The CM Normandy Campaign/Operations Discussion

[vincere]

Still... On balance operations has far more for them that shooter/ rts style strung together missions.

Sure there must have been people that moaned about flaws in operations but why chuck the baby out with the bath water.

[MeatEtr]

Sure there must have been people that moaned about flaws in operations but why chuck the baby out with the bath water.

Because the decision was made at a time when they had to worry about or concentrate on getting the core game done. I assume things like an Op and a good QB system had to be put aside or scrapped due to time constraints. Surely it was much easier and less time consuming to go with the current single-mission-string campaign, rather than tackling a CMx1 Op-like update for CMSF.

I also vaguely somewhat recall Steve mentioning something about how the new engine draws the terrain. That it would be extremely difficult to get battlefield craters/wrecks to carryover. So I'm sure technical issues influenced the decision as well.

In a nutshell, I consider the current CMx2 campaign system a poor man's Op.

[sfhand]

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.

For RT players perhaps, for WEGO it's not unthinkable at all... but a well designed battle shouldn't have long lulls to sit through RT or click thourgh WEGO. The briefing could cover battle/reinforcement times so one could plan accordingly.

My main point is that the community has a means at its disposal to approximate operations now, with the real hold up being how the engine handles, or doesn't handle, large maps.

[Paper Tiger]

Hey, go easy.

I came up with that conclusion based on the first post of this thread.

Fair enough. But didn't you read Normal Dude's post that immediately followed? I still don't understand how you could arrive at that conclusion especially after you further said:

I did purchase SF and loved it

It had a campaign.:confused:

There are a lot of threads on this topic already. Here are links to a couple of them

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=88707&highlight=campaign+system+operations

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=88248&highlight=campaign+system+operations

[Apocalypse 31]

There are alot of good ideas floating around in here, and LEGIT concerns with the future of CM.

I think Close Combat did a great job with managing units:

Here's what you have - if you lose it, it's gone forever and you have to figure out how to fight without it.

This also applied for the enemy. Which was the GREAT thing. Fight hard, and win and destroy the enemy.

I felt that the original CMSF Campaign lacked that. As Elmar said, you worked hard to preserve units and fight smart only to find your next level in the commanders seat of a totally different unit in a different fight and different area. Also. No matter how many enemy units I destroyed it never put me closer to wiping them out. It was just the next mission with new units and a new enemy.

I'm not complaining here, just hoping that we get it right in the next release.

[RichyG]

If you begin the summarise you can start to see some kind of reasonable solution.

Two major points wanted here are:

- Persistant Units

- Persistant Battlefields

So you have to begin to find a solution to bringing these two features into the current system.

In order to have persistant units, the campaign core file needs to record each individual from battle to battle. This is hardly a demanding process if handled at the end of a mission where the player would expect a load waiting period. The campaign file can be improved to handle resupply.

Persistant battlefields should be easy if handled as a static map. Rolling maps I agree are slightly more complex and I gather the draw system for maps is different to how it appears (a tile system). Time can easilly be advanced by applying a new time of day to the map.

Complexities arise with redployment for the AI, I can't think of a reasoned solution right now, but I would reason along giving the AI a strategic plan (Defend, Delay, Probe, Attack, Assault) and the AI sets would find suitable terrain to occupy and use (Large Buildings, Elevations, Large Areas of woodland.

[Paper Tiger]

In order to have persistant units, the campaign core file needs to record each individual from battle to battle. This is hardly a demanding process if handled at the end of a mission where the player would expect a load waiting period. The campaign file can be improved to handle resupply.

What am I missing here? I don't understand because the game already does this. They're called core units and each individual is tracked, just as you have suggested. Not just alive or dead, but his ammo, fitness, condition, damage to systems if a vehicle etc etc. And the campaign script determines the % that each system will be repaired, resupplied etc...

Persistant battlefields should be easy if handled as a static map.

Agreed, However, you have also pointed out the major obstacle to this:

Complexities arise with redployment for the AI, I can't think of a reasoned solution right now, but I would reason along giving the AI a strategic plan (Defend, Delay, Probe, Attack, Assault) and the AI sets would find suitable terrain to occupy and use (Large Buildings, Elevations, Large Areas of woodland.

