Am I missing something with Campaigns?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Steve,

clearly, my heated debating style is going down rather badly. For that, I apologize, and I'll promise to moderate my tone.

Having said that I'm getting rather tired of the repeated insinuation, here and in PM, that there is anything more to it then I am impassioned about the issues under discussion. I've told you repeatedly that that I'm not out to get you (or whatever) and that I'm just that strongly opined on the matter, yet you would seemingly rather disbelieve me on this.

I'll say it here so maybe this time you'll take note: my more hostile tone (again, only on some issues) of the last week and me leaving the beta is not because there was some sudden drop in regard for you. I've always had some fundamental disagreements on some issues discussed here, but had previously felt it'd be bad to publicly have a heated disagreement with you whilst on the test team.

With me opting to leave beta, yeah, you are seeing a bit of a change in tone. Don't mean I love you less, Steve.

Not trying to dodge deliberately either, some phrases just catch my eye, or ire, more then others.

Anyway, back to the real issues, I'm sure the spectators are getting bored of us two bickering.

I'm still rather unsure what suggestion made in this thread, by me or anyone, was "the slippery slope to RTS". It was this statement that I did indeed find laughably overblown. All of the ideas expressed here were a far cry from healthbars and Zerg rushes.

Still not sure either why you'd think allowing the picking of a core force at the start of a campaign would required a completely different campaign system. What I'm suggesting is as simple as this: At the start of the campaign the player get X amount of points (there's that word again!) to buy a core force, then normal campaign play starts like it would in todays campaigns. Everything could stay the same as it is now, except the core force is hand picked and perhaps replenished and/or adjusted with player earned points in between missions.

You've clarified what's on the books with QB and I'm happy about it. I'm still wary of the non points system (whoah, nearly said pointless system, wouldn't that have led to unfortunate misunderstanding! ) but if it's in essence similar to Ye Olde QB, I'm pleased.

So tís only the campaign that divides us.

[Battlefront.com]

Elmar,

clearly, my heated debating style is going down rather badly.

Have you ever seen it go otherwise with me?

For that, I apologize, and I'll promise to moderate my tone.

Remember, I don't want you to moderate your positions if you feel strongly about them UNLESS you happen to be convinced to through debate. But passionate positions without rational discussion is counter productive.

've told you repeatedly that that I'm not out to get you (or whatever) and that I'm just that strongly opined on the matter, yet you would seemingly rather disbelieve me on this.

Nope, I do believe you. However, your tactics here sent a mixed message. Passion and hostility are two different things. I can understand and respect passion, I've got a problem with hostility because it's a distraction.

With me opting to leave beta, yeah, you are seeing a bit of a change in tone.

I hope you keep your level of passion high, but stick to the debate.

Not trying to dodge deliberately either, some phrases just catch my eye, or ire, more then others.

Problem is, with the last few exchanges, you've only responded with the stuff that catches your eye/ire. Let's see if we can change that with the next one, eh?

I'm still rather unsure what suggestion made in this thread, by me or anyone, was "the slippery slope to RTS". It was this statement that I did indeed find laughably overblown. All of the ideas expressed here were a far cry from healthbars and Zerg rushes.

That's the "slippery slope" thing. It's a term that means getting onto footing which is potentially going to result in sliding down the wrong side of the hill. Or in other words, it's an uncomfortable place which serves as a warning. No suggestion made in this thread, so far, is actually own the wrong side of the hill. However, you've called certain core philosophical and development focuses into question and that does, in my professional opinion as a game designer, put us on a slippery slope.

My point was in response to something you said, which many others have said before you. You questioned why we should reject things just because they are unrealistic. Your point was if something is "fun" (which is, of course, highly subjective and personal) why not include it? My answer is the same as it always is... Combat Mission is what it is because it's focus is on realism and allowing the fun to come from that. The more a requested feature strays from realism the more justification we need for it to be included. And the more involved it is the more justification we need on top of that. Time and energy are limited commodities for us.

Still not sure either why you'd think allowing the picking of a core force at the start of a campaign would required a completely different campaign system. What I'm suggesting is as simple as this: At the start of the campaign the player get X amount of points (there's that word again!) to buy a core force, then normal campaign play starts like it would in todays campaigns. Everything could stay the same as it is now, except the core force is hand picked and perhaps replenished and/or adjusted with player earned points in between missions.

