Dynamic/ Semi Dynamic Campaigns.....???

[Charlie901]

Any word yet on whether your actions/inactions in a particular battle effect the next battle within a Campaign/Operation.

Or do the Campaigns/Operations follow a linear set path regardless?

For replayability sake of the main Story-Driven Campaign/Operation I would love to see some dynamic aspects involved.

[Salkin]

This has been discussed a few times.

I don't think the campaign will be very dynamic. We will probably have to settle with a semi-dynamic type of campaign.

I'm guessing we can decide some of our reinforcements during the mission or something similar.

//Salkin

I like random stuff

[Battlefront.com]

The campagin system is semi-dynamic. Meaning, some things that you do can influence which battle you go to next. However, the battles themselves are preditermined and you choice of which one to fight next will be limited. A linear campaign goes from battle to battle without any choice or (much) variantion, a dynamic campign is very open ended about what battle you go to next and how.

A dynamic campaign that comes to mind is Close Combat 2. Campaigns for RTS/FPS games are almost always linear.

Steve

[Charlie901]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The campagin system is semi-dynamic. Meaning, some things that you do can influence which battle you go to next. However, the battles themselves are preditermined and you choice of which one to fight next will be limited. A linear campaign goes from battle to battle without any choice or (much) variantion, a dynamic campign is very open ended about what battle you go to next and how.

A dynamic campaign that comes to mind is Close Combat 2. Campaigns for RTS/FPS games are almost always linear.

Steve

Great!

I understand that the battles have to be somewhat predetermined but will there be any incentive to conserve your forces. For example; will fatigue carry over form one battle to the next or experience gain or even fallen/injured squad members?

If there is no carry over of forces between battles or experience/fatigue/injuries what's to pevent us from issuing non-tactical suicidal orders just to get through the battle so that we can fight the next one with fresh/new units?

I don't really need a dynamic campaign, as long as we can design and DL Operations like in CM1. But I really liked how you could retain and build on your original forces with added units, via purchase points, in Close Combat. It really forced me to play "Smart" and not sacrifice my men so that it made the going easier as the campaign progressed.

Anyway, this looks to be an awesome game but please take your time and pack in as many of those last minute items as you all can.

[Battlefront.com]

I understand that the battles have to be somewhat predetermined but will there be any incentive to conserve your forces. For example; will fatigue carry over form one battle to the next or experience gain or even fallen/injured squad members?

Yup! The exact details have yet to be determined, but the stuff you mentioned is pretty basic and therefore assured. The campaign designer gets to decided recovery rates inbetween battles. This allows a certain amount of simulation of decision making. For example, if the player decides to skip a battle perhaps he will be better off in terms of his force, but skipping might hit the total victory score as a penalty. If you're in bad need of a rest, perhaps it is worth the hit in hopes that you'll be more likely to win future battles in better condition. Going ahead with the battle "as is" might cause long term harm. That sort of thing.

Again, the details have yet to be worked out, but the overall structure of the campaign system does allow for a lot of creative freedom long term.

Steve

[Charlie901]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I understand that the battles have to be somewhat predetermined but will there be any incentive to conserve your forces. For example; will fatigue carry over form one battle to the next or experience gain or even fallen/injured squad members?

Yup! The exact details have yet to be determined, but the stuff you mentioned is pretty basic and therefore assured. The campaign designer gets to decided recovery rates inbetween battles. This allows a certain amount of simulation of decision making. For example, if the player decides to skip a battle perhaps he will be better off in terms of his force, but skipping might hit the total victory score as a penalty. If you're in bad need of a rest, perhaps it is worth the hit in hopes that you'll be more likely to win future battles in better condition. Going ahead with the battle "as is" might cause long term harm. That sort of thing.

Again, the details have yet to be worked out, but the overall structure of the campaign system does allow for a lot of creative freedom long term.

Steve </font>

[Drusus]

Is skipping battles really in scope of CMSF? I would imagine that the one making this decision is one level upper from the player...

[juan_gigante]

"Um, Major, me and the boys were talking, and we'd really rather not attack that town. Yeah, we're feeling a little tired..."

Didn't that kind of happen a year or so back? I remember something about some convoy that refused to go on their mission because they thought they weren't protected enough or something.

[Peter Cairns]

If you push ahead without reinforcements, you could lose, but if you wait they could be reinforced, would be an easy option I'd have thought,

Also if you bypass and objective your force avoids casualties, but in future scenarios, reinforcement and ammo could be reduced, because of he trouble the force you bypassed was causing to resupply.

just some thoughts.

Peter.

[Cpl Steiner]

Considering how quickly Baghdad fell, perhaps skipping a battle should result in the next briefing saying, "congratulations guys, the war's over." !!!

[ January 18, 2006, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[Peter Cairns]

Considering how far Stryker forces move, if you skip a battle the next briefing should say "Back up your in the Sea".

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe...

Well, as I alluded to above, the choice of going to battle or not is quite limited. The most likely situation would be saying to your higher ups "hey, we have 3 vehicles non-functional, a depleted Rifle Platoon, and only enough ammo to be annoying. I really don't think we are ready to take on down town Damascus just yet". In real life the higher level would determine how relevant this information is in terms of planning. It could be that the answer would be "suck it up and go" or it could be "OK, wait for 2 hours then go" or it could be "OK, you'll jump in later and 1st Battalion will take your place for this one".

Now the, question is... should the player have this choice or should CM make it for him. In other words, who is making the call, the player or some higher authority? I'm leaning towards CM making the call. The player can, therefore, request a halt, but perhaps he won't be given one. That sort of thing.

