Thinking in future Normandy Campaigns...

[Takinthebass]

Well, first at all if this subject one or something similar has been already proposed just forget it, but please, give a link 

As CMC is already just a nice dream, we have to think about creating campaigns as old days, so if possible, to make it easier, I’d suggest just a pair of things.

- Ability to edit maps at the end of scenario (very useful to keep track of damaged terrain).

- Something similar to an statistic sheet (exportable to excel, or access, or whatever …), recording initial and final status of every single unit in play (casualties and fitness). Other statistics could be just curious, i.e. casualties caused, etc…

Thanks!!

I hope you’ll understand this crap English!!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Sadly, BFC don't think there is a lot of mileage in enhancing the campaign in significant ways. They may change a thing here or there but a big effort is at this time not being considered.

[Battlefront.com]

Slight correction... a major campaign overhaul is not being considered for the immediate future. At some point we will definitely come back around to give the campaign a big boost. However, because there's a hundred different ways to do a campaign system it's certain to still leave a lot of people wanting something other than what we provide. There is absolutely no way around this. Believe me, I wish there was.

As a general rule of thumb, each major release of a CMx2 game will have significant new features in it. These features are based on "need" first, "want" next. The game "needs" a temperate environment right now. A better campaign system is a "want". Support for AT Guns is a "need", support for really cool exploding tanks is a "want". The game really does "need" a better Quick Battle system since we're all in agreement the current system has a lot to be desired. Spending the same amount of time giving the Editor a complete UI makeover is a "want".

Each release we will select a very small number of big "needs" and a larger number of smaller features to focus our development efforts on. For more minor features the same evaluation system is used, but with more flexibility because the importance of the "needs" is sometimes outweighed (hour for hour of our time) by really popular "wants".

After a few games are out the number of important "needed" features should be pretty much down to nothing. That means we can revisit significant "wants" and see what we can do with them. Since there are probably 10 years of already identified "wants", we're very confident that the CMx2 game engine will always have plenty of good new stuff to offer people with each release. A shortage of good ideas to implement is definitely not a problem we have to suffer with

Steve

[Götz von Berlichingen]

I have not purchased CMSF so I do not know how campaigns can be made in that.

I assume its like the old CM where we can have a series of linked battles and the map moves along with progress? Is this right?

Are we still able to link battles in this way?

[Flanker15]

CMx1 had operations which are different than campaigns. Campaigns are senarios chained together.

[Spindry69]

I fully understand the challenge for Battlefront to prioritize needs before wants especially with the "needs" that switching to WW2 will require. I do think a more fleshed out campaign/strategic game could be much more than just a want though.

I find that CMSF is pretty unforgiving, stuff up and you troops die. Thats fine I like the realism but it's pretty easy for a casual player like me to just give up on a particular scenario or linked campaign. I really believe a more in depth campaign where you have a core company to keep alive or a CMC strategic type game it would give you a focus to hang in there and keep you comming back. I think it would also be appreciated by mainstream reviewers and noted in their reviews.. well at least by some of them. I think Steve has mentioned that we might see some of the CM1 operations comming back at some stage. Revisiting old maps and seeing burnt out vehicles and building would certainly be welcome.

[Battlefront.com]

We just recently went though something like 400 posts (in two threads) about campaign systems, so I do not want to get back into a detailed feature discussion that almost always goes nowhere fast. Then goes downhill from there

From a design standpoint campaigns are probably the single worst thing about a game of any sort. There is absolutely no consensus on what makes a "great" campaign great, there's not even general agreement about what makes a "good" campaign good. Since we can't have a half dozen dramatically, or subtly, different campaign systems we have to pick one and go with it. This wouldn't be such a problem except for the fact that, for whatever reason, people are REALLY emotionally invested in their own personal concept of what a campaign should be. When we get into these discussions people tend to be rather dismissive and even abusive towards the ideas of others. "It has to be my way or it will suck" is the prevailing train of thought, even when politely expressed (which often times it is not).

What this all boils down to is a feature that is often a quagmire from a development standpoint and always a disappointment to most of the people playing it. When we look at all of the things we can do with our time, we focus on the things which are relatively consistently wanted by our customers AND are practical from a development standpoint. Or as we often say internally, "good bang for the buck". Spending huge amounts of time making a complex system that only a minority percentage of our customers will find value in (and still come up with 1000 ways to "make it better") is definitely a "bad bang for the buck".

