The CM Normandy Campaign/Operations Discussion

[ChrisND]

The strategic layer makes even a bad tactical game worthwhile.

In your opinion it would. Every game I've seen attempt this failed miserably at trying to reconcile the two.

[Wrath of Dagon]

OK, I'll accept that. I don't think Total War failed miserably, but it's a matter of opinion. Achtung Panzer I think could've succeeded too, if they just came up with better rules for the operations map.

[ChrisND]

OK, I'll accept that. I don't think Total War failed miserably, but it's a matter of opinion. Achtung Panzer I think could've succeeded too, if they just came up with better rules for the operations map.

Well, maybe "failed miserably" is a bit harsh. But every time I have seen a game try to reconcile two completely different modes of gameplay, the result was clunky and suffered from lots of design problems. I might have still enjoyed them, but I see why a company does not want to go down that road, because it is probably far more trouble than it is worth.

[dan/california]

And the Total War folks have at least 50 times BFC's development resources, literally.

[panzermartin]

One more vote for CMx1 operation style. I think they should have gone that way, imrpoving the existing system and not going for a rather boring story driven campaign style. I think the new scripted AI is to blame partly. It cant handle dynamic situations, front lines shifting etc. I really liked the feeling of flow and continiouty of the CMx1 system, with map damage, wrecks and playing on the same map with different weather/time of day. Also, the scrolling map on advance operations was cool.

And lastly, it seemed as a decent solution for H2H campaign gaming. Would have been fun with the current real time engine. But now campaigns are solo only

*PS That doesnt mean existing campaigns dont have some excellent scenarios to play but it would be so cool if this work could somehow blend with a dynamic map and situation.

[ChrisND]

One more vote for CMx1 operation style. I think they should have gone that way, imrpoving the existing system and not going for a rather boring story driven campaign style. I think the new scripted AI is to blame partly. It cant handle dynamic situations, front lines shifting etc. I really liked the feeling of flow and continiouty of the CMx1 system, with map damage, wrecks and playing on the same map with different weather/time of day. Also, the scrolling map on advance operations was cool.

I want Operations back too, but I think the AI from CMx1 is being viewed with rose-colored glasses. It was pretty darn stupid. Units just milling about for no reason. Outnumbered defenders running out of their defensive positions to take another objective. Etc etc. I'd take CMx2's AI over it any day, although I'm particularly satisfied with it either. At least it can act decisively if the designer sets it up properly.

[Barkhorn1x]

And the Total War folks have at least 50 times BFC's development resources, literally.

You beat me to that comment. Thank you.

...and, even with all those resources, the tactical battles are not what one would call historically accurate by any stretch of the imagination - and the AI? Feh! **

**Confession; I own and play every TW game as I find them fun and entertaining albeit not very challenging. But the Strat AI and Tac AI stinks - always has - and always will.

Will I buy STW2? Sure...

[panzermartin]

I want Operations back too, but I think the AI from CMx1 is being viewed with rose-colored glasses. It was pretty darn stupid. Units just milling about for no reason. Outnumbered defenders running out of their defensive positions to take another objective. Etc etc. I'd take CMx2's AI over it any day, although I'm particularly satisfied with it either. At least it can act decisively if the designer sets it up properly.

Yeah the AI was mostly stupid but it was nice to see it reacting to something. I was sometimes particulary suprised with the ability of AI tanks to find good hull down positions for instance. In CMSF you know that when the scripts runs out the enemy forces wont move an inch even if you hit them with a hammer in the head. Its quite depressing sometimes. Like the guy who's pulling the strings of those T-72s had an urgent call and left you alone on the wargame table. I overall agree good scripting can make a far more interesting and challenging scenario but I'd like to see some basic AI autonomy, move to target, shoot and scoot, triggers etc.

[ChrisND]

Yeah the AI was mostly stupid but it was nice to see it reacting to something. I was sometimes particulary suprised with the ability of AI tanks to find good hull down positions for instance. In CMSF you know that when the scripts runs out the enemy forces wont move an inch even if you hit them with a hammer in the head. Its quite depressing sometimes. Like the guy who's pulling the strings of those T-72s had an urgent call and left you alone on the wargame table. I overall agree good scripting can make a far more interesting and challenging scenario but I'd like to see some basic AI autonomy, move to target, shoot and scoot, triggers etc.

I agree that the current AI has a LOT to be desired, both in terms of scripting (triggers etc) and individual AI. IMHO, improvements to that are the single-most important improvement that can be made to the game. Bar none.

[dan/california]

I agree that the current AI has a LOT to be desired, both in terms of scripting (triggers etc) and individual AI. IMHO, improvements to that are the single-most important improvement that can be made to the game. Bar none.

