Am I missing something with Campaigns?

[Battlefront.com]

A true campaign system amounts to an entire separate game in the same wrapper. The Total War series has done this for years. Unfortunately they refuse to properly patch or support either of the two "separate" games they are selling, so I have completely quit playing and buying their products.

And this is the lesson we drew from the the Close Combat experience. The tactical game basically stopped growing with CC2. From that point on the majority of the effort was put into the operational level. I remember seeing plenty of discussion after CC4's release that clearly indicated that large numbers of people were happy with neither. And considering that Atomic Games ceased to exist (in real terms) right after, I'd wager that their sales reflected this.

To which I reply: X-COM.

Game, set and the match to me, I believe?

Ah, the old days when games could be developed in a couple of months simply because the computers couldn't handle more programming than that. Those were glorious times! I doubt anybody would like it if we dumbed down CM's tactical combat to early 1990s standards in order to free up resources to make a campaign layer which looks great by 1990s standards So dreamy memories of games like X-Com are irrelevant (and I agree X-Com was kick ass... I still think of it frequently!).

Honestly, I think everyone that wanted a completely separate campaign engine had a good cry and got over it long ago. Is it even being hinted at in this thread?

Yes, even if they don't think they are. Just because a customer can write a paragraph or two doesn't mean it is practical to fold into the existing game engine.

But some sort of framework around the current tactical engine to allow some form of interaction with your core force is not all that much to ask for, IMO. Anything to improve what is currently little more then a sequential playing through of scenarios.

Well, the problem is the devil is in the detail. We could slap something in that gave you more interaction with your core force and yet still have the same level of complaint as before. Or worse, because now you'd have something in front of you to be critical of.

It's a lose, lose situation for us. We can't make any more than a small fraction of you even remotely happy with a campaign system. If we were really smart we would not have a campaign system at all. I'm sure it wouldn't lose us many sales. Probably whatever we did lose would be offset by not having put time into something that most people won't ever be happy with.

Put another way... you guys should realize that we do pay attention to you're wants and desires. If you complain so much that we don't think there's a way of making even a decent amount of you happy, we're not going to redouble our efforts. We'll instead stop trying. There's too many other things we can do with our time than attempting to do the impossible.

If CMSF taught us anything, it is that patience is a virtue.

Would you be willing to wait 6 months and pay an extra $10 for a campaign system which gives you more interaction, but in a way you find completely useless? I doubt it

Elmar, it would be good to know if you understand that there's no possibility of us making everybody happy. You do understand that, correct? If so, why should we focus our efforts on making you, as an individual, happy over all the other individuals who purchase our products? Note I didn't ask why you want us to do this, I asked why we should. What makes your particular set of wants the Gold Standard by which we cater our every waking moment to addressing until you are satisfied by it?

I'm not trying to be a dink here, I'm just trying to point out the absolutely impossible position we're in. There's no way we can make more than a small faction of you guys happy. Period. So any solution that costs us a great deal of time/resources must have a very, very solid payback potential for it to be worth doing (both for us as a company and the customer base as a whole).

Steve

[Apocal]

Who here thinks its fun to play with exactly the same forces battle after battle after battle? Meaning, if you start out the campaign with a platoon of tanks and you lose them... you don't get to play with tanks ever again for the rest of the campaign?

Considering the popularity of FMB's two (or is it three?) campaigns, I think the answer is more than you imagine. Then again, a lot of that popularity is word of forum and we're a self-selecting group to begin with, so opinions, grains of salt, etc.

[Battlefront.com]

I should have qualified my statement Who here thinks that the only way to play a campaign, and the only way that anybody could ever think is fun, is to have a campaign where you start out with one set of forces and that's the only group you ever get to play with for the duration of a campaign?

The reason I should have qualified my statement is that, as stated earlier, you CAN currently make a campaign that gives you x units and you never get anything other than x units. Which I not only have no problem with, but am in fact happy to have that capability in the system for those who want it. The poster I was responding to basically suggested that we should take that functionality and chuck the other functionality because he doesn't see any value in it. That's really wrong headed IMHO since removing functionality that already exists is counter productive.