That's a BIG obstacle given that each map needs its own AI plan. Without it, it will just dump the AI units in one corner of the board and there they will sit. Since I've done a lot of work creating scenarios in the last two years, I can't see BFC writing some code any time soon that allows the AI to analyse a map, create set- up zones and then create the plans for it do do something. In order for this to produce a satisfactory result it would require a lot of Charles' coding time.

When you guys are musing why we can't have Operation style battles in CMx2 you have to remember that CMx2's AI is completely different from CMx1's. Yes, CMx1's simpler system allowed BFC to create things like Operations as the AI was programmed to 'hold the flags'. CMx2s's system is much more complex than that and can allow the AI to behave almost like a human opponent. The price of this is that the AI can't improvise anything.

[RichyG]

Well I did just think of a potential comprimise. A reasonable solution would be that a a new scenario can be loaded dependent on if the player wins/loses as per normal, however, it would carry over the damage to terrain and wrecks from the previous battle.

Theory being, a lost scenario could result in the player having to 'try again' but they would have all the damage from the previous battle or if they won and then the next scenario required them to defend the same ground from a counter-attack, the damage would be there again. The scenario designer then gets to set-up plans this way.

It can also carry the persistant units over.

As concerns the persistant units, I know the core file does this but I don't think it does it very well. It provides a % chance for resupply for each unit but that could mean randomsly some units are resupplied "FULLY" and others who really need the, say, ammo are left with none.

I posted a question about this before the campaign files resupply, it wasn't clear whether it resupplied the units involved in the previous battle, the next battle or in the the entire core file. I got ZERO response for this question!

[Paper Tiger]

One idea I had is that if Charles could somehow allow the terrain on a map to be like a core unit so that the info on each house, wall, tree etc could be saved from mission to mission allowing it us to fight on one map over several battles. I really WANT this feature in too and I believe Steve wants to see this feature come back at some point too. I have some really cool ideas for Moden Era battles using this type of battle.

Regarding your queries about campaign script resupply, this is how I believe it works:

When you complete a mission the core units that were in that scenario's OB will receive replacements/resupply or repair depending on the parameters set by the script. And ONLY those core units. Core units that didn't take part won't be considered. However, if your mission is less than 3 hours, you can add cores to the mission as reinforcements to arrive at T+180 and they won't see action but will be resupplied/etc like the other units.

Now, if the Resupply (or ANY paramater) is set by the campaign designer at 45% then there is a 45% chance that a unit will receive full resupply and a 55% chance that it gets nothing. So it's all or nothing. It's easy enough for the campaign designern to make sure all units get resupplied/repaired etc though. He just sets the parameter to 100% and everybody gets it all.

Hope that helps.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

CMx2s's system is much more complex than that and can allow the AI to behave almost like a human opponent. The price of this is that the AI can't improvise anything.

LOL, that was priceless. thank you.

it would be so cool if CMN would give us a real campaign or ops.

[RichyG]

I think your quoted idea better explains the idea I had in my head! This would be an excellent comprimise and I can see in the current CMSF official campaigns where this feature would be an exceptional addition!

As concerns the camapign script, if your right then its how I imagined it would work and its nice to finally get an answer on the matter.

I'm not a fan of an all or nothing approach to resupply but your right when you say just to set it to 100% and thats what I've mainly done for my own campaigns (never finished any )

[Paper Tiger]

LOL, that was priceless. thank you

Whatever floats your boat, mate...

[Paper Tiger]

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.

Self quotation is a bad habit and I try to avoid it. However, I feel I need to qualify this, especially as I feel it's a bit shirty.

I have been working exclusively on the NATO module since the New Year and so have passed on the progress of the WW2 title. However, this weekend, I decided to load up the new build and have a go and I have to confess that I'm a bit bewildered! So much has changed already, important new features added, and I have no idea what they are supposed to do or how they work. So it's not just the Old Timers who will be playing catch-up.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

So much has changed already, important new features added, and I have no idea what they are supposed to do or how they work. So it's not just the Old Timers who will be playing catch-up.

on the contrary. sounds like it's the same good old stuff

more seriously speaking, i've got a feeling that CMN will be the kind of game some of the old fans wanted CMSF to be.

