Campaign à la Close Combat

[manoi]

I have often readen that one of the wishes for a lot of players was to have a campaign map as in Close Combat. Is the fact that the AI is heavily scripted that prevents TOW to have a dynamic campaign? Is 1C intended to change his AI in the future to allow battles with victory location?

One thing I'm very surprised is the relative "privacy" of the TOW community. When I see the numbers of posts or mods for a game as Close Combat (sorry, it is still my reference) and the number of mod(s) of TOW1, I ask myself where are all the hardgamers for this kind of games.

I hope this good game will still be improved and that a community will be able to add some contents.

[Schifty]

i'm agree.... this new opus is a bit empty on the content.... and in the futur, to put a dynamic campaign will give a new live on this series. The campaign on the TOW2 is poor..... same mission on each side, 5 mission per campaign.... its a joke lolll. So put a huge map with victory location will give a opportunity to replay a campaign without the same result at the end!

[Knokke]

One thing I'm very surprised is the relative "privacy" of the TOW community. When I see the numbers of posts or mods for a game as Close Combat (sorry, it is still my reference) and the number of mod(s) of TOW1, I ask myself where are all the hardgamers for this kind of games.

Close Combat is still my reference too

That's true that there are only few peoples trying to add new content to the game. I believe this is because of the lack of a tool to convert msh files to an editable format and back to msh. Dr. Jones have been doing a very good job with his MshConverter, and by using it, i've been able to create a brand new Typhoon for ToW. But so far, it is my only success. I've been able to create new bridges also, and import them in game, but I believe there is some problem with MshConverter, because the pathfinding cells are not working as they should, and soldiers/vehicles are not able to cross my bridges. I had no success either with buildings and statics objects of the mono.sim type: they simply not appear in the editor. I believe that I've enough understanding of the game structure now to be able to create files that should be working with 1C proprietary tool without problem, but i'm stuck unless they release this tool for the public. And furthermore, MshConverter is no longer working for me now (I can't open any hier.him or Msh file because the converter is looking for the file in the wrong path instead of opening the file I'm pointing at with the browse menu).

I really do hope that 1C would release their converter to the public, as creating new content for ToW is not that complicated: we have every info we need in the M4 and M6 3DS files released by 1C a long time ago for ToW, as well as in the unit modelling guide for ToW.

In the mean time, I'm still working on the new models I hope to be able to add to the game (only statics objects for the moment), for the map i'm doing about the capture of the bridge at Grave by the 504th PIR of the 82nd AB:

First some horsa gliders in various states (only in british markings for now)

http://pigeonh.free.fr/ToW/horsa-3.jpg

http://pigeonh.free.fr/ToW/horsa-2.jpg

http://pigeonh.free.fr/ToW/horsa-1.jpg

The Van Sasse pumping station on the river Raam that a squad of E Coy 504th PIR assaulted to take the southern entrance of the bridge at Grave:

http://pigeonh.free.fr/ToW/Van_Sasse1.jpg

http://pigeonh.free.fr/ToW/Van_Sasse2.jpg

The bridge itself:

http://pigeonh.free.fr/Grave_bridge.jpg

And finally the Typhoon

http://pigeonh.free.fr/ToW/typhoon1.jpg

I've also other objects in the making, but not in a finished state: the two dutch casemates that where protecting the bridge, and others important buildings and landmarks in Grave and Overasselt.

[Knokke]

And more about the campaign "a la Close Combat":

ToW is not so different from Close Combat, but the biggest drawback for me is the way the campaigns are handled in ToW in comparison of the CC series: the strategic map, and surrender/truce options in Close Combat give the game a better replayability than is the case for ToW. The ToW campaigns are too linear, and it is always about fighting to the last man. In CC, there was a sense of continuity in the game, having to fight several time on a map before moving to an other one. If there was a stalemate, you had the possibility to plan your next move differently. In ToW, we don't have this sense of continuity, because we must fight to the last man, or start the battle anew. It looks like there is already everything inside ToW to be able to win a victory by occupying victory locations like in CC, and there should be a way too to have soldiers surrounded/broken being captured by the ennemy.

