Operational/Strategic Interface for CMBB?

[TBlaster]

My friend and myself enjoy CM immensly, but meaningless quick battles and scenarios get boring for us real quick. We need purpose! For CM1 we made up a primitive "Meta-Campaign" that worked so-so. Are there any tools/games out there that can could be used to use CM just to fight the tactical battles?

What I was thinking of, for example, would be a hex based game (i.e. TOAW) that wouldn't calculate combat, but whenever your combat units meet, would provide you with a text file where you would update the unit strengths after the CM battle had taken place.

I found the official CM meta-campaign too frustrating because it tried to do too many things at once and took the fun out of the game.

Thanks for any hints or suggestions.

Tom

CM 1 Ass Kicker of the Month Winner

[Schoerner]

This is something i'm dreaming about since months.

Something like Airborne Assault without battle calculation and on the top a Strategic Command module.

[funkybax]

I'm very interested to do such experience, so if you want I'm at your disposal (so email me).

More...

if BATTLEFRONT will make a CMBO add on with a campaign system (a GOOD campaign, not the operational one we have), I will surely buy it.

Bye.

Funkybax

[funkybax]

I'll buy it.

I swear.

Bye.

Funkybax

[DrJim]

I think the CM battle engine & supporting code - although a fantastic game in its own right - would also offer an excellent foundation for just such a linked strategic/tactical game.

The Total War games offer an excellent, playable, and fun strategic level, and the later Close Combat games did the same, although at a cruder level.

I'd think - and I guess I'm colouring with my own interests and prejudices - that a well constructed game linking strategic (or even operational) level decisions to the the CMBB battle simulator covering the eastern front would create great interest within the community.

Just as a note.... Can one ingest tabulat/ASCII data into the CMBB scenario editor to create a scenario in a highly automated way? I would think linking Strategic Game Output to CMBB Input could be done in this way, but I think linking CMBB battle output back into the Strategic level would be tough at present. However, a relatively straightforward ASCII dump of output results could achieve this.

[Directive#21]

It's remarkable how often this topic comes up...

However, BTS is convinced that only a fringe group

of CMers are in favor of a stategic layer. For me,

a strstegic layer is the only missing element in CM series...

-Directive#21

[gunnergoz]

Count me in the "lunatic fringe" who would like to have such a strategic/operational front end for CM. Heavy on the lunatic part.

[Sten]

Me too.

[wodasini88]

me too, I wouldn't mind trying to by pass stalingrad or trying the "what if's" at the operational or strategic level then going into fight the actuall battles.

[Jard]

same here...

[Priest]

Hey folks, I will start with what I always say, join one of the large operational games.

Anyhow at the level CM games occur it is unrealistic to go to the operational level and really unrealistic to go to the strategic level.

Moreover the focus of CM is to play out a tactical engagement. Steve many times has stated that trying to do to much will cause crap to be produced. BFC does not like to produce crap. So the game must stay focused to be good. Would you prefer CM games play like a bastardized sudden strike with a horrible and outdated TacAI and have a crappy operational layer or would you like the best damn tactical simulator out there?

Also Steve has also stated they talked to a couple of folks about another layer interface for CM games but every solution so far has led to them releasing some of their source code which they are unwilling to do for obvious reasons.

Now I understand that want, but I also understand the reality of the situation. I loved Panzer General also. But CM games are not like that and it is unrealistic to try to make them.

Finally I think BFC will try and make operations better and more complete but I doubt we will ever see "campaign" play because a.) It would hurt the CM game b.) BFC does not want to hurt the CM game.

Finally DO A SEARCH!!!

(notice smiley and sarcasm)

Really there are a lot of threads on this and the CMBO forum that BFC makes some informative comments on the issue.

[Cast Iron]

It would be a great idea! You could have more than two people involved for online play.

You could assign units to players(one person being a general)and decide how your arty and air are used.Every player would have a record.

Citations/medals and bad things like being relieved of command would be on it. Yes it would add another dimension and would be great for online play. Total War would be a excellent model but limit it to a campaign/operation area.