[MeatEtr]

I have been working exclusively on the NATO module since the New Year and so have passed on the progress of the WW2 title. However, this weekend, I decided to load up the new build and have a go and I have to confess that I'm a bit bewildered! So much has changed already, important new features added, and I have no idea what they are supposed to do or how they work. So it's not just the Old Timers who will be playing catch-up.

Care to elaborate there Mr. Paper Tiger?

Come on dude, spill the beans, Steve said it was ok.

[Superlawndart]

Least we all forget here that CM:BO was rated 90+ in a PC gamer magazine. I hard to consider anything in that game a "failure". In fact I'll go on record saying that BF has yet to deliver anything close to what CM:BO was to date...

I would say in large part the success and mainstream exposure of CM:BO is how most of us learned of Battlefront... And I don't think I'm the only one dreaming of a CM:BO 2.0... Is that Normandy? As much as I can hope it’s not likely, but I'll buy it, play it for awhile, before something like the next Total war (world domination) or Silent Hunter (Dynamic Campaign) sucks me in for months... I'm also dreaming of Falcone 5.0 (living breathing battlefield, nothing even close to this since, way ahead of its time), never going to happen though...

I LOVE the richness and depth of BF CM games, I just wish they would modernize sooner than later... You can innovate without huge budgets, just talk about how CM:BO was done from a philosophical level! Face it, gamers today NEED their playing investment to amount to something, it has to be progressive, meaningful, without this fundamental need fulfilled your only market is the relics (like me) of yesterday (but refuse to accept I’m yesterday). No one has time, and can afford the investment so many hours in something that’s just done, no stats, no progression, just ends like cold turkey…

Losing Operations without excepting the technical challenges to overcome why you cut them is the opposite of innovation...

I'll keep sending my money and enjoying your CM products but I'm very much looking forward to the next real update.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm interested to hear what progress has been made to make the current campaign less sterile and more like a campaign. Any news?

The current Core Forces treatment make me think of a Penn and Teller act.

Things appear and disappear seemingly at random in CMSF campaigns. Will we at least get clear plastic cups this time?

[Battlefront.com]

We have had many, many discussions about campaigns since before CMBO was out. The primary problem is that there is no consensus about what people want out of a campaign. Sure, every individual feels he knows what everybody else wants, but then we have a discussion about it and it's clear that (amazingly enough) that just isn't the case when details are discussed.

There are, basically, four major types of campaign systems advocated for over the years on this Forum. They can also be blended together, more or less, depending on personal preferences. Which means there are probably at least a dozen major variants. But to the big types we have:

1. Dynamic Campaign - each battle is custom made on-the-fly, to some degree, to represent a particular part of the campaign's progress. The forces are assigned to conform to a particular size or style of battle, sometimes with a degree of user input. Close Combat is probably the best example of this.

2. Scripted Campaign - all battles are premade and you progress from one to the next. No variation, no interaction, little-to-no connection to past results. Generally there are no "core units" that carry forward, but that can of course be a prat of the system. Off the top of my head, Warcraft 2 comes to mind of the first type and Panzer General comes to mind for the second type.

3. Scripted Dynamic Campaign - the battles are premade and you progress from one to the next, but the path traveled isn't 100% set in stone. Player success in one battle, or overall, determines what battle is chosen next. Usually this type of system has some sort of "core units" concept of forces which update from battle to battle, complete with some sort of replacement system. CMx2 is of this type.

4. Operations - instead of playing out multiple battles on separate maps representing days or even years of combat, you slug it out on one big map (or a portion of one) over the course of simulated hours or perhaps a day or two. The forces do not change much during this time, but there is the possibility of expanding or replacing forces based on game functions. CMx1 is the only game I'm aware of that tried this focused an approach.

As I said, combining elements of each is conceptually possible. For example, you could have a Dynamic Campaign which fights on several large maps or a Scripted Campaign with a strong emphasis on core units. There's no one way to do a campaign, therefore there's no one set of features to include or exclude.

Unfortunately, this diversity presents two huge problems for developers:

1. Each one of these is months and months, if not years, of work to perfect. Therefore, a game can only deliver one type of campaign system. For us, we took a ton of flak for CMx1's Operations because lots of people wanted a Dynamic Campaign like Close Combat or Steel Panthers. People that loved Operations were theoretically happy with our choice, but the others definitely were not. I say "theoretically happy" because...

