The CM Normandy Campaign/Operations Discussion

[Ron]

Carb Light or Flat or Original or Pan Crust ? I just want a piece of pie (Pizza).

Micro Brew or Domestic, Light or Regular Beer!

White or Red.

Poor or Rich?

The Haves or Have nots!

Steve, Charles and gang working on game getting out or wasting time making everyone happy?

Hoorah! What was on the pizza again? I'm hungry.

[Battlefront.com]

Not to its full potential with only binary lose/fail map progression, or at least not for anything beyond the most simple positional warfare (think WWI trenches). For example, if "occupy" objectives could serve as triggers for campaign branching, an "operation-type" campaign could take a large 10km map and divide it into 1 km grids and allow the player to advance/retreat in any direction save off the edge of the larger map (which could have their own objective triggers). I'm sure there could also be creative ways to use the other battle outcomes that the game already tracks as determinants of campaign branching.

There already are such creative tricks The designer can make an Objective so valuable that there is NO WAY the player can win without it, or lose if he holds it. Which does, in effect, make it a "trigger".

But aside from that, there is no reason we can't make the system accept more possibilities than the two currently available. And having them, in turn, tied to Objectives is not all that difficult for me to envision. This would make the Campaign system as a whole more dynamic, so it's not something I view as being a special need for mimicking Ops. Which is good, because that increases the chances of it happening.

The problem with having more dynamic situations is that it is going to be more prone to error or strange results. Even in the existing system we've had some glitches appear in compiled campaigns that were the result of minor changes made the wrong way and then not caught during testing (for one or more reasons). Having a dynamic system means testing becomes almost impossible to do. So we would have to include some tools to troubleshoot the dynamic links, which is not a small task.

Which is a good illustration of the distraction potential of campaign systems, no matter what system we're talking about.

Steve

[sfhand]

...

With persistent map damage the existing campaign system could largely handle a 2 player Ops like game. So when we get persistent map damage in, this will likely be possible. But it will not have a dynamic sense of a front line. That's just not worth the development time.

Steve

Steve, as always thanks for taking the time to read and consider whats being put forward on your board. It is appreciated!

I'm pretty sure you understood this, but in case you didn't, I'm not talking about changes in the campaign system (although they would be welcome). I'm suggesting that old style operations(pvp, especially pbem), including persistent map damage, are already theoretically possible within the current scenario system (already played some multi-reinforcement pbems with MarkEzra). The only thing holding it back is mapsize, and for longer conflicts, game time.

Obviously, I have no idea what would be involved in increasing map size... but something like the Team Desobry operation can be pretty easily done now using one scenario (up to 4 one hour long battles?).

[Barkhorn1x]

3. Post a detailed AAR of the 116th Infantry drive to take St Lo to help kick off the new forum and build interest in the game.

Chad

Yes, I would like to see this AAR...NOW!!!!

[jeffsmith]

Here you go

http://www.unithistories.com/units_index/default.asp?file=../units/116th%20Inf.Reg%20AAR%20july%201944.htm

[Canada Guy]

I enjoyed the old Op system but it did create some highly unusual/unrealistic situations (e.g. 33rd in Berlin). But the front line was the best part of the whole process. It made it feel more like ASL (Red Barricades) and it gave you one more reason to push your units just a little further. I do not think that front line determinations are as important in the modern context (post 1960 lets say) but in WWII they are critically more important.

I remember working my units through difficult terrain just so I could get a small advantage in the future Op Scenario. Little pockets of men (and the implications of ammo resupply) were so much fun.

Trust me, I have slowly been converted over to being a fan of CMSF. Heck, I was even a fan of Larry, Moe and Curly, but now appreciate the 1:1 setting. Something more akin to the old Operations would be very apt for a WWII setting. I would hate to have a map and continually start over from the old starting areas or even have new starting areas that were not tied to my own progress or lack there of.

I will admit there were problems such as all reinforcements coming in at the start of each Op Scenario instead of being able to set a turn. You were able to bring your reinforcements up to the front line immediately. In my perfect op scenario, only existing units would be able to adjust position along with any units designated by the designer and others come in at later turns. Movement on the board would be restricted to a front line as determined by control over certain areas or control over any particular area and adjust ammo accordingly. While this would seem silly in a modern setting as battles are so fluid, it would make greater sense in the Eastern Front (where we all want to end up anyway with Sissi advancing against unwary Soviets in 1940s Finland).

[Battlefront.com]

Again, as a personal fan of the Ops idea I do think it's a fantastic method of play. If I can get some of that Ops feeling into the current campaign system, without causing us to move in the wrong direction, I'll certainly do it. Persistent map damage has always been on the table and it's just a matter of having the time to do it. Normandy had too many other big needs and so it didn't happen this time. But it will.