Now, which type of play we include with the game itself gets us back into the wonderful world of no one choice works equally well for all people all the time. Our feeling is that more people prefer a more wide ranging campaign experience where there are "auxiliary" forces and split use of "core" units. The good news is we can be dead wrong and you guys can still get what you want by either making your own campaign or using ones created by other people. Like FMB, for example

Steve

[TheVulture]

One (relatively) simple way of keeping the user more in identification with the core units in a campaign (ignoring the fact that what the core units are can be hidden from the user to avoid gamey use of 'temporary' units for high risk jobs) could be to have an update screen between each mission: these were your losses; these were your reinforcements; you go so much ammo resupply, for the next mission 2nd platoon is having tea in the NAAFI, 3rd platoon is peeling spuds, so 1st platoon are on their own, backed up by a lone, but very angry, Gurkha.

Obviously that would require more stuff written by campaign designers to fill in the background details, and extra code to a) support it, and replace suitable tags with relevant values.

I'd guess (usual caveats apply about having no idea what is and isn't possible in any given bit of code) that it wouldn't take a vast amount of work, and would add a fair bit to the sense of continuity in a campaign.

[Other Means]

Well, I'm a big fan of RobOs campaign, which is much like Steel Panthers. The player picks his force and depending on how well or bad he does the player

receives influence with which he can "buy" replacements, or improve his force loadout.

This sounds ideal to me. Especially if the campaign designer can then influence the "rarity" of re-enforcements with the choices the player makes.

Functionality to drop to a campaign map on scenario end and make choices around it, shape-able by the designer, which would influence this "rarity" would do a good job I think. IOW:

"choice 1: arty rarity = 1.2, inf rarity = 0.8, armour rarity = 0.4"

"choice 2: arty rarity = 1.0, inf rarity = 0.4, armour rarity = 0.8"

etc.

dependent on where on an image (a map) a the user clicked. With the map and clickable areas also linked to each scenario end.

Something like:

If (variable dependent on scenario exit) {

map image2(co-ordinate set) {

if(co-ordinate set[1]) {

scenario = scenario x(arty rarity = 1.2, inf rarity = 0.8, armour rarity = 0.4)

} else if(co-ordinate set[2]) {

scenario = scenario x(arty rarity = 1.0, inf rarity = 0.4, armour rarity = 0.8)

} else n...

} else if (variable dependent on scenario exit) {

map image3(co-ordinate set) {

if(co-ordinate set[1]) {

scenario = scenario x(arty rarity = 1.5, inf rarity = 0.7, armour rarity = 0.6)

} else if(co-ordinate set[2]) {

scenario = scenario x(arty rarity = 1.0, inf rarity = 0.9, armour rarity = 0.8)

} else n...

} else if (variable dependent on scenario exit) {

endScenario(lose)

} else ...etc

But yes, I can see how it could be a time sink and maybe not something BFC need to do.

[Battlefront.com]

I'd guess (usual caveats apply about having no idea what is and isn't possible in any given bit of code) that it wouldn't take a vast amount of work, and would add a fair bit to the sense of continuity in a campaign.

When we designed the existing campaign system we toyed with all kinds of ideas like this. The problem with emphasizing Core Units too much is that players tend to do very bad things with the Auxiliary Units. Whenever we get into a discussion about these two concepts people generally express a desire to see abuse of Auxiliaries minimized. Just like people don't want "gamey" abuse of bailed out vehicle crews or "Jeep Recon" (an old CMBO term).

The problem is a really dicey one for us. The more we highlight and emphasize Core Units, the more we de-emphasize the Auxiliary Units' value. Yet the more we obscure the Core Units from the player, the less attached he feels to them.

My current feeling is that we should just say "screw it" and implement a very simplistic system. Give the player more identity with the Core Units and then penalize the heck out of Auxiliary casualties. It's a system with its own problems, but I think on balance it would be better than the way we have it now for most people most of the time.

