Player Created Campaings

[Severin]

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

- posted September 19, 2006 05:56 PM 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

Any word on this? Are we going to be able to make our own campaigns?

[JaguarUSF]

Yes. In fact, there is a sample template in the root directory to show you how to do it. You can set the next battles if you win or lose as well as refit, repair, resupply, and rest values.

[SGT_56M]

And don't fear, the external file is a simple text file with scenario names and simple values. It's plain text, so not special coding knowladge is needed. The game comes with a template fo you to follow as Jaguar said.

When you release your campaign to others though, they only need one file.

[panzermartin]

Can you create a 2player campaign?

[FAI]

So I take it that there will be Syrian campaigns, only not "official" ones? Now that takes a lot of imagination...

[aka_tom_w]

I am not so sure about the "2 player Campaign"

Maybe I am confused but by definition the concept of the Campaign is one player vs. the AI in a series of battles.

(mostly BFC has said in the past "You'll Lose!") Despite that dire warning folks seem to want to play and make campaigns, my understanding of the mechanism, is the author of the campaign sets the battles and the AI to defend and depending on how well the player does, he gets another battle to advance or a rematch of the last battle or something like that if he loses. A consolation battlle if you will.

So my guess would be "2 player" is out of the question.

Mostly it boils down to "You'll lose!" (really)

But that's just my take on the whole "campaign" thing.....

[SGT_56M]

For campaigns, one side is considered the primary player, this is set int he campaign file.

It is possible though to have a human opponent.

The campaign could progress depending on the outcome of the battle, but it would require a HUGE amount of work to script out where each battle goes depending on the outcome from both sides. Also, the "enemy" player would always have a set force to work with and not a set of "core" units like the main player. Therefore, they are not subject to attrition over time.

Not saying some loone won't want to make such a 2 player campaign though. It will jsut require a lot of work.

[Moon]

Actually, what the previous posters said is not entirely correct... you can in fact create two player campaigns, and both sides can have their own set of core units which are tracked from battle to battle. So you can create a campaign that simulates e.g. a large operation in which the same force goes against an opponent force for several days.

Martin

[Sergei]

Ooh, I had no idea the system was that versatile! The campaigns as such are fun, but with a human opponent it's got to be better than making love to a woman with beer taps in her nipples.

[mav1]

I need clarity.

Is the campaign going to be a set of battles based on a map size limit of 16km2 followed by another map size limit of 16km2.

Can several battles be played surrounding the origional battle? Or is it one battle on from the last battle?

[SGT_56M]

wow, double sided core units would be a trip! Er... will be a trip.

But that gives me a really big idea.

Mav1, not sure I completely understand what you are asking.

In the campaing, the map is what ever the designer sets it for for each individual battle. in other words, the campaign is actually a series of linked scenarios with a set of core units that are tracked from scenario to scenario. The designer could use the same map over and over, but the battle damage to the map itself is not carried over after each fight. (Unit damage is though)

So for a more believable campaign, most designers will move locations for each fight. Granted, that move could be as little as one block over in a heavy city fight or a few KM down the road.

[Dirtweasle]

Is there logic to the follow on scenarios, such as;

*IF* Red player > 30% casualties

*AND* Blue player <15% ...

*USE* MAP "X"

or some such thing or are the scenarios fixxed?

[rune]

Indirectly...

You set a win go to scenario xyz, lose go to scenario abc. In the scenario, you can set those parameters, so it will determine winner/loser and which scenario then to go to.

Actually some of the scenarios we created may not be seen for some time. Depends if you win or lose.

Rune

[SGT_56M]

Also you can set what is considered a win or loss. For instance a Draw could be considered a win for the Red force. Or even a total defeat could be considered a win for the purpose of campaign progression.

[Dirtweasle]

Ah, nice, very interesting. Can't wait to fool around with that.

[mav1]

Originally posted by SGT_56M:

wow, double sided core units would be a trip! Er... will be a trip.

But that gives me a really big idea.

Mav1, not sure I completely understand what you are asking.

In the campaing, the map is what ever the designer sets it for for each individual battle. in other words, the campaign is actually a series of linked scenarios with a set of core units that are tracked from scenario to scenario. The designer could use the same map over and over, but the battle damage to the map itself is not carried over after each fight. (Unit damage is though)

So for a more believable campaign, most designers will move locations for each fight. Granted, that move could be as little as one block over in a heavy city fight or a few KM down the road.

So you can move the core units from one map to a completly different map. Iam I right?

Then you can add reinforcements to the core units on the new map?

What was the decision making in not having any building or terrain carried on from end of the scenario? To make it belivable you are going to have to move to a completly new map.