I cannot second this strongly enough. It is THE problem. Imagine a Paper Tiger scenario where he could hold the T-90 platoon in a safe place until the blue forces had advanced into a vulnerable position.

[Muddy boots]

A little tweak to the friendly AI would be nice too, as too often I have seen 'veteran' troops react appallingly when their section is engaged by just two or three enemy. I'm not exaggerating, all it takes is one casualty and they turn tail and run for cover. Even if they are already in cover. And not the nearest cover mind you, but as often as not they run closer to enemy positions than firendly ones, a la headless chicken.

Sorry for butting in with another little gripe, but if I'm taking my boys into battle I want to know for sure that they've grasped their section battle drills first

Oh and my vote is for any 'operation' style that carries battle damage over and has lots of nice burnt out tanks left over from the previous battle. It's something to do with the smell of napalm in the morning I suppose...

Cheers.

Tim.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So if the AI doesn't work without scripting, does that mean Quick Battles against the computer won't be possible?

[76mm]

The strategic layer makes even a bad tactical game worthwhile. It would make CM mindblowingly awesome.

I agrree. No matter how well-designed or well-balanced a scenario is, I just don't find it very interesting to play if there is no campaign context. Win, lose, or draw, my reaction is generally "so what"?

[Battlefront.com]

Some consolidated answers for the past 3 pages...

Yes, we absolutely did implement the "technically easier" type of Campaign for CMx2. It wasn't just because there was so much on our plate, it was because with CMx1 Operations we had hit the point of diminishing returns before we even finished CMBO. Yes, we decided to chuck Operations even BEFORE we decided to chuck the CMx1 code as a whole.

Which means, in short, that Operations weren't a victim of CMx2, but rather the precursor to the decision to getting rid of the CMx1 codebase completely. If I put this on a timeline it is probably accurate to say Operations were "killed" sometime in late 2000 or early 2001, CMx1 sometime in 2001.

Ask yourselves... if Operations were really popular and working fine with a great future... why did we see no future in it even before the second CMx1 game's release? We're accused of having rose colored glasses sometimes, but we often think our customers are wearing the funky colored shades

I've said it many, many times... but here it is again:

1. Operations did not work well. They worked OK. The problems of resolving front lines and giving players on both sides realistic flexibility for redeployment, reinforcement, etc. were major. Trying to get the AI to do anything more would also be a huge investment of resources.

2. Any campaign system we chose, any, would only appeal to a minority of players. Wargamers are not general gamers. They have very, very specific ideas as to what a "real" campaign is and they completely reject the notion that there is any other way but their way. As I described earlier there are many different systems, so no matter what we can't have a generally popular system.

3. Based on customer feedback we decided that we could make the most amount of our customer base happy by going with a more linear, battle to battle type campaign system.

4. Combat Mission is a tactical combat game. If we had NO CAMPAIGN system at all, the game would still be an excellent one. But people expect a campaign system so we do feel obligated to provide one. However, it is a minor feature compared to the game itself, which means our energies must be focused on the tactical combat and not a fanciful campaign system.

We did conceive of having "persistent maps", complete with damage, for CMx2's campaign system. Still do! It's on the list of improvements that will be worked in over time. However, it isn't the most important improvement we can make since the type of campaign system we have developed shouldn't use persistent maps too much. That's because we are not trying to recreate the Ops like campaign system, which of course revolves around persistent battle concept.

Persistent maps pose various problems for us both in terms of programming and in terms of scenario design. The problems can be overcome, of course, but it involves a decent chunk of resources. We think we've got some better things to do for the campaign system before we get to that one particular feature.

We know that the current campaign system isn't perfect. It wasn't intended to be. It's designed to be improved over time so as to not distract from the Prime Directive... keeping focus on the tactical environment. The current system lends itself very well to this, Operations didn't even back in 2000.

And once again... I was the guy that designed the Ops system and thought it would be the best thing since sliced bread. So I didn't vote in favor of chucking Ops lightly. It was a success on one hand, failure on the other. The failure side of things, from our perspective, was significantly larger.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I agrree. No matter how well-designed or well-balanced a scenario is, I just don't find it very interesting to play if there is no campaign context. Win, lose, or draw, my reaction is generally "so what"?

But if the tactical combat sucked I don't think you would find either very enjoyable.

There are very, very few games out there that have campaigns good enough to overcome a bad tactical game experience. Very few. And I don't just mean on the market today, I mean since computer gaming was invented.

Usually those types of games don't even try to have really cool tactical combat. I'm thinking of something like Heros of Might and Magic and Panzer General. Very simplistic, rock-paper-scisors type tactical environments with a really gripping campaign system. Those were campaign games, not tactical games. We COULD have made Combat Mission like that... but I think most people are glad we didn't

Steve

[MeatEtr]

Well hell, all I'll say is this, if I ever win the lottery I'll storm your offices and plop down on the table two years salary for the team. Now go make that Op you had originally designed.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I'd buy a whole case of jars.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

This thread has the capacity to make me unhappy.