From an external point of view (maybe a developper would disagree with me ), it doesn't seems this would be too difficult to add to ToW, and this would add tremendously to the game.

[Arzok]

you can use the trigger 'army retreate' (or something like this).

You have just to specify the % of loss that the army can suffer.

One it is the case, the army withdraw as soon as the enemy army of this army is more powerful thant the IA-army

It is very simple to add to all missions.

But there is no message the the IA Army retreat, so sometimes, you don't notice that and you have the feeling that you are fighting to the last IA man.

[Gnasher]

All of these things can be scripted within the mission / campagn editor. Surrender / retreat triggers can quite easily be written along with code to define mission failure on a percentage loss of forces. To create something ala close combat style with missions going back & forth across maps could be recreated in the campaign editor. You would need to have created "mission won" (ie proceed to next map) & "mission lost" (ie go back a map or refight this map) missions. These can be made to look more convincing using the create deformations, StaticDamage , StaticFire , & DamageObject / DestroyObject commands in the init trigger to simulate a battlefield that has already been fought over, here's some code that I've used to good effect for this:-

DamageObject ( GROUP , "Group_Destroyed" , 100 )

Delay ( 3 )

CreateDeformations ( RECT , "Eterville" , 900 )

Delay ( 3 )

StaticDamage ( RECT , "Eterville" , 60 , 60 , 100 )

Delay ( 3 )

StaticFire ( RECT , "Eterville" , 100 , 60 )

ChangeFogOfWar ( DISABLE )

Delay ( 5 )

ActivateDispositionMode ( "begin" )

In this group Group_Destroyed is a placement of burned out vehicles to simulate the debris from the previous battle. I used DamageObject for this (Don't know if this works in TOW2.) but you could use DestroyObject equally well with something like this:-

DestroyObject ( GROUP , "Group_Destroyed" , HULL )

Delay ( 3 )

DestroyObject ( GROUP , "Group_Destroyed" , TURRET )

Delay ( 3 )

DestroyObject ( GROUP , "Group_Destroyed" , ENGINE )

Delay ( 3 )

DestroyObject ( GROUP , "Group_Destroyed" , TRACKS )

Hope this helps, expect to see this sort of gameplay in the next Bulldogs release.

[Dr.Jones]

Knokke,

i will look into it, MshConverter 1.18, what operating system do you have, i'm working on 32bit XP.

br.

Dr.Jones

[Schifty]

Gnasher i'm totally disagree with you, yeah you can script those thing but the campaign still linear and we hate that! The main problem is not to get a mission with % of lost or a surrender script or anything else. Is to be able to decide ourself how the campaign will be done.... Wich combat we want to do before an other one.....

Also why on a mission we are an attacker, the defender (AI) have all is stuff all around the map to do trap.... surprizing us???? and when we are at the same mission but on the side of the defender... god damnit we can just move our unit in a only small square..... when all around us, we have good place to put AT gun?????

[Arzok]

Schifty, please, read again what Gnasher wrote.

You have two cases for each mission, if you win, you can go to the following mission, if you lose, you can go to another mission. So it is not linear.

[Schifty]

yes it is in a different situation and for sure if a loose 2 thing, i replay the same mission before this one... and if not.... i go forward ...... i'm loosing!!!!! why i go forward.... lolll its got no sense....

The best is not to try to mod something like CC in Theatre of War... TOW3 must be take some point of CC.......

And an other point... TOW2 is great... but the Devs.... have'nt work hard.... they improve yes the graphics but they fuc.... top the amonth of unit, mission or new feature.......

[Arzok]

Sure I will not made something like CC, I have never played this one

But I think that we can make something not linear.

For exemple, you can put two different objectives on a map. If you succeed the first, you go the the mission 2a.