But yes, I can see how it could be a time sink and maybe not something BFC need to do.

Yup. The problem is the same as I've stated over and over again... there are hundreds, if not thousands, of ideas about how to make a more interactive campaign. Literally years worth of work out there to do, even after we reconcile the ideas which are polar opposite to each other. And yet we'd still have a system that a pretty good chunk of people wouldn't like for one reason or another.

Unfortunately, campaign systems for a tactical level game like ours reach a point of diminishing returns very quickly from a development standpoint. Therefore, I don't see any massive shift in the campaign system any time soon. Little bits over time, absolutely.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

My current feeling is that we should just say "screw it" and implement a very simplistic system. Give the player more identity with the Core Units and then penalize the heck out of Auxiliary casualties. It's a system with its own problems, but I think on balance it would be better than the way we have it now for most people most of the time.

Why do you feel the need to correct a players behaviour? If the player is throwing the lives of his auxilary units away in favour, who gets hurt? The player likes to do it, you got paid for the game earlier and the pixeltroops aren't capable of forming an opinion on the matter one way or the other.

It's the same thing I for QB forces. Apparently, we we're picking the wrong units, so the choice gets taken away.

Same with the current campaign. It can't be a six month job to merely let us choose the starting force. Let us know the default suggested force at the campaign's start. And if if I choose to ignore that recommended force and replace it with only Elite King Tigers, should you really care? If that's how I get my jollies, let me

As much as you cast around suggestions that we are never happy and want an entire new game added, a little freedom from this designer straight jacket would go a long way. With more freedom, everyone gets more of the game they want.

[SeanRamey]

I agree Elmar, although I kinda see there problem. They dont want to offend people, make them get mad over their game and start making the devs lose sales and money.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Offend people? Who gets offended when I feed troops of my own choosing in to the meatgrinder in a single player campaign?

[Battlefront.com]

Why do you feel the need to correct a players behaviour?

Using that logic, why should we try to do anything to curb unrealistic behavior? The answer is simple... because this isn't an empty headed RTS game where some player's whims are allowed to run roughshod over reality. CM has never been about that, never will be.

If the player is throwing the lives of his auxilary units away in favour, who gets hurt? The player likes to do it, you got paid for the game earlier and the pixeltroops aren't capable of forming an opinion on the matter one way or the other.

Again, that flies in the face of reality. Most gamers agree that the strength of Combat Mission is that it DOES care about these things. The reason is simple, when you think about it. And that is people tend to be tempted to get away with whatever they can. I think the vast majority of CM gamers like CM more because we try to eliminate these temptations.

It's the same thing I for QB forces. Apparently, we we're picking the wrong units, so the choice gets taken away.

A very large number of people asked for this "choice" to be restricted. Obviously we went too far, but I really wish we could get rid of the false notion that we removed the choice out of the blue for no reason.

Same with the current campaign. It can't be a six month job to merely let us choose the starting force.

I have no idea how long it would take, but it would require an entirely different campaign system. So no, it is in no way, shape, or form "easy".

Each battle in a campaign is hand made unlike the generic systems used by Steel Panthers, Close Combat, and others. As I've said, I hate those other systems. They produced crap battles more often than not. And yet I had to fight through them even when I didn't want to. At least with a bad QB setup you can just exit and try again. That wouldn't be the case if we had a generic setup system like SP and CC.

So there is no such thing as a "starting force" in Combat Mission. If you have the raw files you can edit the Core Unit File to some extent, but if you do major changes you'll need to go through and reset the units in each battle. That's because the system was never designed for on-the-fly unit changes.

Again, what you're asking for is a completely different structure and it's one we would have to code from scratch. Definitely a very involved process which would be numbered in months to code, test, and tweak.

As much as you cast around suggestions that we are never happy and want an entire new game added, a little freedom from this designer straight jacket would go a long way. With more freedom, everyone gets more of the game they want.