Other ideas, like AKD's thing about introducing more dynamic results, is also something we will consider. It has potential utility for the system we are pursuing, therefore it's on the table as well. If it makes CMx1 style Ops a little more possible, all the better.

What we will not do, however, is devote time to features which have little to no value to the campaign system we are supporting. Front line determinations are absolutely in that category. This was a ton of work in CMBO and it didn't work right. Oh sure, it worked fine sometimes but when it failed it failed pretty badly. Other complications, such as how to handle reinforcements, redeployments, replacements, etc. made even the best frontline determination arguably unrealistic.

The short is what's good for the campaign system is good for CM. What is bad for the campaign system is bad for CM. An example of bad is trying to support two very different campaign systems. If we can incidentally support a second system, that's fine with us. But it must be incidental.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

I swear if there was a way to conduct a poll you would have glaring proof that more of us prefer the old Ops as a base or starting point for a future and more polished campaign/Op. I'd put a hefty wager on it. Of course only those that have played both CMx1 and CMx2 a fair amount would be eligible to vote.

If in fact, there are little changes to the campaign for CMN, which is understandable with the QB overhaul. I think we'll see most of the WWII diehards that passed on CMSF come back and reiterate this. Times have changed, your fanbase has grown exponentially since you axed CMx1 Ops in 2000. Only until CMSF shipped in 2007 and soon again with CMN can everybody look back and compare the two. (revisit Ops/Cam)

One last question for you Steve, if you could magically brush aside all the technical obstacles and cost in manpower/resources. Would you forge ahead with the old CMx1 style Op over the newer CMx2 campaign?

Oh and yeah, thanks for dealing with us yet again.

[Battlefront.com]

MeatEtr,

I swear if there was a way to conduct a poll you would have glaring proof that more of us prefer the old Ops as a base or starting point for a future and more polished campaign/Op. I'd put a hefty wager on it. Of course only those that have played both CMx1 and CMx2 a fair amount would be eligible to vote.

If the 90% of our customers who never post here also voted I'd bet you a pile of cash Ops would come third. Maybe even forth. But amongst this self selected, more or less hardcore, crowd? It think it has a pretty good chance of being second, a slight chance at coming in first. What do I think would likely be first if we got everybody just on this Forum to vote? Meta campaign (or some other highly interactive system, like Close Combat).

If in fact, there are little changes to the campaign for CMN, which is understandable with the QB overhaul. I think we'll see most of the WWII diehards that passed on CMSF come back and reiterate this. Times have changed, your fanbase has grown exponentially since you axed CMx1 Ops in 2000.

Actually, if that is true about our base expanding, then you're even more wrong about what the majority of the minority want. Bigger campaigns are what the masses are used to, bigger campaigns are therefore what they are comfortable with. Which likely means it's the thing they would rather see if given a choice. At least that's what logic dictates would be the case.

Only until CMSF shipped in 2007 and soon again with CMN can everybody look back and compare the two. (revisit Ops/Cam)

Right, but you're forgetting that at the height of CMBO's popularity, at the height of people posting about that game, people even then were calling for Ops to be killed and a campaign system more like what we have not to be implemented. I very seriously doubt that people made such opinions known because they didn't know what they were asking for.

One last question for you Steve, if you could magically brush aside all the technical obstacles and cost in manpower/resources. Would you forge ahead with the old CMx1 style Op over the newer CMx2 campaign?

No. I've already said that several times now. For that to happen we would have to feel that Ops were the most popular solution to pursue. From where we sit nothing could be further from the truth.

The concept of Ops is simply not the most popular concept to pursue. Customers made that very well known back in 2000 and that has been subsequently reinforced for the 10 years that followed. If anything our customer base has become more generalized than it was back then, which even then was mostly made up of casual and not hardcore wargamers. It's simply illogical to think that support for Ops has somehow become more popular.

Oh and yeah, thanks for dealing with us yet again.

No problem

Steve

[tdogg]

Again, as a personal fan of the Ops idea I do think it's a fantastic method of play. If I can get some of that Ops feeling into the current campaign system, without causing us to move in the wrong direction, I'll certainly do it. Persistent map damage has always been on the table and it's just a matter of having the time to do it. Normandy had too many other big needs and so it didn't happen this time. But it will.

I was a fan of the CMx1 ops but you are right they are broken, I'm happy you are bring some of the good features back. This new psuedo ops addition to CMx2 games could be really cool, I look forward to seeing where this goes.

Other ideas, like AKD's thing about introducing more dynamic results, is also something we will consider. It has potential utility for the system we are pursuing, therefore it's on the table as well. If it makes CMx1 style Ops a little more possible, all the better.

