It is now dawn of the second day, 17 December. There have been around 20 tactical battles. Now, 5 battles per month is not all that many, when you get right down to it. The total period we want to simulate is three days and two nights, and it will take us the better part of a year to do. With up to a dozen players involved, some dropping out and others joining, etc.

Just because something is neat does not mean everyone on earth wants to spend a year doing it.

Obviously, the more integrated and playable an operational aspect to CM gets, the easier it is to deal with this reality. But my experience is that playability is often relatively low on the priority of campaign minded wishers and dreamers. They want everything in, not a stripped down version sleek enough to move quickly. I've seen some with rules as long as books, that want a level of work from players akin to that put out by whole staffs of officers doing it as full time jobs.

Giantism is the enemy of workable campaign systems. The more gigantic and realistic, the neater a handful of people will think the system is. Just the kind of people who invest the time to create such system, or to run them. But the more gigantic the system, the smaller the pool of players who will actually show up to play in the things, and the shorter the time they will stay interested. The more work you do, the fewer people will ever see it.\

Keep it simple is the prime directive for a workable operational layer. And keep the ambitions in the workable range. I think there could be far more campaigns than there are, and more people playing in them, if campaign makers would just think smaller. A handful of players on a side, modest command spans, limited time periods. Bump up a level from the scale of CM actions, at most two levels.

The interest should not come from the campaign system, or the scale. It should come from the tactical problem the campaign presents to the rival commanders. Make that interesting - something other than a vanilla match up of equivalent forces. Make the outcome depend on a modest number of decisions and fights. Let there be an outcome, in a relatively brief span of time.

I think far more people would play such campaigns than go in for the typical ambitious giants on offer. I include myself - my own have tried to stay at a workable size, but have still wound up long term affairs in real life terms (I've run three, counting the one going now). It is much easier to err on the side of "too big" than on the side of "too small".

[Talon xBMCx]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

... The operational game would export a file into CM where a program very similar to the Quick Battle Generator would construct the battle. The result of the CM clash could then be re-exported back to the operational game.

Kip.

If this were an option, I think you would see a lot of 3rd party campaigns as well. Not only that ... but if varying sizes, locations, etc.

All we need is a way to modify unit allocations within a CM mission. The rest is up to the campaign developers.

Talon

[Hunter]

JasonC,

I think you have hit the nail on the head as far as the appropriate scale and size goes.

I believe the problem is being worked on.

Hunter

[Panzer Leader]

Originally posted by Hunter:

JasonC,

I think you have hit the nail on the head as far as the appropriate scale and size goes.

I believe the problem is being worked on.

Hunter

Problem is being worked on? Why, what do you mean, pray tell?

[Caesar]

I don't believe that BTS will be willing to commit a significant amount of resource to the problem of campaign manager integration until it is commercially viable/reasonable to do so. One can hardly blame them for this - they have limited resources (one programmer) and thus must use them to get the best bang for the buck.

Unfortunately this has resulted in a chicken and egg situation. Until there are campaign managers and other add ons in existance this is simply not going to happen. I saw recently that a Swedish guy has started writing something to provide that justification.

I am currently doing a proof of concept on one myself. However, I am not willing to expend the time and effort without some form of interface to CMBO so what I am trying to do is to remote control CMBO (in a similar manner to how the movie player is done) to allow the campaign manager to generate the battles. The summary results of the battles will have to be entered by hand (I will just have to spread the damage to units out among them). This will in no way be an ideal system but if it is possible then it will at least be workable and be able to address some of the organisational overhead problems. My main aim is to play CM battles, but realistic ones with realistic objectives and realistic consideration for my forces. If playing like a fanatic this game means that you will be overwhelmed the next then you will retreat. A battle may then entail different objectives for the players and win-win and lose-lose situations.

JasonC wrote

He asked "why a campaign feature is favored by only a minority of customers". The answer is the time commitment involved. PBEM games can last a few months. Practical campaigns can use TCP resolution to get each set of tactical battles done in one sitting, but the requirement for the players to be present simultaneously for a long block of time winds up making that a weekly event, at best. You just can't schedule around the rest of people's lives for more than that. Then some operational periods pass without tactical battles, vacations and holidays occur, real life time crunches distract key players now and then.

Maybe this can be addressed by getting players from the opponent finder for some of the battles especially some of the less important ones. Obviously their orders will have to include information such as acceptable losses and timeframe and their win/loss will be decided not by the game but by the guy in charge of the campaign (or maybe very judicious use of flags - I don't know, haven't thought about it enough). Another possible solution (with a computer campaign manager) is to use the computer to resolve some of the lesser battles statistically (similar to how higher level games do) - not a good solution but maybe a necessary evil

[ March 28, 2002, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Caesar ]

[Dirtweasle]

Kip's suggestion sounds very good to me!

[Specterx]

You guys should all check out CMMC (there's a link on the CMHQ menu). in CMMC we're simulating a Corps-level engagement between the British and Germans, and so far it's run smoothly. So far every player I've talked to (including me) is going to play in the sequel for CMBB, so they're obviously doing something right.

[Dirtweasle]

I'm playing in CMMC, have been for months...

I'd also like a first class operational treatment of CM, eg Campaign Game, that can be played solo *OR* a distant second (sp?) as a multi player campaign.

[Directive#21]

I started this thread with the need for the solo campaign in mind. CMMC and other multiplayer campaigns may be enjoyable but they require an enormous time investment. Traditional, player vs. player turn-based gaming is still the essence of war gaming. However, the innovation of computer war gaming meant that you where no longer dependent on other people to enjoy the genre. Personally, the value of being able to play CM on my own schedule, without having to consider the availability of other players, is immeasurable. I wonder if, in addition to being more challenging than the AI, the apparent bias towards multiplayer gaming on this forum stems from the way CMBO is marketed and sold. What I mean is that multiplayer gaming is emphasized by the fact that it is sold exclusively online and strongly supported by an Internet community via this forum. DISCLAIMER: I mean that as a compliment not a criticism!

What I am ultimately saying is, that adding campaign play drastically increases the long- term playability of CM as a solo game. I am also conceding that, as stated earlier, campaigns add very little to the multiplayer aspect of CM. Especially when you consider the quality of CMMC etc.

Directive#21

[ March 29, 2002, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Directive#21 ]

[Eric Alkema]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Keep it simple is the prime directive for a workable operational layer. And keep the ambitions in the workable range. I think there could be far more campaigns than there are, and more people playing in them, if campaign makers would just think smaller. A handful of players on a side, modest command spans, limited time periods. Bump up a level from the scale of CM actions, at most two levels.

Yes! Exactly!

[benpark]

I am in agreement with Kip and Directive, although they propose two very seperate systems for dealing with a solo player campaign system. I am an occaissonal PBEMer, but for cannot play TCP games due to a system configuration (and a busy schedule). Much of my CMBO play is vs the AI, and I am not at all dissapointed by that. What would add to my enjoyment of the game from time to time is some sort of linear campaign, on the lines of either suggestion. I am hopeful about something centered within the confines of a historical (or close to it) campaign.

The big picture/littlle picture suggestion of Kip's has always been my wargaming dream. Leading the same group of soldiers at the level of Directive's proposal also has great merits. I do agree that the board conversation about campaign game ideas is at times bit multiplayer centric, and I hope that the solo player part of the game can be given some of the same attention in this matter.