The CM Normandy Campaign/Operations Discussion

[hcrof]

If we could open save games of ongoing or finished battles in the editor, we could sort of build our own campaigns on the go, one battle at a time. We would have the troops from the last battle still on the map, we could bring in reinforcements, advance the time or change the weather, change experience, ammo and fatigue settings of the troops, etc. And all the detruction would still be in effect. Also, we could extend the battlefield in the direction the front is moving by simply adding more territory to the appropriate map edge. It would almost be like Operations. Or at least an excuse to spend more time with the editor...

This would be awesome. I sometimes feel that in a multiplayer game it would be awesome to change it on the fly by adding reinforcements to whoever is losing just to keep a fun battle going longer. Especially when your infantry attack is wiped out by mortars 15 mins in!

Both players would have to agree to this though to stop cheating

[Battlefront.com]

If we could open save games of ongoing or finished battles in the editor, we could sort of build our own campaigns on the go, one battle at a time.

This is not on our list of things to do, unfortunately. The first is that the Save Game and Scenario formats are completely different. There could be a bridge between the two, but it would be a big deal from a technical standpoint. We would also have to build some sort of UI to allow the forces to be edited on the map as the current Editor isn't setup to do this. Lastly, each Scenario has hardcoded unit positions as per the Editor. To substitute things on the fly would be very, very difficult and could only apply to one side because coding up AI to manage forces like a Human is just way beyond what we'd ever want to tackle unless this was going to be the primary means of a Campaign. Which it never could be because most people don't want to do that sort of work. At least not without a completely dedicated GUI and major hand holding.

I just wanted to put my 2 cents worth forward.

...

So while I liked the original ops okay enough, I personally prefer the new Campaigns much, much more.

That pretty much sums up the majority position of the CMx1 crowd, as best we could figure. The problem we all have, as a collective whole, is that there are so many different ways to execute that concept. Which is what I described in this thread.

At least with the tactical part of the game we have reality as a guideline and for setting boundaries. When there is disagreement about execution we all use reality as the primary means of determining what direction to move in (even if for technical reasons we can't). With campaigns... it's whatever anybody can think up. And collectively, you guys can think up a lot of things No one idea is any more "right" than the next, so we can argue endlessly about what one idea is "worth" and how it compares in "value" to another idea that is incompatible. Like I already said, it's a huge mess and all we can do is get something that at least most people don't exactly hate

Steve

[Runaway!!!]

If we could open save games of ongoing or finished battles in the editor, we could sort of build our own campaigns on the go, one battle at a time. We would have the troops from the last battle still on the map, we could bring in reinforcements, advance the time or change the weather, change experience, ammo and fatigue settings of the troops, etc. And all the detruction would still be in effect. Also, we could extend the battlefield in the direction the front is moving by simply adding more territory to the appropriate map edge. It would almost be like Operations. Or at least an excuse to spend more time with the editor...

OMG This is my CM fantasy. The only way to do anything like that now would take so much time. You'd have to go into the original map to turn destoyed buildings from the last battle into rubble, find each unit that took casualties and try to replicate that for the next battle, those green horns are now regular and the veterans are now crack soldiers depending on the amount of casualties they inflicted and how many vehicles/guns/morts they knocked out, but the only way to know that would be to bring back the unit stats screen at the end of each battle from CMx1. That last bit I would at least like to see.

[Michael Emrys]

Just to place myself firmly in a minority once again, candidly I don't give a fig about the whole campaign thing. That's not what I want from a squad level tactical game, in fact it strikes me as just a tad ridiculous. Now if we were talking about a battalion or divisional level game I might be interested. But that's not CM.

Michael

[Paper Tiger]

Now if we were talking about a battalion or divisional level game I might be interested. But that's not CM.

Definitely NOT a Division level game but I don't understand why you say it's not a Battalion level game. Sure, CMSF was designed to be played as a Company level game, just like the CMx1 games were, but the community insist on upping the intended scope of the game to this level. Agreed?

Both my Red v Red campaigns featured not one but two Battalions of core forces so perhaps you meant to type Regimental level? (Hey, come to think of it, 'Dinas' featured practically a whole Regiment of Core forces). Again, just like CMx1 allowed us to do but in a different manner.

