Campaign or not Campaign thats the question!

[Bamse]

Originally posted by Steve:

We have to limit the amount of information that is available on a soldier by soldier basis. Not just because of code related issues, but also UI. With a few hundred guys under your command, few will care anyway. Even when it is a [QB]

campaign, but especially when it is a quick battle and you know you'll never see those guys again.

Steve

I can't find the other post Steve made aboot the campaign (stupid me and searchfunction).

Will there be a campaignsystem or not ?

/Björn Elfström

[Michael Dorosh]

Not a campaign per se - you're using the wrong search term. He mentioned a slightly more sophisticated system of Operations, IIRC, similar to what we have now, but with specific units. Or somefink.

[Gpig]

Check out Eichenbaum's thread titled "CMx2: probably not for me."

There is a little summation of quotes in there by Steve, about this topic.

Gpig

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not saying much about the Campaign system for now for a few reasons. But basically, you will have a bunch of units and you will play a bunch of battles with them. Some will float in and out, others will pretty much be with you the whole time. The timeframe is small enough that it is realistic, so don't be expecting a Steel Panthers or Pazer General style "what did you do in the war, daddy?" type campaign that goes from the start of the war to the end. That just isn't what CM is about.

The campaign will also be semi-dynamic. Meaning, you can not decide "I want to do this based on that" for your next battle, but depending on circumstances you do you might get sidetracked before moving on.

That's all for now

Steve

[HawkerT]

I guess it is all about context really!

Please bear with me

I remember my first computer, an Amstrad 128, you know the one with the diskette station in the keyboard. Man them were great days. I think we are back in 1984-86. Anyway I still remember “Elite” with fond recollections of ASP’s, Vipers and that extremely cool Fer-De-Lance and also those pesky rotating space stations … simply fantastic.

Other games from that eara have also stuck them selves in some of the wavering RAM in my head … DesertFox and Tobruk1942! Do you remember those?

I took a trip down memory lane today, have a look at the pictures below:

TOBRUK

DESERTFOX

Now what made those games extremely fun in my view was the ability to play a layered game consisting of both a strategical level and a tactical (or action) level. The magic of those games was the fact that the choices you made strategically had impact on the tactical level and vice versa. So if I moved my units to good strategical positions and handled my supply dumps well, I would have an edge when fighting the tactical battles. Also if I fought well in the tactical battles I could get away with less optimal strategical situations.

Elite actually also had this to some extend with the strategical level being what planetary system you would visit next and what goods to trade in, as well as what ship upgrades to buy.

I guess the short way to put it is that the tactical or action battles did not stand alone but were put in a larger context going way beyond the single battles.

Today we have the masterpiece we all know as CMX1. However even with its operations I have personally always felt that the battles in CM lack an overall context like the above mentioned games delivered however crude.

To remedy this, a multitude of user created campaigns of all sorts have been created with CMX1 as the tactical layer and something else providing the strategical layer. The different campaigns have differed greatly in scope, size and complexity. Some have great emphasis on the strategic layer and command structure within that layer (CMMC springs to mind) while others have a very simple strategical layer only handling overall movement of units with emphasis and almost all time spent on the tactical level. However the common denominator is still playing CM in a strategical context.

The way I see it, the intention of these user made campaigns is very clearly to play some great CM tactical battles within a historical context but doing so with a 'realistic' (as much as possible anyway) strategical layer on top so that the strategical choices having to be made in that layer impact the setup of the individual battles and vice versa, meaning that the outcome of the individual battles impact back to the choices having to be made in the strategical layer.

So I guess what I am saying is - Thank you very much Steve for working CMX2 in the general direction outlined above however big or small that step might be. It is much appreciated, and I for one am looking immensely forward to whatever you guys can bring to the table in this respect.

All the best

[jamiebecciwalsh]

Here here!

The adding of two layers a la Total War works fantasticaly - just look at there sales figures. And surely as the Tactical level is spot on - like total war, the strategic level wouldn't be too hard to add on? Even if there is an option to use a 'risk' type board with simple counters representing specific counters and simple AI the results would be fantastic! Adding in unit experience, terrain effects etc would just be a (fantastic) bonus!

[HawkerT]

I don't think that "wouldn't be to hard to add" is possible when talking about adding a strategical layer to a game like CM. To some extend it would have to have a similar quality as the tactical layer for it not to drag that part down. And BFC has proven that they care very deeply about quality.

So I guess that the mere fact that they might have started on that road is as good as it gets for now. But like with the Sherman 'good is good enough' ... for now anyway ...

[Michael Dorosh]

M-1 Tank Platoon (the original) was fun also in that you could name your troops and campaign them through a real "war" that was semi-dynamic. A lot to be said for dusting off memories of what enthralled us back in the day - certainly wasn't the graphics.