In theory this is correct. However, there is only a certain range of options we can offer before you're asking us to create completely different games. The "easy" suggestion you made is yet another example of this.

I apparently keep having to repeat myself to you Elmar... there is absolutely no way we can make everybody happy. Someone, a lot of someones in fact, is going to be unhappy with the implementation. It is highly probable that you will always be one of those people. But if not you then someone else.

From our perspective the specific wants of an individual doesn't matter to us. They can't since this isn't a game customized for the whims and desires of any one individual customer. I like you so I would hope we can please you, but if we can't then we can't.

Steve

[Gromit]

I think the problem with all that Elmar is CM is enjoyed not only by folks who tend to play a lot of human vs. CPU, but against a human opponent, normally via e-mailed turns.

I haven't come across anything in these forums since 1999 that gets under a grog's collar as much as an opponent "using gamey tactics" or, put another way- historically unrealistic situations. Things that are beyond the realm of reason compared to history- let's say those King Tigers, for instance.

As a fellow who enjoys single player immensely- really, I DO understand where you are coming from. But, I gotta say, that while you are certainly entitled to your opinons and that is a large part of what these forums are all about... at some point you have to realize it just isn't going to happen. That drum of yours you have been beating just isn't being heard by the people that count- because there isn't a reason for them to listen.

As Blind Pew said to Captain Billy Bones... "Business is business, Mr. Bones."

I may not like some of the decisions Steve and Charles choose to make, but, in the ten years I have known them they haven't ever turned their backs on me and they are still around. Who else can you say that about in this line of work? They do their absolute best for ALL of us, and that earns them a lot of trust in my book.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks Gromit.

Yes, there are a lot of people who play CM multi-player. There are more that play it single player, however. In my previous post I mentioned that people are thankful that we have removed certain temptations to be "gamey". I was including a lot of single player people in that. How many of you guys have exploited a weakness in a game before? I'd bet 100% of you. How many of you would rather that the weakness be eliminated even though you have it within your power to not exploit it simply by not giving into temptation? I'm going to guess 100% of you, at some time, have felt that way. And I very much include myself in this!

How many of you here played Reach for the Stars (the original)? How many of you found out that the AI liked to mass its fleets willy nilly in a system that had no planets? How many of you parked a fleet there to kill off the dribble of the AI's ships with favorable odds instead of waiting for the AI to send the whole fleet at you in one go?

How many of you figured out what the reaction radius and hostile actions would trigger certain units in Warcraft II from leaving their assigned patrol routes and attack? How many of you used bait to trigger the patrolling units one at a time so you could ambush them in a manner of your choosing?

How many of you found in the early version of Battlefield 2 (not sure about later revs) that the enemy AI guys would never come into a building after you unless they were already in hot pursuit? How many of you used this knowledge to play "peek-a-boo" sniping without shifting positions or even glancing around to make sure someone wasn't coming in after you?

Pick a game and there's probably some flaw that you could 100% avoid exploiting if you wanted to, but found you couldn't resist exploiting. We try, as best we can, to minimize the number of these things which exist in our games. We feel, very strongly, that this is one of CM's biggest selling points even if people don't explicitly acknowledge it.

Plus, if we get rid of realism as a primary goal, and instead incorporate anything and everything that people think is "fun", then we might find ourselves putting in power ups and health packs, not to mention spawn points. And of course we'd have dive bombers attacking on command from 15 feet off the ground and medium bombers to take out pesky enemy tanks.

Realism, therefore, must be the primary tool for assessing whether something should, or shouldn't, be introduced into CM. That doesn't mean we can't favor something clearly gamey but fun. We can and do include such things. The game is filled with them, especially in terms of special effects. However, in the end we have to be very careful about putting in things which will distract us from our primary purpose and gobble up development time that is taking the game in the wrong direction.

Steve

[JonS]

Apples and oranges.

All the examples you give are to do with play once the scen has started.

None of the things other people are talking about are to do with that.