The CMx2 campaign system allows those of us who don't wish to have the entire battalion fighting on a 4kmx4km map to fight Battalion sized actions. Instead, you can create a set of smaller, near interlocking maps and have the individual companies do their thing and the result of that mission will have an effect on a later mission in the series. The system is capable of producing some interesting battles. I, for one, plan to explore its limits when the WW2 game is released.

[Battlefront.com]

Another example of how easy it is to find diametrically opposed opinions about campaigns Here's another one...

I also play CM because of its tactical nature. Having a greater context and story, either in an independent scenario or in the campaign, enhances my enjoyment. But I really don't want to get myself distracted by a game within a game, such as Close Combat. Not only is it a serious, and usually lethal, distraction for the developer, it is also a distraction for me the gamer.

I like the fact that I don't have to do much of anything in a CM campaign except play and enjoy the fighting. Choosing what battles to go to next, what units to "upgrade", which ones to bring into the next battle... to me that just delays and interferes with me playing the game itself. And from a historical standpoint, I as player-commander would never have that sort of experience if I were in a real war. So I don't care about it as a game mechanic either.

The interesting thing is I am naturally biased towards strategic level games. War in Russia is still, by far, the most important game I have ever played. It's what got me into wargame development. So no matter what I design or publish until the day I die, WiR will always have a special top slot in my mind.

But much like I don't want operational/strategic issues clouding up my tactical gaming experience, when I play an operational/strategic I don't want to get bogged down with tactical gaming stuff. Which is why I was never looking forward to the infamous Road to Moscow game. It was overloaded with details that were a distraction, not a help. A distraction to the developers too, so it would seem.

Games need to remember scope creep is a killer. Tactical games should be focused on tactical with a minor bit of operational put in. Operational games should focus on that and have only minor bits of tactical and strategic in them. Strategic should only have a little bit of operational. Failing to do this means failing as a game almost every single time. Which is why CMx2 will never have the sort of campaign feature some want.

Steve

[Jonny(FGM)]

Seeing as CM: Campaigns was abandoned due to the iffy code base of the CMx1 series, and we are now assured we have a much better code base with CMx2, do you think we'll ever see CM: Campaigns resurrected for CM:2? I hope so

[undercovergeek]

Just to place myself firmly in a minority once again, candidly I don't give a fig about the whole campaign thing. That's not what I want from a squad level tactical game, in fact it strikes me as just a tad ridiculous. Now if we were talking about a battalion or divisional level game I might be interested. But that's not CM.

Michael

i agree, plus im not that kind of gamer, im in, im out - played for 15 mins last night - i like to be able to set up a QB (of sorts) or load a scenario, play it and move on, thanks to the team and the modders the whole game is immersive enough to me scenario by scenario

[benpark]

I know this is a done deal by now, but just to add my opinion as a longtime listener, longtime fan- I'd be happy with having the old CM operations making a comeback (with persistent damage on maps). Two/three days in one area can be done well with the original system. The old style ops feel more like a single battalion action over a slightly extended time- this seems a better match for the scale being simulated. As my olde Yankee ancestors would say "If eht aint broke, don't fix eht".

Any possibility of adding triggers to the editor?

[noxnoctum]

Not being able to fight over the same land sucks, I agree, but as long as the CMN campaign has persistent units (meaning if you lose all your tanks in battle one you're ****ed for the rest of the campaign) I'll be happy.

A major weakness of the Operations system in CMx1 is that the AI is incapable of properly redeploying its units. At least with the campaign system, the AI can have multiple "plans" so it at least LOOKS like a human.

That said, it would be f'ing sweet if BFC could still make some operations, and not even bother to put any AI into it. It would be purely for PBEM/tcp-ip play.

Operations in CMx1 are a blast against human opponents.

[Michael Emrys]

Now if we were talking about a battalion or divisional level game I might be interested. But that's not CM.

Definitely NOT a Division level game but I don't understand why you say it's not a Battalion level game.

Because the average sized units in play are not battalions; they are squads or individual vehicles. When I say battalion level, that means that when you look at the map, what you see are counters representing battalions. Get it now?

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

BenPark,

As my olde Yankee ancestors would say "If eht aint broke, don't fix eht".

