Where we're headed from here... a quick glance

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by pad152:

I would like too see a campaign that's more than just a few linked missions, a Close Combat style where the campaign is part of the game and not an after thought or add-on. A campaign where units upgrade over time, Band of Brothers, a fighting unit that fought in almost every major battle in WWII the type of campaign Battlefront has been telling us is unrealistic.

"almost every major battle in WWII?!" Holy Exaggeration, Batman!

I guess I missed the part where the 101st airborne fought its way across North Africa, landed on Sicily, up the boot of Italy, participated in Operation Husky, then fought its way through the Huertgen forest. . . and these are some engagements where other US ground troops participated!

Part of the reason the Band of Brothers' history is so interesting is that they are, in many ways, exceptional. If you also take a closer look at their history, you'll find that the number of tactical engagements they had that would actually be fun and interesting to play as CM scenarios are fewer than you'd think, and are often spaced pretty far apart. They wouldn't make a closely-linked series of tactical battles in the way of the very fun, but not at all realistic, Close Combat campaigns at all.

In short, Pop Culture Historians and Hollywood filmmakers will give you a pretty skewed impression of military history. If you want to argue for Close Combat-style campaigns on the entertainment value, go right ahead. But doing so on the basis of realism isn't likely to get you very far.

Cheers,

YD

[ April 16, 2008, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Pvt. Ryan]

I want to be able to see soldiers' wounds heal in real time in between the battles of a campaign. I'd accept time elapsed documentation, but nothing less than that.

[Webwing]

Map damage would be cool.

This is a branched campaign system. If properly used it can be quite dynamic and interesting.

You also have core units.

The campaign system seem pretty solid to me.

It's all up to the designer of the campaign though. It is extremely time consuming to do it.

Give it some time and you will see some pretty cool campaigns being released to add the ones already available.

-

[Sivodsi]

Are you using v1.08 and did you start the game fresh with that version? I ask because this sounds like something that we already fixed.

Doh! Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. I did check for it in the 1.08 list of fixes before I posted, but after your reply I went to the readme and it was fixed back in 1.06. I haven't been playing recently since my opponent has been busy.

Apologies for my redundant post.

Actually that was one of my main complaints, so am mightily relieved that it has been sorted.

Brilliant! Gotta get another PBEM going.

Anyone up for a blast?

[pad152]

If the campaign was So Good in the CM1 games, there would be no need for a CM Campaigns product. I think that CM Campaigns as proven that a good campaign system needs to be part of the original design and not an after market product.

Let's hope CM2 WWII has both a better a campaign and a better quick battle system!

[Battlefront.com]

Sivodsi,

Heh... good news. Charles was a might bit confused about your initial report

Pad152,

Well, the CMx2 system is completely different than the CMx1 system. No similarities between them at all, except that you don't like either. That's a different thing and it's a matter of opinion. As for CM Campaigns proving something... it's not released yet, so it proves nothing. After it comes out it will only prove one thing... that the people that buy it want it, that's all. Kinda like asking Coke drinkers what brand of soda they buy

As I've said, we will never have the sort of campaign system you are demanding. It will NOT happen, so I suggest you just accept that fact because it is not going to change. The amount of work necessary for such a system is beyond our practical capabilities with our current staff and is not likely to yield enough return to warrant hiring additional staff. Yelling louder, or being ruder, won't change that. Neither will making obviously factually flawed statements about the current system vs. the old system.

Rollstoy, Normal Dude, and WebWing,

Yeah, I want to have damage carry forward too. I'm not sure how useful it will be overall, though, since it requires that battles in a campaign be fought on exactly the same map. I can see that being cool occasionally, but too much of that within a campaign would probably get boring.

Steve

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yeah, I want to have damage carry forward too. I'm not sure how useful it will be overall, though, since it requires that battles in a campaign be fought on exactly the same map. I can see that being cool occasionally, but too much of that within a campaign would probably get boring.