Because the game isn't coded this way. The Core Forces in each individual battle are tied to the Core Units File BEFORE the campaign is combined into the CAM file. There are unique unit IDs associated with each Core Unit which is absolutely essential for the Campaign to function because without those unique IDs there is no way to track the units as they go from battle to battle.

What you're proposing is to allow the player to create his own Core Units File, basically. This destroys all relationship between the units the player has chosen and the units as specified and deployed within each individual battle. This in turn means:

1. The player has to determine what units he is going to fight with in the next battle, not the scenario designer since there is no mechanism in the game for the designer to restrict/guide player purchase decisions. This means you could enter a battle with a full Battalion when the scenario is expecting a reinforced platoon.

2. The player gets to determine where/how those units start, not the scenario designer. Ambushes, keeping units in/out of LOS as desired, etc. aren't possible. This can completely throw off a scenario's design.

3. Victory Conditions are thrown out of whack because they are weighted based on certain known things about the forces and how they will match up. For example, if the scenario designer specifies that Red has to knock out 1 Abrams, and you appear in the battle without any, Red can not fulfill its mission. Worse, if you show up with Leo-2 tanks instead of Abrams, and Red knocks out 3 Leos, it gets no special bonus for that since they weren't expected.

4. Auxiliary units are carefully chosen by the scenario designers based on the special needs of that particular scenario's mission for Blue. It could be impossible to win a scenario without air cover, or it could be impossible to lose one if you have 155s available. If you have such a thing as a Core Unit, well... now you get the chance to have it when it isn't expected, or not have it if it is expected.

And that's just the set of problems I can think of off the top of my head So yeah, as I said your suggestion requires a completely different Campaign system.

Having a free-form Steel Panthers like campaign system requires a MAJOR effort and a design specifically designed to make it work. I personally thought Steel Panthers campaigns were as exciting as watching paint dry, especially after I had my Elite Tigers and what not as core units, but I do understand that (for whatever reason) some people do like that system. Perhaps we will someday include a way to basically play "linked Quick Battles", but it's definitely not something we can snap our fingers and make happen. So it's not going to happen any time soon.

You've clarified what's on the books with QB and I'm happy about it. I'm still wary of the non points system (whoah, nearly said pointless system, wouldn't that have led to unfortunate misunderstanding! ) but if it's in essence similar to Ye Olde QB, I'm pleased.

Good. The intent of the new system is to please those who are displeased with the current system. If we find that the new system doesn't do that (during testing or after release) then we'll try again. But I can promise you, the basic features that people are looking for will be there from day one.

So tís only the campaign that divides us.

And it will for a fair time to come. As I've repeated ad nauseam, we can't please everybody with one single campaign system. The problem is making more than one is a big deal for us from a development standpoint, so we have to go with a SINGLE system that we feel pleases the most people possible. We do not feel a free floating Steel Panthers/Close Combat type system is the right choice for Combat Mission. It's best if you just accept that you're going to be on the outside looking in on this one for quite a while. It's not something we can afford to bend on. Literally.

Steve

[Apocal]

So anyway, to get things back on track, is there any possibility of multiple campaigns in upcoming CM:N? I can definately see the reasons you shy away from an official Syrian campaign, but it seems like something covering the 352nd(?) in the bocage would at least be moderately interesting from a gameplay standpoint.

Oh yeah, another vote for more consistent, less ADD-inspired campaign forces.

[Battlefront.com]

Apocal,

So anyway, to get things back on track, is there any possibility of multiple campaigns in upcoming CM:N? I can definately see the reasons you shy away from an official Syrian campaign, but it seems like something covering the 352nd(?) in the bocage would at least be moderately interesting from a gameplay standpoint.

I'd say a campaign from the US perspective and another from the German is pretty assured. As you said, there isn't much possibility of having a believable campaign from the Syrian perspective since (realistically) the Core Units would get wiped out repeatedly. Therefore, a Syrian campaign where you are constantly battling the same Blue force with different Red forces was seen to be not worth doing. This is not the same situation the Germans had in Normandy (massive attrition was the ultimate result).

If someone else has, or thinks, of doing something like this... go for it! Personally, I'm curious to see what the reaction is.