Steve, I don't care, I really just don't care about what you think was wrong with operations. I acknowledge it was a fair bit. I liked it for what it was. It somehow, against the odds, pushed my buttons. The current campaigns, do not. They do not come close to pushing my buttons. You can argue the point all you want, but I cannot be made to love this sterile excuse for a campaign.

I like the tactical game, but what has been built around it does not satisfy me. It's even easier to be dissatisfied with it as I was fairly satisfied with it before.

But the random maps are gone, the quick battles are an embarrassment and the campaigns are (for all the outstanding quality of the individual scenarios contained therein) cold and loveless. You can keep going on and on about the design choices you made but I as a customer am telling you, it's not enough.

Significant improvements to all those points have seemingly been kicked in to the long grass, and let me tell you, I'll not be your customer for very much longer if you don't start working on it sooner then later.

Pardon the drama.

[Runaway!!!]

Significant improvements to all those points have seemingly been kicked in to the long grass, and let me tell you, I'll not be your customer for very much longer if you don't start working on it sooner then later.

With what you're suggesting, I don't wan't to wait the ten or so years down from twenty for the next CM title now that BFC has a shiny new brain to help make the games. I have played so many games from companies that push their product like a cheaply manufactured drug leaving you wanting more till the next release a year down the road where they up it just a tad from the last. They have hundreds of chimps working on those games and those games have almost no replayability. I've never come across another game like CM before or a company like BF and I doubt I ever will again. You'll never find a better tactical war simulator. I don't want to speak for Steave, but I'll gloat for him. You'll be back crawling on your hands and knees in no time.

[MeatEtr]

Elmar, relax, it's not the end of the world.

Or is it?

[panzermartin]

You cant deny that operations had an advantage over the current campaign system. Ability to play on a map for a set of battles with your buddy over TCP/IP. And now with Real time it would be real fun and quicker too.

Of course operations results were sometimes goofy and the whole idea seemed kind of unfinished. Overall I think CMBO had more love and inspiration but CMSF is the more proffesional and polished product (well except QBs )

[Volltreffer]

For what its worth I thought I would add my 2c worth to the Operation / Campaign debate...

Back in the day when I received my copy of CMBO that I ordered on release, I thought all my Christmas' had come at once - finally it fulfilled my desire to see a Close Combat style game in 3D. I hate to think how many hours, days, weeks that I sat in my own little world, living out my WW2 fantasies - both playing and building scenarios / campaigns.

I did love the fact that in CMBO that you could continue over a map fighting over several days - as others have mentioned here, it gives you the sense of achievement that in some ways the built-in campaigns in CM:SF lack.

I must say that I havent as yet played around with the editor in CM:SF at all (probably due to the modern setting again), but is it not possible to say build a series of maps and maybe partially replicate / overlap the edges for continuity sake so that when you are advancing on a given map and you win the battle - the next battle will start off on the edge you last finished on in the previous engagement - but continues with this next battle. (I hope that is easily interpreted)

I.E.

Battle A) Objective is Hill 112 - you fight across the map to achieve said goal.

Battle Assuming you captured Hill112 the map starts on Hill112 and you have to fight over the hill and beyond etc... etc...

Would that not be the same as say having the Operations we had in CMBO?

You would have the feeling of continuity and fighting across a joined landscape. I guess that leaves the issues of carrying over battle damage from one set battle to the next (both to the landscape and to your forces) but then that is down to how hard it is to code and/or issue with AI unit placement in craters etc... that was mentioned previously.

Also bringing back the stats of what unit did what in battle would be great, im not saying go to the extent that Achtung Panzer does by showing each and every shell hit (both kill + deflection) or even awarding medals - but a simple kill ratio and what unit killed what would suffice - I.E. Tiger '5' killed Sherman '3' + '7'. Having said that, going the way of Achtung Panzer would be cool.

[JonS]

... is it not possible to say build a series of maps and maybe partially replicate / overlap the edges for continuity sake so that when you are advancing on a given map and you win the battle - the next battle will start off on the edge you last finished on in the previous engagement - but continues with this next battle.

Yes. This was done in the USMC campaign and the UK campaign.

[Piecekeeper]

All i want is statistics!

[Paper Tiger]

Michael:

Because the average sized units in play are not battalions; they are squads or individual vehicles...

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.

As an old time board gamer myself, I can understand your classification of CMSF as a squad level game and I agree with you. Old boxed wargames frequently had the game scale on the back and if CMSF were to be released as a board game, it would be scaled at the Squad/individual vehicle level.

Fair enough. I admit that I misread your original post and that my reply to it was inappropriate. My apologies to you.