[Bamse]

Battlefront seems to be unwilling to provide a more advanced strategic layer.

What are their main reasons why they can't generate a set of textfile's after a battle.

I look forward to the minicampaigns. It's not totaly what i want, but its defenetly better then the system of CMx1.

I was well on my way with a strategic layer for CMBO made in JAVA. Real life got in the way....as usuall.

Found this old screenshoot on my harddrive.

/BjörnE

[ September 08, 2005, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Bamse ]

[Salkin]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'm not saying much about the Campaign system for now for a few reasons. But basically, you will have a bunch of units and you will play a bunch of battles with them. Some will float in and out, others will pretty much be with you the whole time. The timeframe is small enough that it is realistic, so don't be expecting a Steel Panthers or Pazer General style "what did you do in the war, daddy?" type campaign that goes from the start of the war to the end. That just isn't what CM is about.

The campaign will also be semi-dynamic. Meaning, you can not decide "I want to do this based on that" for your next battle, but depending on circumstances you do you might get sidetracked before moving on.

That's all for now

Steve

Semi-dynamic.....I like .

Oh and another thing Steve. You once said that we really got to much longevity out of the CM games, that we play them for alot longer then you expected/ we were supposed to.

You meant that from a games developers standpoint this is not very economical .

I guess you meant that any good developer wants their customer to finnish/get bored with a game faster so that he gets interested in what's on the horizon.

Well IMHO the longevity in the CM games is a huge selling point. I could probably boot up a CMAK game ten years from now and still enjoy the hell out of it. That's a good thing .

Comments ?

//Salkin

[dalem]

Originally posted by Bamse:

Battlefront seems to be unwilling to provide a more advanced strategic layer.

They seem unwilling to shovel my driveway too.

Maybe they just don't want to do either one.

On the other hand, maybe they have plans for things that enither you or I know about, or that they are ready to discuss.

-dale

[Barrold]

They seem unwilling to shovel my driveway too

ManySodas has snow already? Gee that McSucks.

BFS5

[Battlefront.com]

No Barrold, it "McStinks". They are too polite to use "McSucks" Well, until you room with one in College and turn him into a raging alcoholic. Then they use a whole lot more colorful (though nasaly) language

The thing about strategic layers... they are anything but easy. The reason? Strategic layers are oximorons. They are, in fact, entire games onto themselves. Just like a "tactical layer" for a strategic game.

he magic of those games was the fact that the choices you made strategically had impact on the tactical level and vice versa.

Actually, the "magic" of those games is that both layers were so simplistic (due to the computers of the day) that neither one was much of an effort on their own. Did you know that many of those games took only a couple of months to program from the ground up? And that just is for the ones that worked. I know of no dual tactical/strategy game that anybody really liked. The closest that comes to mind is CC2. However, most people bitched up a storm about it being half assed. So CC3 came out and then CC4, both of which seemed to be steps backwards. And therefore, much bitching and complaining was had by all.

Guys, it is pure bunk that dual level games are "easy". If they were, there would be tons of them out there. The few that try it are generally not liked by the people calling for them. And when that is rubbed right back in their faces, the answer almost always is "there is nothing wrong with the theory of this, just the application of the theory". I don't believe that any more than I think cold fusion is viable, but nobody has really set about to do it right.

The dual layer thing is just not something that can be done. Well, at least to the player's expectations. So why bother devoting a lot of time and resources to something that can only possibly bum people out and make them demand that it be improved?

As for dumping out data. Well, who knows...

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I guess you meant that any good developer wants their customer to finnish/get bored with a game faster so that he gets interested in what's on the horizon.

Actually, it is the time invested to the amount of sales more than anything. Here are two hypothetica choices. See which one you'd rather:

1. Go without pay for 3 years, release a game, sell x number at $45, then y number at $35, and z number at $25.

2. Go without pay for 2 years, release a game that sells the same as #1.

That's the problem we found ourselves facing. We were knocking ourselves out, putting in every last doodad feature people wanted, all the while not eating and risking going out of business. We release the game and whadda know.... we probably could have wrapped things up a year earlier and the same number of people would have bought it AND (this is the kicker) they would have likely been just as happy with it.

We pushed the envelope so much with CMx1 that nobody has come even close to catching up with us. Other game companies are lucky if players stick around for 2-3 months. Yet here we are, people still playing the games we made 2-3 years ago. Clearly we over did things.

If this extra development came at no personal cost to us, we'd be more than happy to give you even more. But reality is reality... the longer we spend on a title, the less payoff we get after we have reached some (unknown) point in the project. Any time and risk invested after that point goes uncompensated. If this wasn't such a hard and risky business it wouldn't matter. But it is. So we have to do what is best for everybody... and that is do what we need to do to keep us making games. We're not getting any younger

So yeah, it is great you guys are so in love with what we did. We are surprised and really humbled by it. But at the same time, we can't do that again. We really just don't have it in us. Which is why we changed our development model. In the end you'll get nearly what you got in CMx1, but we spread the risk out and shorten the times inbetween eating. Should work out best for everybody!