Blowing stuff up over and over again will never get boring!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

As I was talking about much larger Meta-tiles (MT) than you (200mx200m) building in to 2kmx2km maps of 100 MT's could this not form part of a campaign system.

You could build a 1kmx 30km MT map based on MT tiles , but it would only draw the bit you needed and record it. That would let you fight your way up a corridor or do a long series of battles.

You would need to have a cut off system so that it only showed so much at any one time, but it might be a way to tie in the QB system with the campaign System.

You could create large scale sector maps and deploy forces, with the MT's only being drawn and tagged in place as units came in to contact. If two units met near a series of tiles the System would randomly select them in the right terrain type, but that would then be fixed in place for the rest of the campaign.

Just a thought or two.

Peter.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Rollstoy, Normal Dude, and WebWing,

Yeah, I want to have damage carry forward too. I'm not sure how useful it will be overall, though, since it requires that battles in a campaign be fought on exactly the same map. I can see that being cool occasionally, but too much of that within a campaign would probably get boring.

Steve

The reason it occurred to me, and I know that in a maneuver war this is probably not important, is that with the power of bombs nowadays the player might want to be careful about which tactically useful buildings they blow up... they may have to use them later! In my campaign, one scenario has this concern, but I think I can circumvent it by applying pre-battle damage to the areas most likely to be bombed by the player in the previous battle.

ETA: And of course, there is that satisfaction in watching the town go to hell.

[ April 17, 2008, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Normal Dude ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Sivodsi:

Brilliant! Gotta get another PBEM going.

Anyone up for a blast?

YES ME!!! Please send me a PM or email for the details!

[ April 17, 2008, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...

Yeah, I want to have damage carry forward too. I'm not sure how useful it will be overall, though, since it requires that battles in a campaign be fought on exactly the same map. I can see that being cool occasionally, but too much of that within a campaign would probably get boring.

Steve

Yes and no! May I remind on the CMx1 style of campaigns, where the single campaign-battles were fought on sections of one large campaign map!? I guess something could be developed on the basic idea, and 'carried damage' would make some sense then.

[Sivodsi]

Scipo, you're on. E-mail sent.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Sivodsi:

Scipo, you're on. E-mail sent.

Received and answered!

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

The issue about a CC style campaign isn't about revealing a portion of a much larger map. We had that in CMx1. Piece of cake to do. Probably an hour of programming time and no design work at all. It's all the other stuff that is the problem

Let's look at CC again. First game didn't have an overlay system. CC2 game spent quite a lot of time improving the underlying game engine, but it also added a campaign system some are advocating for. It had a lot of flaws, especially after playing it a bunch (that would be me!). Because it was fundamentally good, but with some serious shortcomings, the supporters lobbied hard for various changes.

CC3 came out with very little change to the core engine, but a ton of changes to the campaign system. This improved system met with a howl of disapproval from some, support from others. Depends on which direction the CC2 critics wanted it to go in. Some wanted to see the tactical elements improved, others the strategic. Those who wanted the tactical stuff emphasized were disappointed, those who wanted the strategic stuff improved had a mixed reaction since there are about as many different directions to go in as there are critics.

CC4 then came out with even MORE effort put into the campaign system and, from what I remember, practically no changes (in comparison) made to the underlying tactical game engine. This further splintered the audience. Those who wanted major improvements to the tactical combat element now saw a second game with little in that direction, those who wanted a "perfect" campaign system didn't get it. Atomic was in a lose/lose situation from the get go, in my opinion.

As far as I remember CC5 was basically the CC1 content and little-to-no changes others. Thus those who were happy with the pervious games remained so, as did the people who were unhappy.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about all this CC stuff. The details are a bit dusty in my head. However, the conclusions are very clear. CC1 was a bit ahead of the hardware capabilities, CC2 largely addressed the earlier shortcomings and was a fantastic game. But it had a bit of a split personality and Atomic decided to favor the overlay element vs. the core game experience.

