The CM Normandy Campaign/Operations Discussion

[Franko]

I was reading Steve's post in another thread. He stated that Operations will not be featured in Combat Mission Normandy, nor will Campaigns -- although the concept of Campaigns may be possible in future additions. Or words to that effect. Well, here's the exact quote:

"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"."

I want to go on record that I'm disappointed that Operations will not be featured in the new game, although it appears that Operations were featured in CMSF. So I'm baffled, a little, about the fact that operations were excluded, based on the statement that operations are excluded in CMx2 -- I thought CMx2 was based at least in part on CMSF. I may be missing something.

However, I always enjoyed the operations system in CMx1. Sure, it had its limitations, particularly with respect to redrawing "front" lines, between scenarios, map orientation, placement of reinforcements, etc. But a good scenario designer could design around the elements. I was hoping these elements may be tweaked a bit before the new release, especially to catch the flavor of engagements that may span over the course of a few days, many of which are well-documented historically and would be a pleasure to design and play.

As far as a "campaign" goes, I see no discernible difference between a "campaign" and an "operation" for CM purposes. A campaign where you take the same company throughout the war would be gamey and unhistorical. Take the average US rifle company in the ETO. After a week or two of fierce combat (which is what we're talking about game-wise, and not sitting around a quiet sector somewhere -- that would not be a game, that would, well, too much like the army), many rifle companies are unrecognizable messes. All the officers are dead and wounded, a few sergeants are still around, and most of your platoons are down to squad sized -- then a flush of new fresh faces arrive from the world, most of whom are blown to smithereens in the first artillery barrage. If you're an armored company, most of your tanks are destroyed, broken down, or in various states of repair. Then you go to the rear, patch up, and do it all over again, except with mostly new guys.

The only troops who survive the line units from battle to battle are a few extremely lucky enlisted men, a few lucky officers, and a few shell-shocked new replacements. In fact, the more "veteran" a unit is, the most likely its nerves are to be shot -- veteran troops actually degrade and become less combat effective over time. To do a campaign "realistically", your unit would be unrecognizable after a few battles, and perhaps even worse then when it started. Not a good campaign model for game purposes -- especially if you are conditioned to think that your troops automatically get better with age. True, you might have a few vets do "medal of honor" things, but they'd get pulled off the line to sell war bonds. Also, with cross-attachment, you would rarely get a combined arms force that would hang out together for long -- after your courageous road block defense with an infantry unit and a few AT guns, the AT guns would get reassigned to division, and your outstanding lieutenant who showed great pluck leading the company might get promoted to battalion S-2, and you'd get some new schlep fresh from the world who'd get your veterans killed doing something stupid. By all means, don't put this into the game -- any realistic depiction of a "campaign" along these lines would be terrible, although accurate, exercises and a waste of programming resources.

However, the "operations" concept is worth preserving, to perhaps simulate some rough fighting over a few days on some key ground. You'd be force to conserve your resources and your troops, you'd tensely wait for reinforcements, you'd hope the 2nd Armored arrived in time, and you'd hope to keep together a reserve a few tired soldiers to plug the gaps in the perimeter one last time. These sorts of battles are the grand story of small unit combat in World War 2-- a battered rifle company, tenuously holding the line, hoping it can get a few more fresh faces and supplies, and perhaps some support from the big guns, or a few more precious bazooka rockets, lest it be overrun, is great drama because its real -- and is worth preserving in the game.

My two cents. Keep up the good work, Battlefront. I look forward to your product, on your time line, not mine.

Frank

[ChrisND]

I was reading Steve's post in another thread. He stated that Operations will not be featured in Combat Mission Normandy, nor will Campaigns -- although the concept of Campaigns may be possible in future additions. Or words to that effect. Well, here's the exact quote:

"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"."

I want to go on record that I'm disappointed that Operations will not be featured in the new game, although it appears that Operations were featured in CMSF. So I'm baffled, a little, about the fact that operations were excluded, based on the statement that operations are excluded in CMx2 -- I thought CMx2 was based at least in part on CMSF. I may be missing something.

I'm guessing you haven't touched anything since CMx1. CMSF is a part of CMx2, and it has campaigns, not operations. Just like the rest of CMx2.

As far as a "campaign" goes, I see no discernible difference between a "campaign" and an "operation" for CM purposes. A campaign where you take the same company throughout the war would be gamey and unhistorical. Take the average US rifle company in the ETO. After a week or two of fierce combat (which is what we're talking about game-wise, and not sitting around a quiet sector somewhere -- that would not be a game, that would, well, too much like the army), many rifle companies are unrecognizable messes. All the officers are dead and wounded, a few sergeants are still around, and most of your platoons are down to squad sized -- then a flush of new fresh faces arrive from the world, most of whom are blown to smithereens in the first artillery barrage. If you're an armored company, most of your tanks are destroyed, broken down, or in various states of repair. Then you go to the rear, patch up, and do it all over again, except with mostly new guys.

That's assuming the campaign is actually covering a single unit through the whole war. Nothing has indicated that the CM:N campaign will. A campaign could be anything from the same day to several months.