Oh yeah, another vote for more consistent, less ADD-inspired campaign forces.

It's not that we're hung up on TO&E stuff, it's just that the opposite requires a very substantial amount of work to get right. And that means a pretty major distraction from everything else. In our view this would be a very big mistake because tactical gameplay would definitely suffer. At least for a little while.

Again, I point to Close Combat. How many here think that CC2's tactical combat was near perfect? Assuming the answer is "no", how many here think the tactical combat in CC4 was very different from CC2? Assuming the answer is "no", then ask yourselves if the major changes made to the campaign layer between CC2 and CC4 might have had something to do with the tactical environment not changing much. I am not privy to a first hand answer to this question, however I'd be shocked if Atomic said "tactical combat is near perfect, so no need to touch that much".

We think it's in everybody's best interests that we put our efforts into making a WW2 environment, temperate setting, new QB system, etc. for a while, then we can come back and revisit things that are already in the game and (largely) working to our satisfaction.

Steve

[JonS]

1. ... This means you could enter a battle with a full Battalion when the scenario is expecting a reinforced platoon.

A player-choice system in which the player's choice was essentially unconstrained by the scenario designer would be a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to do.

I don't think you're that stupid. Please reciprocate.

[Apocal]

Apocal,

I'd say a campaign from the US perspective and another from the German is pretty assured.

Sweet.

It's not that we're hung up on TO&E stuff, it's just that the opposite requires a very substantial amount of work to get right. And that means a pretty major distraction from everything else. In our view this would be a very big mistake because tactical gameplay would definitely suffer. At least for a little while.

Hmmm... I failed to articulate my opinion well. I'd rather have greater identification of one smaller unit, seen as a whole in most missions, than the present campaigns that try to cover all elements of a larger formation by chopping out the extraneous bits. I understand a lot of that comes from the modern doctrine and it's love of task-organization, but I also *think* they did it less back in the bad old days of Normandy?

Again, I point to Close Combat. How many here think that CC2's tactical combat was near perfect? Assuming the answer is "no", how many here think the tactical combat in CC4 was very different from CC2? Assuming the answer is "no", then ask yourselves if the major changes made to the campaign layer between CC2 and CC4 might have had something to do with the tactical environment not changing much. I am not privy to a first hand answer to this question, however I'd be shocked if Atomic said "tactical combat is near perfect, so no need to touch that much".

Hell, I think Close Combat's tactical combat only truly "worked" in the original game. Everything after CC1 consisted of making the appeal a little more broad by conceding what was originally a depiction of incredibly brutal, close-in fighting combined with a realistically unforgiving morale system and a replacement system that really showed you the meaning of Pyrrhic Victory. But that's really for another thread, on another forum...

[Elmar Bijlsma]

A player-choice system in which the player's choice was essentially unconstrained by the scenario designer would be a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to do.

I don't think you're that stupid. Please reciprocate.

I think JonS is thinking along similar lines as me.

Each scenario could state a budget of points* and let you pick QB style to get a force together for that scenario. So your hand picked core force gets to battle in a small scenario where the designer allows the player to pick a force of 500 points from his previously selected core force. Supporting (non core) units can be made available by the designer if he so chooses.

This idea I believe can provide the double whammy of allowing the player to identify with his units and to give him more influence over the shape of his campaign.

Having attentively read your lengthy post, I still remain convinced that this suggestion is the best method to provide substantial improvement to the current campaign system.

*or whatever mysterious system you are going to be using.

[Battlefront.com]

A player-choice system in which the player's choice was essentially unconstrained by the scenario designer would be a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to do.

Obviously But in order to NOT be that stupid we'd have to design, program, and test an different system than what we have now. Which is exactly what Elmar said isn't necessary. It is.

Hmmm... I failed to articulate my opinion well. I'd rather have greater identification of one smaller unit, seen as a whole in most missions, than the present campaigns that try to cover all elements of a larger formation by chopping out the extraneous bits. I understand a lot of that comes from the modern doctrine and it's love of task-organization, but I also *think* they did it less back in the bad old days of Normandy?

True, but they also rotated units in and out of the front in order to give them time to rest and refit. You also get into situations where a single company is acting on its own in one situation, acting with others in another.