This is something we very deliberately avoided with CMx1. The Operations were designed to leverage the tactical elements and not get us, or the players, distracted by what amounts to a game within a game. The reception to Operations wasn't great, so instead of distracting ourselves we put almost no effort into improving Operations with CMBB and CMAK. Instead we focused on the tactical elements which, of course, is what the game is all about.

When we designed CMx2 we thought about having nothing other than a tactical game. We decided that would please nobody so we came up with a system which we feel is better than most and yet is in keeping with our tactical focus and resources. Remember, of all the tactical games (of all sorts) out there, hardly any have even attempted a strategic layer. There is a reason for this. Hardly any that have are considered "successes" in their attempts. There is a reason for this too.

The combined CC observations, industry wide experience, and CMx1 experience tell us that we would be foolish to attempt a strategic game within a game for CMx2. It would consume a huge percentage of our time/resources, thereby undercutting all other game improvements. Since the game is inherently tactical, not strategic, robbing from the tactical improvements to add a strategic layer is not a very good idea. Plus, no matter what we do the people that support a higher level campaign game will not be happy with it. Mostly happy is the best we can achieve. That's simply because nobody can agree on what features a campaign should have, or emphasize, nor is there some sort of possible consensus about when it is "good enough".

So when we look at a strategic campaign layer all we see is a quagmire that has no ultimate upside. Hence our determination since 1997 to not go down that route. This is a decision that has only been reinforced over the years, not weakened. It matters not to us that some people refuse to understand our reasons. We understand them perfectly and that's all that matters

Steve

[ April 17, 2008, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[kipanderson]

Steve,

“This is a decision that has only been reinforced over the years, not weakened. It matters not to us that some people refuse to understand our reasons.”

Stop equivocating….just tell us what you really think….

All the best,

Kip.

[Mishga]

Hey, Huntarr. Hows things, Marine?

Good to be back. Meach keeps his hands off my account and I keep my hands off his. It's an unwritten rule. Kinda like our chocolate rations really

[MarkEzra]

Hi Mishga!

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The issue about a CC style campaign isn't about revealing a portion of a much larger map. We had that in CMx1. Piece of cake to do. Probably an hour of programming time and no design work at all. It's all the other stuff that is the problem ...

Steve

Well then... we take a large campaign map where parts of it will be revealed depending on the progress of the campaign. Both sides start with a basic force on-map preset by the campaign designer and a large pool of possible reinforcement units. Between the single campaign battles, the player can select his reinforcement units and (ammo) resupply on his own, limited by some factors - transport capacity for example - which can mostly be abstracted by designer presetings and dice rolls.

The time between the single battles depends on the ordered supply/reinforcements. The player can also preset simply a 'rest & rally time' for his frontline units. It's very likely that different orders for the things to happen between the battles will be given, but a relative simple system of calculation and dice roll can decide when the action starts again and how much progress with resupply etc etc has been made for both sides til then.

This would add some dynamic and a pinch of operational level to the CMx2 campaign, without really adding an additional layer to the tactical level.

Just a pitty that it's likely not that easy to realize as to contrive while lying in the bathtub .

[Omenowl]

I like the ability for two different views. One is an extended battle. This was more CMx1 style where the battle took place over days in the same area. I would like to see burned out hulks and recovery of wounded, equipment replenishment, etc. Victory is determined at the end of the extended battle.

The second is for a more comprehensive campaign system where you could reuse regions depending on how the campaign was progressing. A loss might mean a player goes back a map or a victory means they go forward a map with the date changing (ie weather, temperature, etc fluctuates depending on the date) . A final total of victory and success would be determined at the end of the campaign. This allows one to simulate German successes in the Eastern front, but if the player is slowed down then suddenly they are hit by terrible weather later in the campaign.

I would like to see extended battles.

[Mishga]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Hi Mishga!

Hiya, Mark

Anyone seen old Gunz about?