[Priest]

Cast Iron,

Join CMMC2 it has everything you just asked for.

[TBlaster]

Hi Priest,

I'm not asking for CM to be modified to incorporate a operational/strategic layer, that would exceed my expectations. I just want to know if there are any other software programs that are flexible enough that could be used for this purpose. If there were only a way to disable battle calculation and have it prompt for a damn text file

There used to be a very old hex based wargame builder...Aide D'Camp (spelling?). Anyone know if that would work?

[Priest]

Just trying to stop a possible forum "war".

Any how I think someone was trying to use the Operational Art of War games somehow. Some I think use a couple of board games. Search around and you should find the info.

[Loki]

I remember this coming up years ago. The reply from Steve was that it would be unrealistic and never implemented ( NOT exact wording).

When it was 1st mentioned, people wanted units to gain experience and carry over to the next battle. The realistic fact is that by the end of the war there was around 70% turn over in units. People get wounded, die, transferred, etc. CM was ment to simulate combat as close as possible, NOT to be something like Panzer General (I admitt I loved Panzer General 2).

[Schoerner]

Priest, i cannot share your reservation to additional "modules".

CM's concept would in NO WAY be changed.

All that it would need to provide is an interface, capable of reading data, that describe which units should be available in the battle, building a map by using the quick battle generator but using the parameters given from the module "above" or maybe even using a predefined map.

Additional info for the briefing - which units, geographical location and time - could also be provided by the module. Even information dealing with the overall situation of the army or front and maps could be automatically delivered by the module.

After such a battle, all that CM would need to provide, is a output file, containing the losses, the units still available and the result of the battle, to be imported into the module.

And on the highest level there even could be another module, similar to StrategicCommand, dealing with the operational ressource management.

Each module could be sold seperately and whoever only wants to play tactical battles, can use CM the way he always used it.

Such an interface could be provided with quite less labour.

For the passionate tactical and strategic multiplayers, the heaven of wargaming would wait, with the other modules.

I guess such a module would sell quite well, if adequately advertised to the CM-community: CM contains only the interface, but if you want to become part of the strategic-multiplayer-community, you need the - compared to CM itself - quite simple but expensive strategic-module.

And if such a module would be to much labour for BFC, with an open standard (the interface reads non encrypted data and the data format is provided by BFC), i'm sure the community's programmers would surely make a simple strategic-module on their own and in the worst case a simple administrative-program, handling the amount of available units of both sides and the locations on the strategic map, where the CM-battles take place.

The problem that the opponents are not allowed to know the units of the other side, could be easily handled: each side only receives (from their HQ - means the strategic module) the data belonging to them, while the first player also receives the parameters for the QB-generator (or the predefined map). Then he sends the encrypted file (like in PBEM games) to the opponent and he imports his data into the game.

From there on, everything continues as usual.

To sum up, all that BFC would need to implement into CM, is an interface (like for email) capable reading and writing encrypted or unencrypted files (depending on their further plans if they want to release a strategic module on their own or not) containing which units should be present on the battlefield, the parameters for the QB-generator and when the battle is finished, writing back the results into a file.

[ November 07, 2002, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Priest]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Priest, i cannot share your reservation to additional "modules".

CM's concept would in NO WAY be changed.

All that it would need to provide is an interface, capable of reading data, that describe which units should be available in the battle, building a map by using the quick battle generator but using the parameters given from the module "above" or maybe even using a predefined map.

Additional info for the briefing - which units, geographical location and time - could also be provided by the module. Even information dealing with the overall situation of the army or front and maps could be automatically delivered by the module.

After such a battle, all that CM would need to provide, is a output file, containing the losses, the units still available and the result of the battle, to be imported into the module.

And on the highest level there even could be another module, similar to StrategicCommand, dealing with the operational ressource management.

Each module could be sold seperately and whoever only wants to play tactical battles, can use CM the way he always used it.

Such an interface could be provided with quite less labour.

For the passionate tactical and strategic multiplayers, the heaven of wargaming would wait, with the other modules.