Having said that, for the Normandy campaign it's definitely more straight forward than it is in modern warfare. We can more easily have the player fight with a specific company pretty much all the time because that's the way things worked in that theater within that timeframe.

Hell, I think Close Combat's tactical combat only truly "worked" in the original game.

Heh... well, I do think they made significant improvements in the tactical battle between CC1 and CC2, even if one just thinks about the graphics.

I think JonS is thinking along similar lines as me.

He is, and both of you are missing the point Sure, we can think up all kinds of stuff to get you the kind of campaign you are picturing in your head. But it will take a very significant chunk of resources and time to make it work as you have it pictured in your head. Which gets us back to the problems I noted. And that's just the stuff I thought up off the top of my head.

Having attentively read your lengthy post, I still remain convinced that this suggestion is the best method to provide substantial improvement to the current campaign system.

[edit due to misreading a key word of Elmar's] Of course you do I wasn't expecting you to ever like the existing system because you want something entirely different, which is what I've been trying to hammer home since the beginning of this thread (and with all previous campaign threads ever). There is NO ONE WAY TO MAKE A CAMPAIGN and people will never, ever agree on one. Therefore, it is absolutely physically impossible to make everybody happy with a single system. Which means that no matter WHAT we do someone is going to be unhappy with our choice. It's not personal, it's not due to a lack of will, it's simply because we're being asked to do the impossible and we're refusing to screw up everything in pursuit of the impossible.

There have always been two major camps within the Combat Mission experience. One wants a more generic, open ended, free flowing environment in general. The other wants a less generic, more focused, realistic environment in general. CMx1 was geared more towards the former, CMx2 is geared more towards the latter. And that shift is very, very deliberate on our part. We decided to go that route sometime around 2002, long before we ever started making CMx2.

Now, this doesn't mean we're dropping one group in favor of another. Far from it. The new QB system going into Normandy is almost exclusively aimed towards those who want a more generic, open ended game experience. The reason we're comfortable about that is it turns out that the ones who tend to favor a more structured, realistic environment don't play QBs much, if at all. Therefore, having a system geared towards them is pointless. Might as well not include Quick Battles at all in that case. But instead we're redoing the whole system with a different player type in mind. We are NOT going to do that for Campaigns any time soon. It would be really, really good if everybody could just deal with that.

Steve

[dan/california]

Steve, the board is still trying to deal with the fact that the earth is round, and disease isn't caused by "vapors" or "humours". Dealing is not our collective strong point.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I still say the tactical combat is already good enough, and the best thing to do after Normandy would be an operational map, even a simple one. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/combat-mission-campaigns-exclusive-after-action-report.htm Like in the AAR report attached to that article. When's the Normandy forum opening btw?

[Battlefront.com]

Wrath of Dragon,

I still say the tactical combat is already good enough, and the best thing to do after Normandy would be an operational map, even a simple one.

Maps don't do anything but show data. It's the data, and how it is made relevant, that's the tricky part. Very tricky. We have no plans to make a strategic layer like CMC tried to do with CMx1. And since our plans go out for at least 5 years...

Steve

[Wrath of Dagon]

So I gathered from the discussion we had before, although that was before CMC was cancelled. I guess I just like to beat my head against a brick wall. Have you considered having a poll about what the community thinks should be the priorities for future development?

[Battlefront.com]

Polls are not a good tool because they only sample a fraction of our customer base and only the most hardcore. Which, I don't doubt, are the ones most interested in a strategic layer. It's like standing up in the middle of a bar next to a sports stadium and asking "who wants a pitcher of beer?". The answer back is going to be pretty predictable given the circumstances

We're very aware of what it takes to make a strategic layer, even a really bad one. We simply don't have the resources to pull it off *and* pull off the other things we have planned. For example, we feel CoPlay would be easier to do than a strategic layer. Less time to make, less time to support, far less potential for vast quantities of requests for this and that improvement. We also think it would be a much more popular feature by far. Yet we don't have any idea when we'll get it in and working as a complete feature set. Our current plan is to pick away at it for a prolonged period of time.

I know it is frustrating to think of great things and then have no way to get them into your hands. Just remember that whatever your frustration level, ours is a thousand times higher. We could keep a hundred developers busy for their lifetimes just with the ideas we already have in our heads...