Ah, but that was the nub of the problem The Operations had some pretty significant problems with them that the fans of Operations repeatedly pointed out. Solving them was seen to be way too much work given that the bigger problem was that more people wanted to see then abandoned completely in favor of a system more-or-less the direction we're going in.

Since we had to code the CMx2 campaign system from scratch, there was no point recreating a flawed system that appealed only to a very small number of people.

I'm a Yankee, so I can authoritatively state that no Yankee would use that term here

Because the average sized units in play are not battalions; they are squads or individual vehicles. When I say battalion level, that means that when you look at the map, what you see are counters representing battalions. Get it now?

Ah, not so fast my friend! To make such a statement you would need to have an iron clad set of definitions, by a widely respected authoritative source, before you can claim your definition to hold water. And since we wargamers love to have 10 different ways of interpreting things, we have soundly rejected such a sensible thing as standard vocabulary

There are, generally, two ways to define "level". There is the one you are using, which defines the level as the smallest unit. So a Battalion level game is where the Battalion is the smallest playing piece on the map. But the military generally does not use this term, but instead looks at the "level" as the highest level of command within the game. By this definition Combat Mission is designed to be a Battalion level simulation since we do have Battalion commanders directly simulated in the game.

But only two ways to define "level" would be refreshingly quaint for our hobby. We like to blur lines and distinctions all the time, so we do that here as well. Combat Mission, for example, can simulate a full Brigade/Regiment's worth of troops on a beefy enough system. That's because the game contains all the combat units found within such a formation. Why anybody would ever want to play game with a couple hundred units is beyond me, but people did do this with CMx1 (which is the same scale as CMx2). So in some sense Combat Mission is a Brigade/Regimental sim, though it lacks explicit command units at that level.

You can also, of course, simulate battles much smaller. CM works perfectly well at the Company and Platoon "levels". Meaning, it scales down fine, which is not true for most other wargames. Meaning, when you jump down one or two levels usually it isn't possible at all (i.e. the units do not exist) or the validity of the sim breaks down because it's not designed for it. In CM, for example, you can't simulate below Platoon "level".

Which means that depending on your definition, and the specifics of the scenario you play, Combat Mission can be a Brigade/Regimental level, a Battalion level, Company level, or Platoon level game. Using a different definition it is a Vehicle/Team/Squad level game because that's the smallest unit under your command.

There... clear as mud, just as we wargamers like it to be

Steve

[benpark]

BenPark,

I'm a Yankee, so I can authoritatively state that no Yankee would use that term here

Steve

So we'll leave that particular issue with this other New Hampshah nugget, then: "Leave it lay where Jesus flang it".

[Battlefront.com]

That's what we say about people from New Hampshire

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

Re: CMx1 to CMx2 - "You can't get there from here!"

[benpark]

Q. What is 140 feet long and has 9 teeth?

A. The fried dough line at the Cumberland County Fair.

[Michael Emrys]

Ah, not so fast my friend! To make such a statement you would need to have an iron clad set of definitions, by a widely respected authoritative source, before you can claim your definition to hold water.

And you see, as a long time board wargamer (my history in the genre goes back to the summer of 1964), my definitions were acquired in that way. And since the definitions strike me as perfectly pragmatic and clear, I see no reason to discard them.

One point of clarification. The level is not determined by the smallest unit represented, but by the predominant ones. For instance, the game family created by GDW called Europa was/is a division level game even though it also has brigades, regiments, battalions, and even on rare occasions companies represented by counters.

I acknowledge what you say about the present state of affairs where gamers are apt to switch definitions in a helter-skelter fashion. It does indeed occur. But it is to be deplored and resisted, not encouraged. Especially by wiser heads such as yours and mine. Even if yours has been compromised by monetary considerations.

Michael

[MeatEtr]

The Operations had some pretty significant problems with them that the fans of Operations repeatedly pointed out. Solving them was seen to be way too much work given that the bigger problem was that more people wanted to see then abandoned completely in favor of a system more-or-less the direction we're going in.

Since we had to code the CMx2 campaign system from scratch, there was no point recreating a flawed system that appealed only to a very small number of people.

Steve

Really, we wanted you guys to abandoned the old CMx1 style Ops over this newer scenario-string-campaign? That's news to me. The longer this thread goes it seems like more and more prefer the old Ops as a base or starting point for a future and more polished campaign/Op. It's actually kinda sad to hear you talk about the old Ops like it was a complete failure, flawed yes, failure no.

