Son, some problems with campaign system

[CMplayer]

I'd like to start out by saying that

I think CM is an excellent game. However

the campaign system is _weak_, which

seriously undermines the enjoyment.

I was playing the Son campaign as the

Allies, and by the end of the second

battle had established a bridgehead over

the Wilhelmina canal. This required

attacking at a pretty fast pace, and

even bypassing German units in order

to reach and take the main objective.

Were my casualties worth it? No, because

the campaign system 'adjusted' the

lines, and forced me to redeploy a ways

back behind the canal. There is no way

on earth that airborne would relinquish

that bridgehead, however tiny it was.

To make things worse, in the next battle

I conducted a 'reverse slope' defence at my

new front line, and inflicted heavy

casualties on the Germans. (I didn't even

try to go back over the bridge, since

there is no point in taking any initiative

with the campaign system as undynamic,

and uncreative as it is). Well, having

successfully repulsed the Germans, what

happens? My line is pushed back again

because of some irrelevant halftracks out

on my extreme flanks.

I say irrelevant, because in this scenario

taking the bridge is the goal; it is the

center of gravity from which everything

should be measured, at least until XXX

corps arrives. (holding an open route

to the drop zone is also important of

course)

This sort of thing also would make good

urban campaigns impossible. Why would

anyone go to the trouble to take an

important building, if he's not sure if

the campaign system will let him keep it

for the next battle?

And this is really a big shame, because

the possiblities for fantastic urban

campaigns in CM are awesome, and totally

beat what was possible in CC. For instance

initiating night combat and trying to

infiltrate a building or two would really

increase the dynamic quality of the game.

But again, as the campaign system works

now, why bother?

As it is now, the system seems to be stuck

in a very inflexible, World War I kind of

thinking, where there is an even advance

along a wide front. Tactical mobility

and initiative are not rewarded, which

is very detrimental to the game, and

works against the game's explicit desire

to model WWII-style fighting.

Sorry for the rant, but as a player, I

am really hoping for some kind of

improvement, and I hope it will apply

retroactively to the original CM as well.

I expect these issues have been hashed to

death, and that the game's developers,

who deserve choruses of thanks, are

probably very aware of these issues.

But after the frustration of trying to

play what otherwise was a promising and

interesting campaign, I just had to mention

it again.

thanks for listening,

--Rett

[This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 12-28-2000).]

[MERC]

Well there are several questions:

1. What version were you playing? There has been a campaign bug that is suppose to be squashed that will draw the front lines better.

2. I'm not familiar with Son operation, but you might want to look at how the designer designed the scenario. He is the one that establishes the buffer zone.

I have been played several operations PBEM and have had a blast and enjoy them.

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MERC:

Well there are several questions:

1. What version were you playing? There has been a campaign bug that is suppose to be squashed that will draw the front lines better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1.05 but the issue is not just one of

drawing the front lines better. They

system needs to recognize key objectives,

and never just toss them away once taken.

Otherwise there is no incentive to assault

them.

2. I'm not familiar with Son operation, but you might want to look at how the designer designed the scenario. He is the one that establishes the buffer zone.

[Pak40]

Hi Rett,

[Pak40]

Hi Rett,

[Pak40]

Hi Rett,

Hi Rett, I'll try and answer your questions to the Son Op and CM Ops in general. I'm the designer of the Son Op (unless you've downloaded one that someone else has made) so I can share some info I learned from the testing of the CM Operation system.

First, let me say that the CM operation design system is not object oriented. Designers cannot place victory flags on the map like we can in the single battle scenarios. Therefore the computer AI does not know to attack or defend an important geographical location such as a bridge, building or crossroads. This is unfortunate because this make many operations almost pointless to play vs the AI. The computer units wander aimlessly, only seeking the opposite side of the map. Any object oriented campaign will suffer this problem. My other campaign, Arnhem, suffers from this also.

In reply to the two questions that MERC has asked you:

1. I highly recommend that you download the BETA 1.1, it operates separately from the 1.05 executable so you can have shortcuts to both versions simultaneously. The BETA version fixed a bug that didn't allow the white setup zone to be used between battles. This, however, may not fix the problem completely.

I designed the operation with the idea that the first two battles should be a "dash for the bridge" type action. In other words the allies need to get as close to the bridge as possible with as many units as possible in order to capture it. I have tested this and it works well, I am consistantly able to get many units to the bride (and several units across it) while taking out most axis forces.