Steve

[Flanker15]

Been think'n

Maybe an advancement would be a combination of the operation system which everyone liked and the new campagne system?

Each mission is written like an operation, you don't advance to the next map until the operation is complete.

You can complete an operation in one "day" if you're able to (through skill or just the design of the scenario). But it can end with the enemy still controlling part of the map and then the front line shifts and a new scenario takes place just like CMx1 operations instead of: mission failed game over. This would work for both attacking and defending operations, with persistant terrain damage, disabled/wrecked vehicles, re-enforcments and anything else.

After x days if neither side has lost the battle will be decided the normal Cmx1 operation way, desirably the units and re-enforcements would be set up in a way that one side will almost definatly get a total victory in the end.

Allot of fighting in WW2 did feature days of combat over the same area.

[Battlefront.com]

Already thought of The problem is the "front line" issue. It didn't work very well for CMx1 and we gave up on improving it very quickly because it was clear to us that it was a "black hole" feature. We have no intentions of getting dragged back down that hole again. Sorry.

We are, however, planning on adding "persistent damage" to maps. Don't know when, though.

Steve

[Flanker15]

Yeah that frontline did do some weird stuff sometimes.

Good to here persistent terrain is being looked at, that was one of the best things about operations. Hopfully you can get it up to the same level as CMx1 with immobile vehicles and wrecks carrying over to the next scenario (had a good operation once where my immobile priest was able to provide heavy fire for 3 senarios after it was hit).

[silverstars]

Question: In a campaign, can there be more then 2 outcomes from a specific scenario? For example, if you get a Major or Total Victory you go to Scen A, a Major or Total failure to Scen B, and any other result to Scen C?

[Paper Tiger]

Question: In a campaign, can there be more then 2 outcomes from a specific scenario?

Sadly, no. I'd really like to have a third option but we've only got the two outcomes to play with.

[Battlefront.com]

Paper Tiger is, of course, correct. When we designed the system back in 2006 we didn't foresee scenario designers needing, or even wanting, this functionality. It's something we can consider adding.

Steve

[silverstars]

I think it would be a big help, especially if you get persistant damage setup for maps. That way when your Recce in force got a foothold into town but couldn't quite take the town center proper, or just lost too many men immediately, you would then play the same map with your reinforcements versus his dug-in men. But I'm sure the Betas have thought of things like that already.

It would of course also increase the workload for making a campaign if you let it get out of hand by trying to make a third or fourth outcome for every little scenario, but that would be up to the campaign creator to figure out. And any extra tools you can give a campaign creator to design his work is a good thing all around, IMO.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Polls are not a good tool because they only sample a fraction of our customer base and only the most hardcore. Which, I don't doubt, are the ones most interested in a strategic layer. It's like standing up in the middle of a bar next to a sports stadium and asking "who wants a pitcher of beer?". The answer back is going to be pretty predictable given the circumstances

We're very aware of what it takes to make a strategic layer, even a really bad one. We simply don't have the resources to pull it off *and* pull off the other things we have planned. For example, we feel CoPlay would be easier to do than a strategic layer. Less time to make, less time to support, far less potential for vast quantities of requests for this and that improvement. We also think it would be a much more popular feature by far. Yet we don't have any idea when we'll get it in and working as a complete feature set. Our current plan is to pick away at it for a prolonged period of time.

I know it is frustrating to think of great things and then have no way to get them into your hands. Just remember that whatever your frustration level, ours is a thousand times higher. We could keep a hundred developers busy for their lifetimes just with the ideas we already have in our heads...

Steve

I think for a hardcore game like CM, the community is actually fairly representative of the customers, especially if you let the poll run for a few months, so the less frequent posters can participate. Plus I'm not sure the campaign is most wanted by the hardcore, I think they probably prefer that every engine variation for PzIV was represented instead. In fact the IGN review of CMAK critisized it for not having a campaign and made the point the game would be more mainstream successful if it did, as only grogs are satisfied with playing disconnected tactical battles (I think Medieval Total War is a good example here, or just about any RTS for that matter). As far as COOP being more popular, I think you said once most people play CM off-line, so for them a campaign would be more useful. If you did a poll, at least you'd have some solid numbers to go by as to what people prioritize, and of course you don't have to go strictly by that, you can just consider it as another piece of information.