2. Campaigns are prone to errors, design flaws, design limitations, and of course conceptual shortcomings in the eye of any one individual player. The latter is the thing we find the most depressing. Even if the chosen campaign type is largely the most popular pick and generally well executed, people will still complain about it needing something added, removed, or changed. Not just picky stuff mind you, but dramatic and "expensive" changes that often conflict with what is already coded or what other people suggest should be done or not done. Individuals are very unwilling to compromise on their own vision, which means unless the developer can make 100 different flavors of campaigns, chances are the MAJORITY of players will not give an enthusiastic thumbs up to the campaign system. Despite the fact that people CLAIM that they can be reasonable and open minded before they play it for the first time.

What does this all mean? From our perspective it means no matter what we do we'll never come up with a system that pleases more than a minority of our customer base most of the time. Maybe we can get a sizable minority fairly pleased, but the bulk of them will continue to tell us how we should do things to make it better for their individual whims. Which is, of course, impossible to do even if we had unlimited time and resources.

Therefore, the only smart thing for us to do is make one system that we feel is manageable and reasonably pleasing. One that can be made and maintained without distracting from the REAL thing that gets people buying and playing the game... the game People can claim the campaign is the most important part of their game experience, but that's bunk. Take a "perfect" campaign system with a terrible game at its heart, who will want to play it? Nobody. So we need to make sure we focus on the game itself and not get distracted by fruitless and futile efforts to make a small number of people not as unhappy as they might otherwise be.

Which means we will continue to evolve the existing campaign system found in Shock Force. We have no intentions, nor desire, to radically change the basic system. Changes will be implemented irregularly as we put out major releases based, in large part, with how much development time we can spare. For Normandy, due to its massive new game engine requirements, the amount of time available for the Campaign was very small. For the next game it will be larger. The game after that, however, it should be the primary focus of our development resources.

Steve

[c3k]

For whatever it's worth, the Operations approach you presented to us in CMBO, et al., gave a truly visceral sense of accomplishment. If I fought and sweated to get that hilltop, then I could USE that hilltop to set up my forces at the next battle. That was a good feeling. Emphasis on the fact that I FELT something.

In CMSF, that feeling is gone. I like the flexibility of CMSF's campaigns. The Scripted Dynamic Campaign is capable of a huge scope. But there is no feel. Each battle, as you're aware, does not SEEM to be connected to the next; or the previous. It's a numbers game. I get a number at the end of a battle. Then I play the next battle. (Interesting to me that I don't consider that I "fight" the next battle.)

I'm glad to read that you're going to focus on this aspect when your resources permit.

Thanks,

Ken

[MeatEtr]

Which means we will continue to evolve the existing campaign system found in Shock Force. We have no intentions, nor desire, to radically change the basic system. Changes will be implemented irregularly as we put out major releases based, in large part, with how much development time we can spare. For Normandy, due to its massive new game engine requirements, the amount of time available for the Campaign was very small. For the next game it will be larger. The game after that, however, it should be the primary focus of our development resources.

Steve

Care to elaborate on this? I bet you knew that was coming, haha. Certainly understandable little time is spent on the campaign system in CMN.

It does feel like the campaigns could use something like a force pool status in the briefing. Simply the ability to look at your entire force pool for the whole campaign. An example of something like this is the motor pool missions in PTs Road to Dinas campaign. But it could just be a window similar to the editors unit listing, keep it simple. Of course the designer could restrict some of this for FOW.

Also give designers the ability to put more pics or images in the briefing, why just one map pic?

And now getting even further out there, how about the ability for the game to run an .avi or .wmp video for intros and outros. FRAPs works great for things like this.

[hoolaman]

I think the CMSF campaign model was a good way to go, and a good base to build on.

One big thing it lacks is the ability to save damage to maps. Fighting over the same ground can be done using the current system, the Marines campaign did it in a few missions. But that building you called an airstrike on is suddenly standing again in mission 2. A creative scenario designer could mimic CMx1's operations fighting over identical maps. The big drawback is the map will never be updated with the damage.