Right this when things might get complicated. I will try my best to be understood.

Say you wanted to simulate combat on the whole map of syria.

Is it possible to create a campaign of scenarios going from south to north that covers a stretch of land that is 4km (scenario map width, west to east) by 800km ( 200 scenario map's, width 4km, north to south). You are then going to have to create 150 campaign of similiar size to cover the whole area of Syria going from west to east.

Yes I know thats 30,000 scenario, but is it possible?

It would be better if the total width limit of the scenario map in the game , be 8km instead of 4km it would mean a whole lot less of scenarios.

[rune]

It would also mean the game would be unplayable. The hardware could nto support a map of that size...it is pushing it at 4 km.

The design decision was it was too difficult to code to use the map with burning vehicles, destroyed buildings, etc that would happen during a battle. You can use the same map, but the building you destroyed may magically be back. Remember, you have AI plans, things would change and how could you let the plan know? How would you import an entire map?

Bottom line, there was no easy way to code this, so it is not in. In the future who knows, but I would not bet on it.

Rune

[SGT_56M]

So you can move the core units from one map to a completly different map. Iam I right?

Yes.

Then you can add reinforcements to the core units on the new map?

Yes.

Your complicated part, yes, theoretically you could do this.

But keep in mind the terrain tiles in the editor are 5 square meters (I think, though everything is modeled in 3D at 1 meter). So to model an 800 km line, only 400 meters wide, you would need to place and verify 12,800,000 tiles in the editor. If of course you are shooting for a true 1:1 representation of Syria and provided I got my math right.

[mav1]

Originally posted by SGT_56M:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So you can move the core units from one map to a completly different map. Iam I right?

Yes.

Then you can add reinforcements to the core units on the new map?

Yes.

Your complicated part, yes, theoretically you could do this.

But keep in mind the terrain tiles in the editor are 5 square meters (I think, though everything is modeled in 3D at 1 meter). So to model an 800 km line, only 400 meters wide, you would need to place and verify 12,800,000 tiles in the editor. If of course you are shooting for a true 1:1 representation of Syria and provided I got my math right. </font>

[mav1]

Right my mind has drifted back to reality.

Is is possible to change units on a map in a campaign to reflect whats going on another map in another campaign.

Say that in one map of one campaign my forces get trashed. Can I then lessen my forces in another map in another campaign to back up my routed forces in the other map in the other campaign. Iam trying to see if campaigns can be fluid in their ceation to reacted on whats going on in another campaign. I know the calculations will have to be done by me with a pencil on paper.

Its to fit in the idea of lots of campaigns of many maps to simulate all of syria.

Their is no limit to the number ofscenarios in a campaign is their? Otherwise my fantasy game will not work.

[Dirtweasle]

Scripting the scenarios together given that the damaged terrain will not carry-over will require care and some fore-thought.

Even so, not a huge deal. Would've been nice for some smaller micro-campaigns that I was thinking about, but IIRC in the scenarios they can now be quite long and also feature the ability to replenish ammo... is that correct?

[mav1]

Just thinking, if you lose the first scenario will you still move to the next scenario, even though the next scenario moves you forward even though you failed to move forward in your first scenrio.

Or if you fail the scenario, do you have to play over the same map again?

[Moon]

For every battle, including the first one, you can branch out to two scenarios. But don't have to. And the branch can include the same scenario as well if you would like the player to repeat it if he "lost".

Keep in mind that "loss" in this case is flexible, too. You can script it so that only after a total victory does the player get to play a different scenario. So the "loss" scenario would kick in even if the player has a tactical victory.

You can also create loops if you like, by simply linking to a previously played battle. Or you can end the campaign prematurely after the first battle if the player loses, by not linking to any follow-up battle (the campaign ends and you get the final score right away).

You can create distinct branches where the campaign plays out entirely different for the remainder of the campaign if you lost a key battle, or you can route the player back to the "main path" in the campaign after a side battle or two.

Martin

[Steiner14]

Is it possible, to let the player decide for option 1 or 2?

I.e. after a total vic -> you have to decide fast: hold position or persuade the enemy and attack further?

Can campaigns between battles have their own textual descriptions, or are only the scenario briefings/descriptions used?

[ July 11, 2007, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[mav1]

Originally posted by Moon:

For every battle, including the first one, you can branch out to two scenarios. But don't have to. And the branch can include the same scenario as well if you would like the player to repeat it if he "lost".

You can create distinct branches where the campaign plays out entirely different for the remainder of the campaign if you lost a key battle, or you can route the player back to the "main path" in the campaign after a side battle or two.

Martin

Thats an excellant flexible system. A pat on the back for the one who came up with the idea.