On top of that we have to be very careful, approaching paranoid, about getting sucked into the vortex of making CM more strategic. It is a tactical game and almost all of our energies should be focused on enhancing the tactical aspects of the game. Wild adventures into making a game within a game will almost certainly end in failure. If not for you guys, at least us on the development end of things. Likely both. We so very rarely say we're purposefully staying away from things, but this is one we have zero problem with saying we're staying away from. To think we can make a higher level strategic game without massive sacrifices is akin to thinking you can drive 60mph straight at a brick wall and expect the outcome to be favorable. Unfortunately, a lot of you guys think that the wall will move out of our way and suddenly the path will be clear. We have no such illusions.

So while I have already said that we will likely come back and do a complete overhaul of the campaign system, it definitely isn't going to happen any time soon. It's a really, really bad idea for us to take our eyes off of the things which really do need to come first.

Steve

[Steiner14]

If inventing the wheel is difficult, why not evolutionize what was there already in the direction of the most common agreement?

Why not take the CMx1-campaign-system and put those things in, that were missed most.

What seems very important to me for a good campaign system ist the stuff, that is produced for it. Therefore really good test-tools and -options for the campaign-designer should make the overall outcome of a quite limited system better, than a extermely powerful and complex system, that can't be tested and run through in an acceptable amount of time or only by a very small minority of the potential campaign-designers due to the huge amount of testing time that is needed.

[Takinthebass]

I know what you BF wants to mean with "need" and "want". And finally you are who are doing the work, so you have the right to decide about it.

Anyway I wasn't suggesting any system campaing, just a pair of tools to do home campaigns easier. Just the stuff I missed in CMx1.

Keep the effort. It could be a great game!!

[Battlefront.com]

Steiner14,

If inventing the wheel is difficult, why not evolutionize what was there already in the direction of the most common agreement?

That is exactly what we are doing. But the problem is you assume something...

Why not take the CMx1-campaign-system and put those things in, that were missed most.

Wrong From our perspective the CMx1 Operations system was a failure. It made a very, very small number of people moderately happy, a slightly larger number somewhat entertained, and the majority unimpressed. Which is why we do not have an Operations type system in CMx2 and never will. It's very obvious to us that this is the wrong direction to "evolutionize".

Which brings me back to the primary problem. Most everybody agrees that we can't have two dozen different campaign systems. The problem is everybody thinks that their personal favorite is the one we should concentrate on. Which is why we are in an impossible position.

Takinthebass,

Anyway I wasn't suggesting any system campaing, just a pair of tools to do home campaigns easier. Just the stuff I missed in CMx1.

The problem is this is not a simple request for us. Especially when the other things people want are considered. This does not mean we think your idea is bad. This does not mean your request is unreasonable. It simply means we have other things to do with our limited time.

Now, if we found a developer who we thought could make a 3rd party editor (like CMC) to create "meta campaigns", then things may change. Unfortunately, we already thought we had that with the CMC project Unfortunately, the developer lost a lot of money and time, we lost some time and energy, you customers lost a promised product. It was worth the risk at the time, however we don't want to be in a position like that again.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

I think there should be more end-campaign feedback or at least better tweaked. As it is now it just shows the accumulated stats of the previous scenarios. I consider this a bare minimum and more stats aren't necessarily needed. But some kind of handy "book-like" screen where you can flip through different pages showing the end of battle stat screens of the previous battles. Maybe even a screenshot made by the designer could be used for background for each scenario for better flavor. Also maybe show a link to load that scenarios end of battle file so the player can zoom around recalling the battle.

Then auto-save it to a handy .... AAR.cam, no need to have separate end of battle saves, it'll all be in one AAR save. I think alot of people like to keep old end of battle saves, especially campaigns.

I don't know, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it could be better packaged up. I know small things like this probably won't translate into more sales. So would get knocked down the priority list.