However, the "operations" concept is worth preserving, to perhaps simulate some rough fighting over a few days on some key ground. You'd be force to conserve your resources and your troops, you'd tensely wait for reinforcements, you'd hope the 2nd Armored arrived in time, and you'd hope to keep together a reserve a few tired soldiers to plug the gaps in the perimeter one last time. These sorts of battles are the grand story of small unit combat in World War 2-- a battered rifle company, tenuously holding the line, hoping it can get a few more fresh faces and supplies, and perhaps some support from the big guns, or a few more precious bazooka rockets, lest it be overrun, is great drama because its real -- and is worth preserving in the game.

I too hope operations come back someday. I always enjoyed them.

[MeatEtr]

I think they underestimate the koolness and yes, success of CMx1 Ops. Much like how they misread the "no cherry picking" in QBs debate. One of the very first things people complained about in CMSF campaigns, although it is minor, was that no craters or wrecks carry over to the next battle. Since as it is now, it's just single scenarios strung together on clean maps.

It was great to take a chunk of land and battle tooth and nail over it for several battles. Seeing the land become a cratered battlefield with smoldering AFV wrecks was a great sight to see. Also that feeling of wanting to push hard to see what land lays ahead in the next battle.

Sure it wasn't perfect, far from it, certainly could use some improvements. But it was certainly a helluva start IMO. Sad to see it abandoned because they were on the right track.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Yeah, I think BFC misread the signs on those issues.

If BFC read more about issues surrounding QBs and Operations then any other it is because so many people spend so much time with those features.

[benpark]

I guess I'm one of the minority that liked the general concept of the CMx1 operations. It was interesting to have a fight spanning a few days where the goal was to see how far you could advance. "Manstein Kommt" was one of the all-time high points of CM playing for me- one map, with a fairly small force over a few days of attack and counter-attack.

[TheVulture]

+1 vote for the return of something more CMx1 op-like. I liked the slow fight for territory. Re-using the same ground and same units gave them a bit more 'story' and emotional investment. With CMx2 campaigns, the only time I even notice if a unit I've had before crops up is if it is short of a few men (the exception being snake eye's excellent El Derjine campaign which uses the same marine company in all the battles, but then that stuck to maps that overlapped with each other and felt a lot like an operation anyway). Campaigns generally lack immersion for me. Plus they suffer, to some extent, from the temptation to mix in a variety of battle types, and I can guarantee that I won't like some of them

[Woest]

I would love to see cm campain in normandy Oke perhaps that is to much..

I always enjoyed operations because it would give you some feeling of a battle which has different phases. extension of the map, ammo supply and the change to see some vehicles back on the field after being repaired are nice features. Scenarios are good, but are very limited, an operations gives you some deeper feeling or better atmosphere.

A good example is the new game Achtung Panzer Kharkov 1943

[hoolaman]

The way the font lines were drawn kind of sucked. But if you could have persistent damage to terrain in the CMx2/N/SF campaigns that woudl go a long way.

TheVulture mentions the El Derjine campaing which shows that you can do a similar style of linked operation with the current system, the first couple of missions of the Marines campaign are similar. The problem is buildings re-erecting themselves etc.

[76mm]

I generally don't buy games unless I can create some kind of campaign with them, I just don't find one-off scenarios interesting.

That said, I don't really want Battlefront to create some whizz-bang strategic layer that I would probably find was not what I was looking for.

What I have asked for repeatedly in the past, and am asking for again (like many others), is the ability to import/export unit info and/or be able to modify saved games files.

Supposedly modifying saved game files is not allowed to prevent cheating, but it seems like it would be pretty easy to only allow saved game files to be modified if the scenario has ended, thus eliminating any potential for cheating.

[Franko]

I guess I'm one of the minority that liked the general concept of the CMx1 operations. It was interesting to have a fight spanning a few days where the goal was to see how far you could advance. "Manstein Kommt" was one of the all-time high points of CM playing for me- one map, with a fairly small force over a few days of attack and counter-attack.

Thank you. I designed "Der Manstein Komt".

[phil stanbridge]

..So all we will have in Normandy is a series of single missions? No more semi-dynamic campaigns, or choices to be made that may effect the outcome of the whole campaign?

[Paper Tiger]

..So all we will have in Normandy is a series of single missions? No more semi-dynamic campaigns, or choices to be made that may effect the outcome of the whole campaign?

No, and no. Where on earth did you come up with that conclusion? You haven't played a CMx2 campaign yet, have you?

Looks like the 'Old Timers' who decided to skip CMSF and wait for the WW2 game have got a LOT of catching up to do.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm sorry, but the current campaigns aren't all that far away from a series of individual battles. The only thing indicative of a campaign is that losses are carried over. But even this is very nebulous as available forces vary regardless of what you had left at the last mission. Those tanks you carefully husbanded through the last mission may be arbitrarily left out of the next.

This setup does not make anything like a good, immersive campaign.