I like this idea as well.

I do like the better handling of the AI in CMx2, but there is something lacking from the Campaign. It needs a few more key ingredients to really spice it up. The environment is just bland and sterile. I was really hoping that CMC would be successfull so it could be developed for the CMx2 engine in the future.

I'd like to see a totally dynamic / meta campaign but upon reading the earlier post on how the AI reacts on the fly without scripting, this would not be feesable without some major work by BF.

I could see some 3rd party dynamic campaigns coming to light from CM:N with the reworking of the QB system. I now some of you may be familiar with the ROOQ spread sheet based campaign system based off the CMx1 QB.

I think if BF can keep adding more tools to the campaign, hopefully the 2nd or 3rd installment of the CM:N line will hve a campaign in the form that most of us would like it.

[MeatEtr]

Again, as a personal fan of the Ops idea I do think it's a fantastic method of play. If I can get some of that Ops feeling into the current campaign system, without causing us to move in the wrong direction, I'll certainly do it. Persistent map damage has always been on the table and it's just a matter of having the time to do it. Normandy had too many other big needs and so it didn't happen this time. But it will.

Other ideas, like AKD's thing about introducing more dynamic results, is also something we will consider. It has potential utility for the system we are pursuing, therefore it's on the table as well. If it makes CMx1 style Ops a little more possible, all the better.

What we will not do, however, is devote time to features which have little to no value to the campaign system we are supporting. Front line determinations are absolutely in that category. This was a ton of work in CMBO and it didn't work right. Oh sure, it worked fine sometimes but when it failed it failed pretty badly. Other complications, such as how to handle reinforcements, redeployments, replacements, etc. made even the best frontline determination arguably unrealistic.

The short is what's good for the campaign system is good for CM. What is bad for the campaign system is bad for CM. An example of bad is trying to support two very different campaign systems. If we can incidentally support a second system, that's fine with us. But it must be incidental.

Steve

I am looking forward to more features/tweaks to the existing CMx2 campaign. It's not like I hate it either, played the original, Marines, Brits, and a bunch of the user made ones. Like most that come around here, I got plenty of confidence in you guys to do it justice. Admittedly with the new QB overhaul, I will care even less about the state of the current campaign system.

Anyways, ok no more questions. I'll start to feel guilty for taking up too much of your time. Besides, other posters will shun me for distracting you from a CMN bone. I think that's why I'm a bit grouchy!

[c3k]

My enjoyment of CMx1 Ops may be tied to the fact that I almost exclusively played them against HUMAN opponents. The failures of the AI were not something that tinge my memory of them. (Of course, it may be the AI being so poor was the REASON I only played versus others. )

Good things:

- Front lines for future battles based on the end-state of previous battles

- Starting forces based on end-state of previous battles (adjusted for resupply and the time between fighting)

- Fighting over something which results in MEANINGFUL context (if I don't capture the bridge, what happens next?)

Thanks,

Ken

[Barkhorn1x]

Here you go

http://www.unithistories.com/units_index/default.asp?file=../units/116th%20Inf.Reg%20AAR%20july%201944.htm

Touche and nicely done.

[Ron]

My enjoyment of CMx1 Ops may be tied to the fact that I almost exclusively played them against HUMAN opponents. The failures of the AI were not something that tinge my memory of them. (Of course, it may be the AI being so poor was the REASON I only played versus others. )

Good things:

- Front lines for future battles based on the end-state of previous battles

- Starting forces based on end-state of previous battles (adjusted for resupply and the time between fighting)

- Fighting over something which results in MEANINGFUL context (if I don't capture the bridge, what happens next?)

Thanks,

Ken

That would be ideal for sure, but in the world of CMx1 Ops, if I wanted to 'capture' that bridge all I would need to do was move a sizeable force to its general vicinity and then wait until the end of the battle. Voila! Bridge captured and the defender's position totally unhinged by the adjusted frontlines. Frustrating? Don't get me wrong I played a lot of Ops also because I liked them, warts and all, but certain features just didn't work properly in the context of the battle.

The reasons for dropping Ops have been stated here and while we may or may not agree, it has been done. Hopefully some of its more useful features will be shoehorned into the current Campaign system.

[panzermartin]

The frontline inaccuracies was the only major flaw of the ops. Though not enough to drop them imo. If frontline shifting was a bit more "scripted", detemined by interconnected key "flags" hold at the end of each battle then the results would be more sensible. I would love to see a new, more thought out, approach of this system one day.

[Wrath of Dagon]

All I want is some kind of higher level persistent grid where I move my units before the tactical battle starts. Don't know if that's compatible with current plans or not.