[Boris Balaban]

Would be nice to see CMx2 out next year then after a campaign engine added (purchased)

[Battlefront.com]

And then we'd go out of business A major investment in a campaign system would be a financial disaster, most likely, since whatever we made would require a ton of time and it would wind up appealing to only a modest amount of our customer base. And that modest amount would most likely be large enough to justify the sacrifices such an effort would require. Worse, we would then have a completely separate product with hardcore lovers and haters requesting we spend even MORE time on it as well as the stuff we're blowing off to get it done.

I've said it a million times already... we are in a terrible position with no way to make more than a small percentage of you truly happy with a campaign system no matter what system we choose. Trying to achieve the impossible is how game companies go out of business. Believe it or not we

re not really excited about the prospects of purposefully putting ourselves out of business

So we're left with what MeatEtr requested:

I don't know, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it could be better packaged up. I know small things like this probably won't translate into more sales. So would get knocked down the priority list.

For right now major changes are definitely down on the priority list, but it is something we plan to come back to and give MAJOR attention to at some point. It will be based on the current system to a large extent since the current system is designed for the widest possible audience. Until then we will try to "tighten" up the existing design. We have done some things towards this already, such as the recent addition of the ability to continue with a current Campaign even when the Campaign file (CAM) is updated.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

... the recent addition of the ability to continue with a current Campaign even when the Campaign file (CAM) is updated.

Steve

Thats great, was not aware of this. Thanks for the response.

[HetzerII]

And what are the latest decissions regarding "musts" or "needs" of foxholes and trenches? You cannot debate that they are not a fundamental part of german tactics in Normandy. For me the same approach like in CMSF will force me not to buy any Normandy game.

[Steiner14]

I've said it a million times already... we are in a terrible position with no way to make more than a small percentage of you truly happy with a campaign system no matter what system we choose. Trying to achieve the impossible is how game companies go out of business.

For this problem an elegant and quite simple solution comes into my mind:

Just offer a tiny interface for the COMMUNITY to import/export units.

PRO 1 + 2:

Then let the community do the labour and after some time you will see, what direction is the most popular.

PRO 3:

The only one who can offer total integration is you anyway. So if you decide that it would be a good deal, you can integrate a system. If you think the effort isn't worth it, let the community play with their own campaign-tools.

PRO 4:

If a community-tool is outstanding and becomes that interesting for you, just buy it from/with the author.

PRO 5 + 6:

Every bet that such an interface would also increase sales of the product and - last but not least - increase the life-cycle of the product due to tremendously enhanced long playability due to the meta-campaigns.

CON 1:

Development time to implement the interface.

For a great programmer like Charles this would be an effort of a few hours (testing included).

[Battlefront.com]

CON 2:

Customers like to create maximized lists of Pros and minimize the Cons. When they even bother to mention them

Some sort of mythical OpenSource type campaign system for CMx2 is not going to happen. It doesn't matter if you can't understand why this is the case because the only people who need to are us since it's our time, our game, and our jobs on the line.

Steve

[Wrath of Dagon]

This thing about everyone wanting something different, why not just do what CMC was doing? I didn't see too many complaints about that. Obviously not everything at once, but just start with a bare minimum at first, and add when resources/interest permit. Yeah, I know, not gonna happen.

[Battlefront.com]

Wrath of Dragon,

why not just do what CMC was doing?

As I said before, if we have a credible 3rd party who can do the work then we might have something to work with. CMC was a 3rd party project, though of course it didn't work. But we're still open to the possibility, no matter how remote.

I didn't see too many complaints about that.

Of course you didn't... it never was released as a playable project I can guarantee you that if it had been released there would be tons of requests and complaints about it. Even by the people that liked it. Not because CMC was a bad design, rather because no wargame release survives contact with its customers without being deluged with requests and complaints. Wargamers have a long history of this

Steve

[Steiner14]

Some sort of mythical OpenSource type campaign system for CMx2 is not going to happen.

Wrong. You decide, if you offer a simple interface for unit im- and export.

But the programmer of the system decides, if he makes it Open Source.

It doesn't matter if you can't understand why this is the case because the only people who need to are us since it's our time, our game, and our jobs on the line.

Interesting new attitude. And i thought the Quick Battle system is overhauled, because of community requests...

[vincere]

You got this right and wrong. improved campaign system is a want; but also a need for eatern front and Shock Force 2

[GSX]

Do I want an improved campaign system, the answer is a definite yes, I would like more control of my force comosition going into battles etc. I have no idea of the difficulties involved in this but other games seem to have solved it.