I guess such a module would sell quite well, if adequately advertised to the CM-community: CM contains only the interface, but if you want to become part of the strategic-multiplayer-community, you need the - compared to CM itself - quite simple but expensive strategic-module.

And if such a module would be to much labour for BFC, with an open standard (the interface reads non encrypted data and the data format is provided by BFC), i'm sure the community's programmers would surely make a simple strategic-module on their own and in the worst case a simple administrative-program, handling the amount of available units of both sides and the locations on the strategic map, where the CM-battles take place.

The problem that the opponents are not allowed to know the units of the other side, could be easily handled: each side only receives (from their HQ - means the strategic module) the data belonging to them, while the first player also receives the parameters for the QB-generator (or the predefined map). Then he sends the encrypted file (like in PBEM games) to the opponent and he imports his data into the game.

From there on, everything continues as usual.

To sum up, all that BFC would need to implement into CM, is an interface (like for email) capable reading and writing encrypted or unencrypted files (depending on their further plans if they want to release a strategic module on their own or not) containing which units should be present on the battlefield, the parameters for the QB-generator and when the battle is finished, writing back the results into a file.

Uhm I am not saying I would not want such a system but BFC already said it is unfeasible. And Strategic Commands level of focus is about two step above CMs so that would not work. Regardless the reality of the situation is that BFC looked into to it somewhat, saw that it did not meet their goals for maintaining focus and could not be done without giving up too much.

Those are the facts that can be found directly from them. That is the reality of it. I have just accepted it and joined CMMC. Awesome experiece you should try it.

[Schoerner]

Unfeasible?

This should be extremely simple to implement.

Reading the content from a simple txt-file?

Internally calling the QB-generator and filling in the parameters automatically?

Choosing the units defined in a txt-file and placing somewhere on the map?

Did they answer that such an INTERFACE is unfeasible or to implement a whole strategic-component into CM?

This are two complete different things.

Imagine what it would mean, if this data-format would even allow to select the names of the commanders.

Everyone knows about the relationship that is built up during a battle between the player and it's units and then you can even have the same Panther-commander in the next battle against another human-opponent!

A tremendous long-time motivation.

And what this means for further CM-plans BFC surely knows

[ November 07, 2002, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Priest]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Unfeasible?

This should be extremely simple to implement.

Reading the content from a simple txt-file?

Internally calling the QB-generator and filling in the parameters automatically?

Choosing the units defined in a txt-file and placing somewhere on the map?

Did they answer that such an INTERFACE is unfeasible or to implement a whole strategic-component into CM?

This are two complete different things.

Schoener according to what you describe I can simply use COCAT and the editor to do this already and probably faster or better. Basically if I understand you right you asking for a file to input and make a battle, but you can do that in the editor. And if you do not trust your opponent have a third party set it up. What generates the situation for this battle, another operational level game? COCAT could do it if the players tracked it manually I guess. From what I see here you would also need an interface into an operational level game to read the return data or update it yourself. The first way is asking two seperate companies to come together on something (BFC currently has no games that fit that role) and the second is very unelegant and not much different that what you can already do.

Not to mention that it takes away focus and Steve and BFC already said that is a bad thing.

COCAT would still need a third party to evaluate orders on retrospect.

[ November 07, 2002, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Cast Iron]

Let me start by saying if BF said they could not do something like this, I would go on loving this game, it's my dream come true.To me it's ASL 3-D.

By adding a strat layer things take on more purpose. Mech units would be faster than infantry and show on a strat layer(flanking).

A decision would be made at the start of a campaign to have airborne fight as airborne or fight as infantry(iF they have air transport).Prisoners take on new purpose when they get interrogated revealing unit locations and compositions.

Don't get me wrong. I love this game as is.

[Schoerner]

@Priest:

To bad.

Although such a simple interface only for the CM-community (if no commercial plans exist), would be nevertheless a good decision (like the BMP-format was, for giving the community the possibility to make the game even more attractive).

I know, there's COCAT, but we would be even further, if CM would provide only such a simple interface.

The community would make the work and CM, we the players and BFC would benefit from it.

You said you joined CMMC. Has CMMC2 already begun?

[ November 07, 2002, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]