Are we really that fractured when it comes to "What makes a great Campaign/Op"? Clearly we all want persistent damage/wrecks on the maps from battle to battle. I think most would like a rolling map or terrain to push towards an end objective. I think most would still like a front-line to be drawn or established, but certainly needs tweaked compared to the way CMx1 did it. Just to name a few.

Bottom line, and I'm not gonna win any points by saying this, I think you guys did what was easier to implement technically. Having to make the new engine and getting the core game done, your hands were full, it's completely understandable. Technical obstacles can be a much bigger influence than anything else. But us fans don't know the details of it and don't take it into account.

[akd]

Why was it assumed with the new campaign system that a unit would never fight over the same ground twice? I understand this is unlikely when depicting modern forces launching a mechanized invasion of a third-world nation, but certainly in the WWII context it is easy to imagine a CM-level "campaign" that would need a core force to fight multiple battles over hours/days on the same piece of terrain. Just think Bastogne.

Also, it was mentioned as "minor" issue, but I really believe it to be major: the binary win/fail system of campaign branching is a huge limitation. While I accept that persistent terrain damage is probably not something for the CM series, allowing different parameters for branching (e.g. occupy a particular objective, exit off a particular edge, etc.), having persistent "core" opposition forces, and allowing forces to move/retreat off the current battlefield would go far towards integrating some of the most enjoyable elements of CM "operations" into the current campaign system.

[JonS]

Why was it assumed with the new campaign system that a unit would never fight over the same ground twice?

AFAICT, that assumption was never made.

having persistent "core" opposition forces

This functionality has been in CMx2 campaigns since day 1.

[akd]

This functionality has been in CMx2 campaigns since day 1.

Sorry, last two points should be combined. Since the opposition cannot withdrawal in order or even retreat, the simple existence of the opposition core force is often decided in the first battle (assuming it is present). There is no mechanism for the opposition to seek to persist from battle to battle. (Admittedly, I don't see this as much of an issue in the Blue v. Red Syria invasion setting).

[SlapHappy]

One "Operation-Campaign" type I have yet to see is the use of 1-3 or so maps to represent an urban area that is being fairly constantly infiltrated by insurgent forces with a Blue Force opponent attached to a nearby encampment. The novel Joker One depicts just such a situation in Ramadi with a Marine unit.

Although I understand from another thread that this might come to fruition soon enough.

This would be a type where persistent damage would be a useful feature.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I understand the reasoning that you don't think the resources you'd have to spend on a dynamic campaign are worth it to you or may be even practical at all. But the justification that everyone would still complain no matter what you did just doesn't make any sense. Here's proof:

1) Total War has a dynamic campaign

2) Everyone and their mother does nothing but bitch about the campaign, unless they take a break to complain about the TacAI instead

3) Total War sells lots of games

4) No one would buy a Total War game if it didn't have a dynamic campaign

5) Case closed

Personally I would like something like CMC, even if greatly simplified. Hell, I'd even settle for something like Achtung Panzer operational map, except their implementation is completely moronic.

[Barkhorn1x]

I understand the reasoning that you don't think the resources you'd have to spend on a dynamic campaign are worth it to you or may be even practical at all. But the justification that everyone would still complain no matter what you did just doesn't make any sense. Here's proof:

1) Total War has a dynamic campaign

2) Everyone and their mother does nothing but bitch about the campaign, unless they take a break to complain about the TacAI instead

3) Total War sells lots of games

4) No one would buy a Total War game if it didn't have a dynamic campaign

5) Case closed

Personally I would like something like CMC, even if greatly simplified. Hell, I'd even settle for something like Achtung Panzer operational map, except their implemetation is completely moronic.

What you seem to be missing here - when comparing TW to CM - is that in a TW game, the battles are pointless without the strategic campaign as they occur in a campaign context. In CM the battles are the game as CM is a tactical simulator whereas TW doesn't come close to that level of detail/realism.

IOW = apples and oranges.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That only amplifies my point. The strategic layer makes even a bad tactical game worthwhile. It would make CM mindblowingly awesome. Anyway, my original point was people complaining shouldn't be an excuse, since they complain bitterly and still buy the game in droves.