[Battlefront.com]

Oops... wrong thread. I originally posted a response for Quick Battles. My bad

JonS,

None of the things other people are talking about are to do with that.

Well, the point I was trying to make is that we sometimes have to save the player from himself. I picked in-game examples since they are the easier ones to demonstrate this point. So although the actual features are apples to oranges, the philosophy behind the designs of each are very similar. Usually identical, in fact.

Elmar's viewpoint is we should not do this because gamers know best. But the track record is pretty clear that they don't. In fact, if you found old forums related to the campaign systems in Steel Panthers, Close Combat x, and even Panzer General you'd see similar complaints from players about the lack of self control over abuse of "auxiliary" units. I saw such discussions when I was there, as a player and not a game designer.

Sure, there are definitely players like Elmar who really don't give a flying fig about realism at all. "Gamey" is not a bad term, it is actually a goal everybody should strive to be the best at. And there's NOTHING WRONG with that point of view, other than the fact that we aren't making Combat Mission for that type of player. If that type of player finds Combat Mission interesting, despite our focus on realism first, then that's great. But it's not something we're going to cater to. Doing that puts us on a slippery slope towards the mass market RTS games and that is an area we neither wish to get into nor can afford to compete in.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Doing that puts us on a slippery slope towards the mass market RTS games and that is an area we neither wish to get into nor can afford to compete in.

Steve

Cherry picking=slippery slope towards the mass market RTS games?

Really? That was genuinely what you tried to say?

Sometimes there just aren't enough emoticons.

[c3k]

tApocal,

For example, we're going to reintroduce Kill Stats and they will be tracked throughout a Campaign. It's a win-win feature for everybody.

Steve

This is EXCELLENT news!

Regards,

Ken

[c3k]

I agree with a lot of the sentiments here: the current campaign system seems to have a lot of possibilities (which aren't being fully utilized) and it also has a lot of room for improvement.

To me, the single greatest missing element is that I feel NO attachment to the units I command in a campaign. I mean, the force is so different from one battle to another, that it just feels like a string of battles with no relation to one another.

To increase my emotional connection to my troops, I'd like to SEE which ones I've been commanding in previous battles. That information is available, but, frankly, I don't bother writing down that 1st squad of 2nd platoon of 3rd company of 4 battalion was in the previous battle. There's too much minutia. And too many units. Instead, I'd LOVE to have a visceral, visual piece of feedback. Like this...

Every time a unit (squad/team, individual vehicle) has been in a previous battle, it gains a star (or a bar, or a dot, or some OTHER simple visual counting icon). This symbol is shown somewhere on the unit interface. That way, when I click on a squad, if I see 5 bars, and it's down 2 members, I can say, "Wow! These guys are my veterans. I'm gonna see if I can keep them alive. They've earned a bit." (5 bars means it's survived 5 previous battles. This would be their 6th combat in the campaign.)

Notice that I'm not talking about increasing experience, or battle-hardness or anything else. I'm not advocating changing the unit's abilities. Just adding a visual indicator to show me that I've played with these pieces (fought with these men?) in earlier battles. That'd be a better emotional tie-in.

Pull me in!! Don't keep me distant...

Thanks,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Elmar,

Cherry picking=slippery slope towards the mass market RTS games?

Good God... how many ways and times do I have to say that Cherry Picking is going into the game? So OBVIOUSLY I don't equate that with being on a slipper slope towards a mass market RTS game.

Really? That was genuinely what you tried to say?

No, and I don't understand for the life of me how you could have possibly come to that conclusion. Especially since we're talking about Campaigns in this thread and not Cherry Picking. I get the feeling you're not really interested in having a discussion, just interested in... well... I can't figure that out.

My point was a direct response to your comment that we shouldn't care how people use the game. My response outlined why gamers WANT us to shore up weak points and to prevent the system from having realism gaps. Sure, you may find a particular reality flaw "fun", but that's not what CM is about and never has been.