Steve

[melb_will]

Bamse

Please resize your picture. I'm guessing this is going to be a fairly well read thread and having to constantly scroll left is fecking annoying.

cheers

Will

[Aacooper]

I think Rome:Total War has a nice strategic/tactical thing going on. The problem is that Rome tactical fights don't take very long (~15 minutes on average), whereas CM games take much much longer. If you're playing PBEM, months. Besides the other disadvantages given, CM is so oriented towards the tactical it would just take too long to play a strategic/tactical thing.

[Ardem]

Total War stuff will just improve and improve year by year on there design concept (not just graphics) so it great watching them progress. As far as their idea of making a gamer feel like he is the general and the frontline soldier, you just don't get that in other games and kudos to them.

[BloodyBucket]

CM has a nitty gritty tactical heart. Trying to transplant it to a Strat body strikes me as being kind of going against the games "soul".

There are those who would enjoy the prospect of gaming out large Operational or Strategic situations with the CM level engine, but in a way, I think that is sort of akin to those old SPI "monster" games like War in the East (did I remember that correctly?) that probably got looked at a thousand times for every time they really got played.

Super sizing the old CM Operations and spicing them up with a storyline, tracking the fate of squads and leaders, and perhaps random events sounds like it will produce a good arena for the tactical greatness of CMx2 to shine.

[HawkerT]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The dual layer thing is just not something that can be done. Well, at least to the player's expectations. So why bother devoting a lot of time and resources to something that can only possibly bum people out and make them demand that it be improved?

Well the whole idea might be a bit infantile, but it sure was fun back then, and fun (but extremely hard work) now via the two user made CMX1 campaigns I have participated in so far and GM'ed. Then so be it! I hear and understand your reasoning full well.

However my original statement was "I guess it's all about context really!".

Now from what I see you writing on this board, you are adding a new 'layer' (for lack of a better word), or some form of new context that will bind the battles together in a way that either replaces or expands the current operations 'layer'. You even hint about role playing which will also add context to this layer and help bind the battles together.

In my book this is excellent news and something that will add even more excitement to playing CM.

Looking immensely forward to playing CM the new generation.

All the best

[Salkin]

Hi Steve ! Thanks for your great answer earlier.

More thoughts:

I see your problem with the strategical layer.

One problem ,I guess, is that people want different strategic layers.

I want something very simple that still puts the tactical aspect as star of the game. Many other here probably wants something on a grand scale, like you mentioned earlier, with the Normandy to Berlin thing and a third bunch of people want an extremely detailed fight in for instance Stalingrad.

This brings us back to :

You can't please all the people all the time - thing.

So I really see your dilemma.

I respectfully retract my want for a Strategic layer and put my faith in you (Steve) and the brain in the jar .

Oh, and I'll also keep an eye out for Eichenbaum and his friends upcomming CM project (if any).

//Salkin

[Bamse]

I´m worried too aboot Eichenbaum.

He will make a great game for sure. Probably put every gamecompany there is out of business.

Man will we be sorry. Maby Steve and the Jar should listen too him so we can avoid this impending catastrofy.

Will, im too lazy. Any quick fix? Why don´t you have a 21" monitor like the rest of the world?

/BjörnE

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As for dumping out data. Well, who knows...

woohoo, that would be great!

if it turns out that there will be some form of data export/import, i see no reason why the community couldn't create the strategic layer (or a number of them more likely).

[GJK]

Originally posted by Bamse:

Will, im too lazy. Any quick fix? Why don´t you have a 21" monitor like the rest of the world?

/BjörnE

Edit your post and then put this in for where the image is:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"><img src="http://medlem.spray.se/elfbj97/CMSL_ALPHA.JPG" width="750"></pre>

[hellfish]

Steven, when you release more info about CMx2 (product page launch, screenshots, etc.) will you release more info on the campaigns you've got planned?

[Barrold]

IMMO, I would not want to see a shift towards an RTW type experience if only for the fact that it's flawed execution has ultimately rendered it a big "BLEH". Even the vaunted RTR projects are just not enough to salvage the many flaws in the core system released by CA.

Both parts of such a game really need to be in synch in terms of tone and quality. BFC hasn't pretended to have much interest in developing the strategic element. It just doesn't seem to fit their strengths either.

The enhanced or improved types of operations or whatever is included in the next game should be interesting, but I don't think it will necessarily satisfy someone looking for the Panzer General type campaign. I can think of several reasons why this might not be a bad thing either.

However, since I don't know, I shouldn't say...

BDH