[Battlefront.com]

The frontline inaccuracies was the only major flaw of the ops. Though not enough to drop them imo.

If the first thing you said was correct, then I would agree with the second part. But that is the crux of the problem.

Of the various different types of campaign systems out there, Ops was not the most popular pick. Customers voiced this very loudly and very strongly since the beginning of CMBO's release. Probably even in testing, but I honestly can't recall either way.

If Ops worked 100% perfectly we would have been faced with a dilemma for CMx2. Recreate a less popular, but solid, campaign system *or* abandon it and go with something more popular. Supporting two systems was never, ever an option and never, ever will be. That would be a fiasco for everybody until it was dropped. So it always has been, and always will be, about choosing ONE system.

But Ops were not 100% perfect. The "only major flaw" was actually with the core feature of the entire system. Not a little problem around the edges, but right at the heart of it. So on top of not being the most popular form of campaign, it was also one with a serious problem that affected enjoyment of the system even by people that otherwise really liked it when the problem didn't bite them (or bite them too badly).

The "only major flaw" existed because the needs of that feature were massive and outside of our abilities to deliver back then. So we went into CMBO release with a known flawed system instead of yanking the whole thing and having nothing. If it were simple to fix it would have been fixed before shipping or shortly there after. But it wasn't, so it didn't get fixed.

If Ops had turned out to be wildly popular as a concept, then we would have eventually knuckled down and fixed the core problem for CMBB. But it was clear to us before CMBB was far along that we didn't have the best campaign system for our audience and therefore any thoughts of fixing Ops went away. When we went to develop CMx2 those thoughts were still not part of the equation.

If frontline shifting was a bit more "scripted", detemined by interconnected key "flags" hold at the end of each battle then the results would be more sensible. I would love to see a new, more thought out, approach of this system one day.

As a gamer, so would I. The current system also appeals to me too, but I really liked Ops as a concept. I would rather have both, but that for sure isn't going to happen. And since we're never going to drop the type of campaign we have now for a focused Ops system, I don't foresee frontline stuff ever coming into the game. The huge technical hurdles that made it impractical to "do it right" way back in 1999 still exist today to the same degree.

Steve

[76mm]

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.

I agree, and also agree that almost any campaign system that you create would only appeal to a minority of players. That's why I think that data import/export to allow for user-made campaigns, is the best way to proceed. However, I've seen in other threads, many times, that this is not about to happen either.

[76mm]

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.

Hopefully BFC won't be doing much gloating, it is a rather dangerous habit for a company selling to customers. Morever, I would not assume that everyone will come "crawling back" if BFC doesn't provide what they want...there are lots of other enjoyable games out there, and *gasp* plenty of things other than computer games to occupy my time with. For instance, I bought CMSF and played it exactly three times, didn't like it, and have never considered playing it again. Hopefully CM:N will be different...

[Runaway!!!]

Hopefully BFC won't be doing much gloating, it is a rather dangerous habit for a company selling to customers. Morever, I would not assume that everyone will come "crawling back" if BFC doesn't provide what they want...there are lots of other enjoyable games out there, and *gasp* plenty of things other than computer games to occupy my time with. For instance, I bought CMSF and played it exactly three times, didn't like it, and have never considered playing it again. Hopefully CM:N will be different...

They are BFC, they will not gloat, so I gloat for them. :cool: We are wargamers and never get everything we want and I'm no exception. I take what I can get and so far BFC has given a great deal given the limited resourses that they have. Yes, there are lots of other enjoyable games out there but they're a far cry from CM and BFC is tops in my book for costomer relations. They really do listen to us and and if for some reason something someone wants in the game cannot be met, "Steave" gives a verry detailed, well reasoned explanation as to why they cannot accommadate at anytime or untill some point. Sure if enough people raise a stink about something that's "not unreasonable" down the road, it might make it in, but we are told when something is unreasonable and not practical from a development standpoint. There would be so much I would ask for that I know without even asking is bat**** crazy and I don't shake my fist in the air threatening to take my business elsewhere only to be worse off than I was considering it wont be BFC and CM. I'm sorry to hear about your dislike of CM:SF. Naturally CM:N will be different for obvious reasons.

[DOBERmann]

hi all ,

i cant understand it . its soooooo easy to make thousends of wargamer happy . all what they need its a gameplay like CM with a graphic like TOW or any other "candyeye" wargames . personally i prefer a game that i can play per email and to mess me against other humans in a ladder , like the blitz.org ladder . CM was a game like this , but the graphic is tooo old and when i installed it again any days before , my eys will be thick . but really , the gameplay is the best ever !!

hope that CM normandy will come next time , pls !

greets christian