If you succeed the second, you will go to the mission 2b.

So you can do the campaign by different ways.

[Schifty]

But do you think a modder will do that..... In TOW 1 not a lot of campaign have been done.... and probably will be the same in this TOW

[Arzok]

It is not a problem of modder, but of "mission maker".

I made a campaign for TOW 1, so I am interested...

[Gnasher]

As only Arzok (Someone who has also made a campaign) seems to get what I was saying perhaps this picture will help explain:-

This is only an example & you could make it much more complex if you have the time to code & test all of the available outcomes.

[Dr.Jones]

Knokke,

try extracting mshConverter to another directory, MshConverter DOESN'T need to be in Theatre of War\MissionEditor.

br.

Dr.Jones

[Schifty]

Gnasher its still linear!!!!! look if you alway win.... you do the path of mission..... if we want to change a bit the campaign, i need to loose on myself.... so its a idea... but still linear. It is a long way close to a CC campaign or interactive campaign.......

This is a real interactive and none linear campaign... and thats will be better a campaign like that on TOW instead of a linear campaign with only 5 mission

[Arzok]

Schifty, "win" and "lose" are 2 possibilities. For exemple, you have the choice at the begining of mission one 1 to attack by the left, or by the right. If you choose the first solution, you will continue by mission 2, if you choose the second choice, you will continue by the mission 1.1, whatever you lose or win.

But of course, it will not like CC ! It will be different, and less linear than classic campaign.

[Schifty]

je vais argumenter en francais lolll

je comprend ce que tu veut dire... mais comment tu fait pour te battre sur un front si tu fais seulement une avance avec seulement un groupe d'unité.... TOW pourrais nous donner plus que juste ce battre sur une ligne pré établi, mais les devs sont on dirais trop paresseux pour nous offrir de quoi de complet!

Sur la carte en haut, tu peux faire plus d'un avancement avec different groupe d'unité.... c'est de loin mieux juste avancer comme dans l'exemple que tu nous donne.

[Arzok]

TOW is not CC.

I just outlined that it is possible to make a nonlinear campaign.

But with a lot of work I think that you can simulate a front of three maps.

But on an other hand, I don't think this worth, cause it is better to make a linear campaign with 12 missions than a non linear compaign with 3-4 missions.

But if you want, I think it is possible to make a small front.

[manoi]

I think the biggest problem is that the developers will have to rewrite the battle AI and develop a campaign AI. I'm not an expert in the game development but it seems me that it is one of the most difficult task for programmers. For tow the AI units follow only a script (assault on a point or defense of a zone with for each unit a determined behaviour and route). In CC, the AI had to place his units at the best place and to choice if it must attack or defend.

[Prattboy9394]

this sort of talk is helping me appreciate how CC was such a gem of its time. If only they'd upgrade it with TOW2 graphics. Buy it in a heart beat.

Does Matrix games still own the licensing?

[Schifty]

I think the biggest problem is that the developers will have to rewrite the battle AI and develop a campaign AI. I'm not an expert in the game development but it seems me that it is one of the most difficult task for programmers. For tow the AI units follow only a script (assault on a point or defense of a zone with for each unit a determined behaviour and route). In CC, the AI had to place his units at the best place and to choice if it must attack or defend.

Agree may be its not an easy task.... but what about vehicule... guns... Its mosly 3d modelling. british have just one kind of tank.... USA havent a AT gun.... seriously no escuse for that!

[Arzok]

I am still on TOW 1

[Schifty]

Same for me.... and i aspect for the modder try to put veh of TOW1 on TOW2:D

[General_solomon]

this sort of talk is helping me appreciate how CC was such a gem of its time. If only they'd upgrade it with TOW2 graphics. Buy it in a heart beat.

Does Matrix games still own the licensing?

I just played a demo of men of war. if only we had the money to purchase the license for tow2, cmsf, cc and mow.

i love the fact that you can see the action spot when you place your movements. there is a silhouette of the men.