2. I did set the "no man's land" setting to zero. You can double check this in the designer if you like and change it if it is wrong for some reason.

Despite all the things I mentioned above I still witness some strange behavior in the campaigne system. I sometimes see the defender pushed back hundreds of meters in one setup but none in the next setup. There is definite room for improvement here. I think and pray BTS will work on this for CM2.

[This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 12-29-2000).]

[LimShady]

Where is the Beta 1.1. I have a few scenarios that I'd like to try, but won't run under 1.05.

Thanks.

[CMplayer]

Pak40:

1. I highly recommend that you download the BETA 1.1, it operates separately from the 1.05 executable so you can have shortcuts to both versions simultaneously. The BETA version fixed a bug that didn't allow the white setup zone to be used between battles. This, however, may not fix the problem completely.

Rett:

That explains a lot, thanks. At the first

night turn, there was a white zone which

extended over the bridge into the area

of my bridgehead, but it was not possible

to set up units there. It added insult to

injury because it was like the game was

saying, "ha ha, I even know what you should

have gotten, but you can't have it." I was

quite puzzled by that white zone actually.

I designed the operation with the idea that the first two battles should be a "dash for the bridge" type action. In other words the allies need to get as close to the bridge as possible with as many units as possible in order to capture it. I have tested this and it works well, I am consistantly able to get many units to the bride (and several units across it) while taking out most axis forces.

Yes I found it the same. Against the AI at

+1 experience I got 5 squads over the bridge

by the end of the second battle. (But then

I had practiced it in CC many times)

The issue is not so much whether you take

the bridge but how much casualties you

take getting there. However, I didn't

consider the importance of moving my slower

units, MG's and so on, closer to the canal

to get their 'weight' into the calcualation.

Thx for the explanation.

Despite all the things I mentioned above I still witness some strange behavior in the campaigne system. I sometimes see the defender pushed back hundreds of meters in one setup but none in the next setup. There is definite room for improvement here. I think and pray BTS will work on this for CM2.

I'm glad that you also express your desire

to see the campaign system improved. Your

description of 'object orientation' (snipped)

was a very clear way of putting what I

was trying to say.

It would be interesting if the next version

of the campaign system would give the

campaign designer a simple scripting language

for defining 'if...then...' alternatives

as to deployment zones, reinforcement

and resupply. An example, in your scenario

would be, that if the bridge (an object)

is held by the allies, then all german

deployment is shifted to the far side

of the canal. German units trapped on

the American side could perhaps stay

there, but in a more dire supply situation.

The possibilities are staggering.

Another way of looking at it, would have

to do with the terrain. The bridge is

such a total bottleneck on that map, that

holding it is, in effect, like holding

the whole length of the canal, so it should

be much more weighty in calculating the

way the lines are shifted forward. But

this would probably be too vague to program,

which is why these sorts of decisions

could be given to the scenario designer

with a scripting system.

Now that you have explained your take

on these issues I'm starting to see some

of the ways you worked to make the scenario function within the constraints of the

present operation system. For instance, in

the Son Allies briefing, it says to expand the bridgehead as much as possible on the far side of the canal. This seems like a decent way to model a 'seize and hold' operation

within an 'assault' type campaign. (At least

as long as all counterattacks only come

from straight ahead) Thanks for that effort

and work.

Still, I'll bet the game would profit

from object oriented campaigns, and

a specifically defined 'seize and hold'

type of campaign, where counterattacks

can come from several directions. Arnhem

definitely needs this: the Germs come from

over the bridge, the back, the sides...

everywhere...

And for urban campaigns, we'll have to

know we will keep every house we clear.

Crossing the street is just too dangerous,

to have those small gains traded away.

regards,

--Rett

[Peterk]

Hi Rett,

I agree with your comments, but you have to remember that if you get pushed back the opponent is probably going to get pushed back as well and that means there will be a nice big buffer between you at the beginning of the next battle - which you can use to your advantage to just run in and retake those hard-fought objectives again in turn 1 with no losses (they shoukd be unoccupied). It's not a perfect system but faults and all I still find the operations more fun than single scenarios.

If anything the system now makes you push harder as the attacker than you would otherwise because you know that a bit of your advance will probably get hacked off between missions.

p.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LimShady:

Where is the Beta 1.1. I have a few scenarios that I'd like to try, but won't run under 1.05.

Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have the URL of the beta, but if you do a search on the CM forum with Beta as your keyword and set the search to 10 or 30 days, it should give you the thread which has the URL.