Do I want a CMC type of game, actually I dont. I think CMC would have been interesting for a wee while and then forgotten about by me. CMC looked and felt like it was for about 30 specific types of game player. Its a lot to do for a very small number of people to be happy and to be quite honest here, I'd rather have infantry formations than a campaign system like CMC.

Make the game more realistic before any of the other stuff is what I say.

[Battlefront.com]

Steiner14,

Wrong. You decide, if you offer a simple interface for unit im- and export.

But the programmer of the system decides, if he makes it Open Source.

Argh. Here we go again with the flawed notion that we can snap our fingers and everything you can possibly imagine comes true. Again, and again, and again I see this here. And every time it doesn't get any closer to reality than the last time. Which is why I explicitly stated:

"It doesn't matter if you can't understand why this is the case because the only people who need to are us since it's our time, our game, and our jobs on the line."

It has NOTHING to do with not listening to customers. It has to do with customers not listening to us. You are clearly not listening.

vincere,

You got this right and wrong. improved campaign system is a want; but also a need for eatern front and Shock Force 2

heh... still a "want" even then.

GSX,

Do I want an improved campaign system, the answer is a definite yes, I would like more control of my force comosition going into battles etc. I have no idea of the difficulties involved in this but other games seem to have solved it.

The difficulty comes with the details. A few sentences from one of you guys could take 2 years to implement However, the general direction you're looking for is the general direction we're definitely taking CM over time. More control over forces going into battle is definitely one of those things which most campaign players find value in. There's still some wildly different concepts that compete with each other within that general direction, so of course for any single individual player it comes down to personal preferences. Which again is why we are in such a non-win situation.

Do I want a CMC type of game, actually I dont. I think CMC would have been interesting for a wee while and then forgotten about by me. CMC looked and felt like it was for about 30 specific types of game player. Its a lot to do for a very small number of people to be happy and to be quite honest here, I'd rather have infantry formations than a campaign system like CMC.

We definitely agree that the vast majority of our customers do not want some massive, mega huge strategic layer. Those who do want it are, as with all campaign advocates, passionate about their desire to have one. But passion doesn't make up for overall numbers. On top of that, a strategic layer is the most intensive thing to attempt to develop and the most likely think to disappoint the people wanting it. For us it is a no-brainer to stay far, far away from such a system. High cost, low appeal, major distraction... there's nothing for us to like

Make the game more realistic before any of the other stuff is what I say.

I've constantly cited Close Combat as the prime example of why we aren't going with a complex strategic layer. Even the people that liked the system would admit that the tactical battles suffered for it. Since CC was a tactical level game, this was an unfortunate choice in our opinion. We don't have any idea if that is what put Atomic out of business, but I suspect it had something to do with it.

Steve

[Malaspina]

I don't know how the Close Combat campaign system works, but I've recently been playing Simcity4. Not a wargame, of course. In it you have to build cities inside a region. The region is made up of several boxes (some bigger than others) where the cities grow, and you may interact with your neighboring mayor.

I was wondering if such a system may ever be applied to CMx2 (or x3!) campaigns, where battles would be played inside a region which changes according to the result of a battle fought in each single box, troops moved from adjacent boxes and reinforcements had where they historically arrived (Cherbourg, or somewhere else by plane).

well, just a puerile thought...

[hoolaman]

One of the biggest issues I see with linked scenarios for a campaign is that it is very difficult to convincingly fight over the same terrain in multiple missions. I know it is a bit of a return to the old style operations, but I'd like to see:

*Persistent damage to terrain on identical maps.

*Persistent friendly/enemy unit positions after a battle on consecutive identical maps.

*Have a special "touch" or "exit" objective that only triggers a particular mission in the campaign. (This has been hacked with points to artificially give a win/lose in the past). eg. [bATTLE {x} IF {Touch x}]. This allows the player to decide which direction to head in or whether they are stuck on the same map.

Giving the player the ability to choose which direction to go allows an pseudo strategic map where you either branch left, right or stay where you are.

Also:

*Simple kills and casualties list with your named units at battle end.

*A storyboard type de-briefing splash screen -created by the mission designer- to explain the results of a mission and where the next mission is heading and why you are heading on to the next one or not.