[pad152]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Peter,

The issue about a CC style campaign isn't about revealing a portion of a much larger map. We had that in CMx1. Piece of cake to do. Probably an hour of programming time and no design work at all. It's all the other stuff that is the problem

Let's look at CC again. First game didn't have an overlay system. CC2 game spent quite a lot of time improving the underlying game engine, but it also added a campaign system some are advocating for. It had a lot of flaws, especially after playing it a bunch (that would be me!). Because it was fundamentally good, but with some serious shortcomings, the supporters lobbied hard for various changes.

CC3 came out with very little change to the core engine, but a ton of changes to the campaign system. This improved system met with a howl of disapproval from some, support from others. Depends on which direction the CC2 critics wanted it to go in. Some wanted to see the tactical elements improved, others the strategic. Those who wanted the tactical stuff emphasized were disappointed, those who wanted the strategic stuff improved had a mixed reaction since there are about as many different directions to go in as there are critics.

CC4 then came out with even MORE effort put into the campaign system and, from what I remember, practically no changes (in comparison) made to the underlying tactical game engine. This further splintered the audience. Those who wanted major improvements to the tactical combat element now saw a second game with little in that direction, those who wanted a "perfect" campaign system didn't get it. Atomic was in a lose/lose situation from the get go, in my opinion.

As far as I remember CC5 was basically the CC1 content and little-to-no changes others. Thus those who were happy with the pervious games remained so, as did the people who were unhappy.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about all this CC stuff. The details are a bit dusty in my head. However, the conclusions are very clear. CC1 was a bit ahead of the hardware capabilities, CC2 largely addressed the earlier shortcomings and was a fantastic game. But it had a bit of a split personality and Atomic decided to favor the overlay element vs. the core game experience.

This is something we very deliberately avoided with CMx1. The Operations were designed to leverage the tactical elements and not get us, or the players, distracted by what amounts to a game within a game. The reception to Operations wasn't great, so instead of distracting ourselves we put almost no effort into improving Operations with CMBB and CMAK. Instead we focused on the tactical elements which, of course, is what the game is all about.

When we designed CMx2 we thought about having nothing other than a tactical game. We decided that would please nobody so we came up with a system which we feel is better than most and yet is in keeping with our tactical focus and resources. Remember, of all the tactical games (of all sorts) out there, hardly any have even attempted a strategic layer. There is a reason for this. Hardly any that have are considered "successes" in their attempts. There is a reason for this too.

The combined CC observations, industry wide experience, and CMx1 experience tell us that we would be foolish to attempt a strategic game within a game for CMx2. It would consume a huge percentage of our time/resources, thereby undercutting all other game improvements. Since the game is inherently tactical, not strategic, robbing from the tactical improvements to add a strategic layer is not a very good idea. Plus, no matter what we do the people that support a higher level campaign game will not be happy with it. Mostly happy is the best we can achieve. That's simply because nobody can agree on what features a campaign should have, or emphasize, nor is there some sort of possible consensus about when it is "good enough".

So when we look at a strategic campaign layer all we see is a quagmire that has no ultimate upside. Hence our determination since 1997 to not go down that route. This is a decision that has only been reinforced over the years, not weakened. It matters not to us that some people refuse to understand our reasons. We understand them perfectly and that's all that matters

Steve

CC never evolved beyond CC2/CC3 they got stuck in a rut, unable to change their ways, ran out of new ideas and reached their limitation of what they could do with real time combat!

Your right that a good campaign system is hard to come bye, I still like CC2 and John Tiller's/Talonsoft/Matrix Campaign Series as the best yet, real or not. Campaigns are a better fit for operational vs. tactical games. Theatre of War had the right idea but is inconsistent with forces from mission to mission and not completely fleshed out.

It's sad BattleFront can't come up with any new idea's in this area. So I guess we won't see or expect any type of campaign in future CM2 releases.

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by Mishga:

Hey, Huntarr. Hows things, Marine?