As I've said a billion times already, in this one thread alone, there are a near infinite number of ways we can go with a campaign system. Some want us to go to one extreme where the system basically is a game onto itself with very little to do with real life. And when I say "that's not realistic enough for us" I get a "who cares about realism" response. My point is that Combat Mission's distinction as a game is based on its concern for realism. Therefore, feature choices must be made with realism in mind at least to some extent. The more elaborate the feature, the more important it is to be sure our energies are spent reinforcing what makes Combat Mission special instead of undermining it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

To increase my emotional connection to my troops, I'd like to SEE which ones I've been commanding in previous battles. That information is available, but, frankly, I don't bother writing down that 1st squad of 2nd platoon of 3rd company of 4 battalion was in the previous battle. There's too much minutia. And too many units. Instead, I'd LOVE to have a visceral, visual piece of feedback.

We definitely agree with this. In fact...

Every time a unit (squad/team, individual vehicle) has been in a previous battle, it gains a star (or a bar, or a dot, or some OTHER simple visual counting icon). This symbol is shown somewhere on the unit interface. That way, when I click on a squad, if I see 5 bars, and it's down 2 members, I can say, "Wow! These guys are my veterans. I'm gonna see if I can keep them alive. They've earned a bit." (5 bars means it's survived 5 previous battles. This would be their 6th combat in the campaign.)

Something very similar to this has been planned for more than a year. And by "planned" I mean a design made, fleshed out, mockedup, and approved of by Charles (since without his code we have a bit of a problem ). I've also dropped a small bone that Kill Stats will go along with units through the Campaign. Which means, in effect, when you look at a unit in the Campaign you'll have a pretty nice snapshot of its combat experience.

It was interesting to see how the testers responded to this when I ran it by them last year. Some absolutely loved it, others thought it was unnecessary fluff. The ones who loved it wanted to see it expanded, the ones who thought it unnecessary fluff wanted it killed off in favor of something more "useful". Which is why our Beta Testers are such a great group to work with... they represent the diversity of our customer base very well and are not shy about voicing their opinions.

Obviously I was predisposed to having the "fluff"

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Elmar,

Good God... how many ways and times do I have to say that Cherry Picking is going into the game? So OBVIOUSLY I don't equate that with being on a slipper slope towards a mass market RTS game.

Well, it wasn't so obvious to me as you kept mentioning my name and the two things I talked about were Cherry Picking your core forces for a campaign and the identification of core forces and the possible misuse of non core forces. If you claim that to be the slippery slope, I'm going to mock you.

No, and I don't understand for the life of me how you could have possibly come to that conclusion. Especially since we're talking about Campaigns in this thread and not Cherry Picking. I get the feeling you're not really interested in having a discussion, just interested in... well... I can't figure that out.

Yes, Steve, I'm out to get you. After more then two years of me sticking up for BFC when not a lot of people did, you have unmasked me and my sinister motives. I'm highly critical of some things because... I'm highly critical of those things. I'm still supporting you on other areas to this day, but that gets conveniently forgotten by you as portraying me, by way of insinuation, as some scheming, unreasonable meanie with is so much easier. Disappointing.

[Thomm]

This trigger thing ... does it not have to be tied into the spotting and C2 system?

Such that the information first has to travel to a HQ high enough in the OOB to represent the "trigger"?

Best regards,

Thomm

[c3k]

c3k,

We definitely agree with this. In fact...

Something very similar to this has been planned for more than a year. And by "planned" I mean a design made, fleshed out, mockedup, and approved of by Charles (since without his code we have a bit of a problem ). I've also dropped a small bone that Kill Stats will go along with units through the Campaign. Which means, in effect, when you look at a unit in the Campaign you'll have a pretty nice snapshot of its combat experience.

It was interesting to see how the testers responded to this when I ran it by them last year. Some absolutely loved it, others thought it was unnecessary fluff. The ones who loved it wanted to see it expanded, the ones who thought it unnecessary fluff wanted it killed off in favor of something more "useful". Which is why our Beta Testers are such a great group to work with... they represent the diversity of our customer base very well and are not shy about voicing their opinions.