We all know CMSF had a problematic release so I made allowances. But we are nearly three years on now and we're still stuck with the same flawed campaign setup for Normandy. I'll put up with it again for Normandy, but BFC would be wrong to count on my forbearance for very much longer.

[phil stanbridge]

..So all we will have in Normandy is a series of single missions? No more semi-dynamic campaigns, or choices to be made that may effect the outcome of the whole campaign?

No, and no. Where on earth did you come up with that conclusion? You haven't played a CMx2 campaign yet, have you?

Looks like the 'Old Timers' who decided to skip CMSF and wait for the WW2 game have got a LOT of catching up to do.

Hey, go easy.

I came up with that conclusion based on the first post of this thread. I was under the impression BFC didn't want to focus on campaigns as a result of what was said. If I am wrong, then I stand corrected simple as that. I'm also hoping I am wrong, because I love the fluidity of the campaign, and even though I do class myself as an 'old-timer' I did purchase SF and loved it. In fact, I've put quite a lot of money BFC's way.

I know what Elmar means as well - the campaign system as it stands has lost some of that 'atmosphere' that I felt if offered in CMBO/CMBB/CMAK.

[c3k]

Agreed.

In CMx1, I would bleed out a platoon to gain that advantageous piece of ground. In the next battle, there it would be, ready for me to reoccupy. The sacrifice of the previous battle gave me a physical, tactile, apparent result.

In CMx2, there's nothing...

It's the difference between a Snicker's bar and a handful of tofu. Yeah, they'll both fill your belly, but is that the point?

Ken

[noxnoctum]

Who are these people that didn't like Operations?? (that Steve was speaking of?)

On here it always seemed like the majority of people liked them.

[Thomm]

Persistent map damage is the key!

Best regards,

Thomm

[LuckyDog]

I would love to see damage to the terrrain and vehicles carried over to the next mission. I think it would make a huge difference in long term payability. Operations were what kept me playing CM1x

There have been some arguements about "gaming the system" by sending non-core units on suicide missions or to scout. I don't think this is an insurmoutable problem. Yes, I would be predisposed to keeping my core units alive, but that could be balanced with a higher loss penalty for losing non-core units, or maybe my reputation goes down and HQ won't assign me as many units next time.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Operations were my favorite part of CMx1.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

There have been some arguements about "gaming the system" by sending non-core units on suicide missions or to scout. I don't think this is an insurmoutable problem. Yes, I would be predisposed to keeping my core units alive, but that could be balanced with a higher loss penalty for losing non-core units, or maybe my reputation goes down and HQ won't assign me as many units next time.

Besides, if the player objects to that gamey tactic, he might want to stop doing it. Myself, I gain a certain amount of satisfaction by being "cunning" and ever so slightly evil.

People are doing it to themselves and are getting something out of it. I'm baffled that BFC objects.

[RichyG]

I'll add my penny's worth.

I would love to hear where the information was gathered for BF to determine that Operations were not in the public interest!?

I too agree that operations were THE reason I played CMx1, the single missions just didnt grip me for the same reasons given by most others. I love continuity and long-spanning games.

One of my favourite games of CM:BO was the operation where you had to link Omaha and Utah beaches.

Additionally I must attack CMSF's campaign system. I may have to put it down as the worst campaign system I've seen in a strategy game (close combat 2 may go down as my favourite ).

A distinct lack of continuity, "random chances" for the replacement of troops, ammo, vehicles.

Even if the system is given a go ahead, the choice of only two possible outcomes is abysmal.

And a final point before I rant on forever, the Marine Campaign mission where your "choice" of going left or right is given, basically, on whether you win or lose the scenario. If you surrender on purpose u can skip the mission and carry on with the campaign (baffles me).

[sfhand]

While I enjoyed the concept of CMx1 operations I found the implimentation of them to be quite frustrating.

In my mind's eye, under the current plan, a sufficiently large map coupled with a 4 hour game and periodic reinforcement waves could emulate the best attributes of CMx1 operations while eliminating its weakest aspect: setup zones between battles.

I realize that some CMBO operations could be done this way while some couldn't due to the current map size limitations. I'd like to see development time directed at removing, or limiting, map size limitations before it is spent on developing operations in CMx2 (and yes, I still suspect a memory leak...).

Just my $.02...

[RichyG]

I think sfhand has a point that operations could be done coupled to a long game but I think it would need to be longer than four hours. You could need to simulate up to a day of fighting (perhaps).

Albeit a modern example, but take the 'blackhawk down' scenario that lasted over night (can't remember or find the exact times right now.) i think about 12+ hours.

The only complication that arises here then is the inability to quickly reorganise units but it would be a more realistic way about it.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I disagree with that method. I need not be forced to sit through the lulls in combat real time. Multiple day operations/campaigns are unthinkable in this fashion.

[Sergei]

The main weakness in CMx1 operations was single player game. There just was no way to help the AI deploy reasonably after battle 1, so it just wasn't all that challenging unless you gave the AI's side lavish reinforcement in each battle, and then the player would just get a point victory anyway.