Glad things are getting squared away. Let Meach know that he can be my official Ghillie for this “little” property I acquired in Dec. He may consume all the Scotch Whisky that he can suck out of it.

OHHRAH

[Dennis50]

Originally posted by Mishga:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Hi Mishga!

Hiya, Mark

Anyone seen old Gunz about? </font>

[redbear]

Ok one of the thing i think is missing is the multiplayer problems. It is laggy steve, i have not test 1.08 on TCP/IP but some reports seens to be the same.

I have played in 1.07 and when i give command to the units i have to way 3 mins until the unit moves maybe is my location i live outside USA but i have played other games including TOW and i have no that problem.

I think is the volume of data that it have to drive that is causing the problem do you think in a better way to drive that kind of data?

There will be another patch to solve this problem?

[ April 17, 2008, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: redbear ]

[Battlefront.com]

Scipio,

This would add some dynamic and a pinch of operational level to the CMx2 campaign, without really adding an additional layer to the tactical level.

You pretty much described CMx1 Operations with the addition of being able to select forces. And so down the slippery slope into oblivion we would go

Just a pitty that it's likely not that easy to realize as to contrive while lying in the bathtub

Yup, it is a pity. I'd love to do something like this with CMx2, but the underlying game engine is just too demanding. CMx1 was not nearly as complex and it was too demanding in its own way. No, to make the sort of campaign system that's been kicked around on this Forum for the last 10 years we'd need to have a MUCH more simplistic underlying game system. Then we would have the ability to work at two levels at one time without compromising both.

Omenowl,

I like the ability for two different views. One is an extended battle. This was more CMx1 style where the battle took place over days in the same area. I would like to see burned out hulks and recovery of wounded, equipment replenishment, etc. Victory is determined at the end of the extended battle.

This can almost be achieved with the Campaign system we have now, with the exception of carrying damage forward from one battle to the next. That's why I too would like to see it happen It's a feature that shouldn't be too hard to achieve and it can work within the existing paradigms that have already been established.

Pad152,

CC never evolved beyond CC2/CC3 they got stuck in a rut, unable to change their ways, ran out of new ideas and reached their limitation of what they could do with real time combat!

Nah, I think it's because they had to choose where to spend their time/energies and they chose the higher level instead of the lower level. That's just a guess, of course, because I never talked to Keith Z about it and I never read an interview with him about it. But based on our own experiences I think my guess has a potential of being at least partially correct

Your right that a good campaign system is hard to come bye, I still like CC2 and John Tiller's/Talonsoft/Matrix Campaign Series as the best yet, real or not. Campaigns are a better fit for operational vs. tactical games. Theatre of War had the right idea but is inconsistent with forces from mission to mission and not completely fleshed out.

As I said further up, if CMx2's tactical component were far less involved/detailed this would leave time/resources for pursuing a more expansive campaign system. But we chose to focus on tactical warfare and get that as detailed as possible, so that's where we're at today.

It's sad BattleFront can't come up with any new idea's in this area. So I guess we won't see or expect any type of campaign in future CM2 releases.

Slight corrections. We have plenty of ideas, but no time/resources to implement them. Nor do we feel there is a strong enough economic incentive to figure out a way to overcome the obstacles. So no, you should not expect to see the sort of campaign system you envision for CMx2 as opposed to the semi-dynamic linked campaign we currently offer.

Redbear,

I think is the volume of data that it have to drive that is causing the problem do you think in a better way to drive that kind of data?

The data volume certainly is high and that means less room for error. Version 1.08 had some changes that should make things better for larger scenarios.

There will be another patch to solve this problem?

The problem with fixing things is we're not really sure what problem/s are there to fix The lag issue is pretty inconsistent generally speaking, but it does seem that when someone has a lag problem they pretty much always have a lag problem. This indicates that something, either hardware or software/hardware combo, is not working optimally.

I can't promise you any sort of specific fix until we actually nail something down, but I can promise you that we're continuing to look into the problem/s. Hopefully the next patch will offer you some improvement.

Steve