[Battlefront.com]

A poll is pointless because it won't give us anything meaningful to work with. I can't even picture what the questions would be. "Do you want a strategic layer to Combat Mission"? "Do you want a strategic layer that favors realism"? "Do you want something kOoL"? What? For a poll to be useful it would have to specify two things:

1. Exactly what designs we are considering and which, if any, people favor.

2. What people are willing to give up in order to achieve their desired choice, if any.

Without this it would be akin to the White House looking for guidance on what to emphasize in the budget and which programs people want (and don't want) by asking the question "do you approve of how the President is handling the budget?" Therefore, it's a pointless.

Co-Op without a "wingman AI" is definitely not very interesting to most people. CoOp *with* decent "wingman AI", however, has huge potential for us both commercially and militarily. And we think we could do such a system better and cheaper than we could a strategic overlay system. Yet we aren't doing that any time soon either.

We do not have the resources to make a game within a game. We certainly don't have the resources to make a game within a game that would please more than a chunk of our audience. Therefore, we're not interested in risking running Battlefront out of business pursuing something we have little confidence will pay us back. In plain English is you will have to find someone else interested in doing a great tactical game with a great strategic layer to your liking because we're not the guys to do it. I can't put it any more plainly, or humbly, than that.

Steve

[MikeyD]

We do not have the resources to make a game within a game.

But I thought you were in a ritzy Seattle hi-rise office tower chock-full of hundreds of dedicated artists and programmers.... Ooooh, that's the other computergame maker.

[ASL Veteran]

I understand the poll question dilemma and if you were to ever do one the questions would have to be relevant. I don't think a poll question on 'features' would be a good idea necessarily, but I think poll questions about how people 'use' the game may have some value. My opinion is that you have at least three different types of player who is buying your game. You have the player who plays exclusively against the AI and never ever plays multiplayer, ever. This player has a certain set of 'features' which would be common to that group. They won't be identical from player to player but they could probably all fit into the same feature category. You have the player who plays multiplayer and this player has a set of features that would be common to that group. A subset of multiplayer gamers would be Quick Battle players vs Scenario players who will have different subsets of features that are important to them. Sure, people who play exclusively against the AI will play quick battles and scenarios, but I think the the 'exclusively play the AI' part would be more important as far as categorization for them.

I believe that a set of questions surrounding some basic player categories would have some potentially interesting results. Such as the assumption that the vast majority of people who buy CM products play exclusively vs the AI. Is that true? It might be nice to know, because if it is then the campaign might take some priority over other features if that's the case. Or you could just ignore the results and keep doing what you are doing - we would be none the wiser . At least you would have a more solid picture of your customer base and how the game is used. It wouldn't force you to alter your 'feature' decision process. It would just allow you to weight your different feature options a little better.

I also don't think a forum poll would be a good idea. I think the only way to do it would be to have some poll questions pop up somehow when someone installs their game - maybe right after the licensing process since I think you need an internet connection to license your game, the poll results could be directly transmitted to your secret lair. It should be optional of course.

[Wrath of Dagon]

A poll is pointless because it won't give us anything meaningful to work with. I can't even picture what the questions would be. "Do you want a strategic layer to Combat Mission"? "Do you want a strategic layer that favors realism"? "Do you want something kOoL"? What? For a poll to be useful it would have to specify two things:

1. Exactly what designs we are considering and which, if any, people favor.

2. What people are willing to give up in order to achieve their desired choice, if any.

That's exactly what I meant by doing a poll.

We do not have the resources to make a game within a game. We certainly don't have the resources to make a game within a game that would please more than a chunk of our audience. Therefore, we're not interested in risking running Battlefront out of business pursuing something we have little confidence will pay us back. In plain English is you will have to find someone else interested in doing a great tactical game with a great strategic layer to your liking because we're not the guys to do it. I can't put it any more plainly, or humbly, than that.

Steve

You've already made a great tactical wargame though, now all that remains is the strategic layer. And obviously if that's something that just myself or a few people want there's no point in doing it, but I suspect that's something that a great many people want. IMO that would improve the game more than anything else I can conceive of. That's only my opinion of course, it's your game and I'm not questioning that. Also what ASL said.