Obviously I was predisposed to having the "fluff"

Steve

Ahh, "...planned for more than a year..."? Well, I was going to post this TWO years ago!!! Point to me.

Just glad to hear you're working it.

Thanks,

Ken

[Pinetree]

I've also dropped a small bone that Kill Stats will go along with units through the Campaign. Which means, in effect, when you look at a unit in the Campaign you'll have a pretty nice snapshot of its combat experience.

Are the kill stats going to be broken down so we can view by mission and/or type? or are they just going to be cumulative totals with perhaps just the last mission only?

[c3k]

The best thing with kill stats over a campaign is the underlying ability to track an individual unit through the campaign. By obvious extension, that also means that a unit's actions through a battle will be tracked as well. This opens up many possibilities. The gaining of experience is one of them. (As is increasing shell shock, battle shyness, etc.)

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Well, it wasn't so obvious to me as you kept mentioning my name and the two things I talked about were Cherry Picking your core forces for a campaign and the identification of core forces and the possible misuse of non core forces.

And I responded, specifically, to the issue with misusing core units. I explained my position now twice. I don't see anything wrong with it. Besides a quick quip from you, nobody's challenged my counter position to yours. Including you, which is the point of my not understanding what you're trying to achieve. If you want to have a discussion, why aren't you discussing the points I've raised instead of inserting meaningless quips?

I'm going to mock you.

Which is what I'm referring to when I said you don't appear to want a discussion. "Mocking" should have no part in a discussion.

Yes, Steve, I'm out to get you. After more then two years of me sticking up for BFC when not a lot of people did, you have unmasked me and my sinister motives.

Good lord... Elmar, I simply said I don't understand your attitude. You've even said, straight out, that you're trying to "mock" me. Why not address the points I raised, challenge them with counter points, and let us have a discussion? If you're interested in actually having a discussion, that is what you should be doing instead of sticking in jabs at me while completely ignoring the points I've made. And you should also know by now, after all these years, when someone starts to go lowbrow in a discussion I definitely point that out.

I'm highly critical of some things because... I'm highly critical of those things. I'm still supporting you on other areas to this day, but that gets conveniently forgotten by you as portraying me, by way of insinuation, as some scheming, unreasonable meanie with is so much easier. Disappointing.

I'm addressing your points very directly and very rationally. But you keep dodging and making smart-arsed comments back at me instead. You even just labeled what you're doing as "mocking". So yeah, it is disappointing that you've apparently decided quick quips are an equal substitute to well thought out counter points.

Hopefully you'll see that you're in the wrong here. In the mean time, I'm going to get back to having a discussion.

Are the kill stats going to be broken down so we can view by mission and/or type? or are they just going to be cumulative totals with perhaps just the last mission only?

It would be somewhat cumbersome for us to keep track of each battle's statistics in a way that is easy for us to display. So no, you will not be able to see Unit 1 unit did X damage for Battle A, Y damage for Battle B, and Z damage for Battle C. What you will see is the count for the current battle AND (separately) the total for the Campaign up until that point. It is my intention that in Setup you get to see the Kill Stats from the previous battle. But I'm not sure if this poses some issues for Charles to code so I don't know for sure this specific bit will be in. He might need Setup to be the time when the slate is cleaned instead of between Setup and the start of the battle.

During the AAR look at the battlefield the cumulative total should have everything from the previous battles AND the kills from the one just completed.

The best thing with kill stats over a campaign is the underlying ability to track an individual unit through the campaign. By obvious extension, that also means that a unit's actions through a battle will be tracked as well. This opens up many possibilities. The gaining of experience is one of them. (As is increasing shell shock, battle shyness, etc.)

Units are already kept track of between battles, so the Kill Stats tracking doesn't open up any doors that aren't already opened. In fact, Kill Stats for Campaigns is something that runs on top of the existing structure.

Steve