Whatever it is it will be simplistic. At least at first. We can't afford to get bogged down in overly detailed campaign "what if" stuff because that will get us more into a dynamic campaign system, which we are purposefully avoiding. That's a design and programming black hole

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hehe...

Well, as I alluded to above, the choice of going to battle or not is quite limited. The most likely situation would be saying to your higher ups "hey, we have 3 vehicles non-functional, a depleted Rifle Platoon, and only enough ammo to be annoying. I really don't think we are ready to take on down town Damascus just yet". In real life the higher level would determine how relevant this information is in terms of planning. It could be that the answer would be "suck it up and go" or it could be "OK, wait for 2 hours then go" or it could be "OK, you'll jump in later and 1st Battalion will take your place for this one".

Now the, question is... should the player have this choice or should CM make it for him. In other words, who is making the call, the player or some higher authority? I'm leaning towards CM making the call. The player can, therefore, request a halt, but perhaps he won't be given one. That sort of thing.

Whatever it is it will be simplistic. At least at first. We can't afford to get bogged down in overly detailed campaign "what if" stuff because that will get us more into a dynamic campaign system, which we are purposefully avoiding. That's a design and programming black hole

Steve

How about if your requests to the higher ups affected your standing as a unit commander?

For instance, if you had a few non-functioning vehicles and a shot-up platoon, you could ask to be put in reserve for a few days, but that might mean the higher-ups regard you with suspicion from now on as a bit of a quitter or lacking in "moral fibre".

Similarly, if despite some problems you declare your unit "good to go" and request a new objective, your standing with the higher ups will be increased.

A low standing might mean that future requests for a respite are ignored, even when they are perfectly justified, i.e. you are accused of crying wolf.

A high standing might mean that you get to avoid some pretty undesirable missions, such as being lead company in a "thunder run".

You would also have to balance your desire to have a good standing with the higher ups with your perception of the danger level of each mission. A good standing isn't worth much if your unit is wrecked in a suicidal mission.

Aside from avoiding certain battles, good standing might be useful for requesting additional units, like a platoon of M1s, or additional artillery or air support. Likewise, bad standing might mean some of your assets are stripped away to support other operations.

I should acknowledge that this idea has featured to some extent in a paper and pencil campaign system for CM by "Bill Tong" (? - not sure of spelling).

[Battlefront.com]

The design calls for the option to "demote" the player, effectively ending the player's campaign. In other words, if you screw up badly enough, collectively speaking, then you run the risk of getting canned. Skipping battles, for whatever reason, will weigh into that equation heavily. So skip at your own risk

The other thought is that the player can override this by simply taking on the roll of the replacement. This means the player can finish out the campaign if he wants, but at the end his score will reflect the fact that he screwed up pretty badly.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

bump

hey why not?

-tom w

[rudel.dietrich]

So these will be kind of like the Mega campaigns that came out for Steel Panthers World at War several years ago?

A bunched of linked hand made scenarios on hand made maps that appear after doing certain things?

If so that sounds nice since it keeps the campaign somewhat fresh and avoids the suckiness that are computer generated battles and maps.

Please tell us we can write our own campaigns...

I could see myself writing scenarios and campaigns more than I can playing the game.

[hellfish]

I'm the same way. I've got a brazillion missions and campaigns floating around in my head.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the battles in CM Campaigns are hand crafted so you don't get into random computer generated scenario problems. We intend on letting people make their own campaigns, though it will involve tweaking external text files since there is no campaign editor.

Steve

[C'Rogers]

I've got a brazillion missions and campaigns floating around in my head.

Why would the US invade Brazil? That will take some explaining.

Or are you going to make a very fictionalized campaign and have Syria invade Brazil?

Or will you have the story of how Brazil sends troops to support the Syrian invasion and the challenges they go through?

Maybe it will be a civil war campaign? Using the blue vs. blue feature you have civil war break out , failure in the World Cup leads to mass unrest.

[Battlefront.com]

C'Rogers,

Or will you have the story of how Brazil sends troops to support the Syrian invasion and the challenges they go through?

Don't be daft man! Brazil is well known for two other natural resources worth dying for... thousands of miles of beaches and hundreds of thousands of hot, barely clothed women. I say it is time to get our national priorities in order. Plus, I know the Canadians, Germans, French, Italians, Scandinavians, Dutch, and Belgians would sign up rather quickly to help. Heck, the Swiss might even send a battalion or two. They would be collectively called The Coalition of the Eager

Steve

[C'Rogers]

They would be collectively called The Coalition of the Eager

20 years later the word "draft" in regards to military service had disappeared from all languages of members of the coalition.

[c3k]

Ummm,

Could anyone give me an example of how an external text editor campaign would look? I'm speaking about the actual text. I'm not a programmer, nor do I want to be one. COBAL is the limit of my education.

How would I, a CM:SF owner with no computer skills, be able to utilize a campaign system which has just been outlined?

Thank you,

Ken

[Rocky Balboa]

Originally posted by c3k:

How would I, a CM:SF owner with no computer skills, be able to utilize a campaign system which has just been outlined?

No worries mate, if the .txt format is too involved then I'm sure some industrious user will create an editor that will do the trick ...

[Battlefront.com]

All battles of a Campaign are made in the Sceanrio Editor. A text file controls how the battles are linked together to create the Campaign. The format is not established yet (just working paper thus far), but it won't be that difficult for the tchnochallenged to work with.

Steve