Another fairly minor thing lacking is the ability to script multiple branches to campaigns. You could create a meta campaign on a par with Close Combat if you for example set exit objectives on all four sides of the map that sent you to new missions north, south, east and west. You could even allow the player to "choose their own adventure" based on the results of the previous mission: ("You have acheived a minor victory, would you like to advance or hold?"). Currently though moving on to other missions or branching campaigns is a binary thing based purely on win/loss of a scenario, which is an imperfect method.

[MarkEzra]

...One big thing it lacks is the ability to save damage to maps...

This alone would make me want to play and make campaigns again.

[Battlefront.com]

For whatever it's worth, the Operations approach you presented to us in CMBO, et al., gave a truly visceral sense of accomplishment. If I fought and sweated to get that hilltop, then I could USE that hilltop to set up my forces at the next battle. That was a good feeling. Emphasis on the fact that I FELT something.

But that's the problem with Campaigns... a TON of people "felt" nothing when they played Operations. Supporters of Operations forget that very quickly the majority of players decided they sucked and stopped talking about them, except to say they sucked Even the supporters of Operations usually couldn't go more than a half a post without highlighting the significant technical shortcomings of the system, in particular the drawing of the front line.

As I've said many times, I was a big fan of the Operations concept. I was, in fact, the one that thought of that direction, designed the bulk of the system, and defended it against the throngs of people who disliked it. But when it came down to it the technical problems were major and the popularity of it low. There was no question that re-investing in that system was a very bad idea. Because even if we went through all the engineering to get it to work better, it would still be a minority pleaser. Abandoning Operations was a no brainer and probably realized even before we finished CMBB.

Care to elaborate on this? I bet you knew that was coming, haha.

Of course We have a list of possible improvements that could take a few years to implement, so there are definitely no shortage of ideas. Which, again, is part of the problem with campaigns... it's extremely easy to think of cool things to add, yet there is no definite end state to shoot for. A campaign system, therefore, can never be anything more than a work in progress.

I think the CMSF campaign model was a good way to go, and a good base to build on.

Thanks. That was, actually, the whole point of the system. Trying to do a crazy detailed campaign on top of a brand new game system would be suicide for a developer even twice our size. So we decided to make a solid base and expand it over time.

To partially answer MeatEtr's question about what we might come up with in the future...

One big thing it lacks is the ability to save damage to maps.

This was actually on the original design features list for CM:SF, but it is more technically tricky than it appears. However, it certainly isn't tough to do if we have some time set aside for it. Therefore, this remains a high priority to work into the system. Especially because it does sorta bring back Operations, though without the technical headaches we aren't interested in trying to solve.

More flexibility for campaign designers is another thing we intend on adding, though the specifics of that will not be decided for a while. We have some fantastic guys making campaigns for us and they have put forth a ton of excellent suggestions.

There are other things which will make the campaign experience even better that have nothing to do with the campaign system itself. The number one thing is better/finer control of AI behavior. This allows for more intricate scenarios, which in turn lends itself to making more involved stories for the campaign to follow.

Another fairly minor thing lacking is the ability to script multiple branches to campaigns. You could create a meta campaign on a par with Close Combat if you for example set exit objectives on all four sides of the map that sent you to new missions north, south, east and west. You could even allow the player to "choose their own adventure" based on the results of the previous mission: ("You have acheived a minor victory, would you like to advance or hold?"). Currently though moving on to other missions or branching campaigns is a binary thing based purely on win/loss of a scenario, which is an imperfect method.

This is, unfortunately, a can of worms from a design and coding standpoint. Usually such things require lots and lots of work to get working smoothly. Operations had the same problem. Conceptually it was very simple... two sides fight on the same map, a frontline is determined, and forces start the next battle on their respective sides. Sometimes simple concepts gloss over the difficulties in execution.

Steve

[LarsS]

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...

As for making multiple branching campaigns, you can fudge that as it is -- you just need to design the campaign with several consecutive branching battles. Four choices, for example, is just two binary choices; one after another. They don't have to be proper battles at all, really, just tiny maps with exit objectives. It may be a bit of a hassle, but it works.

[Chad Harrison]

I just wanted to put my 2 cents worth forward.

I liked the operations of CMx1, but never really played them. While I never got into the campaigns of CM:SF and its expansions, that was from a lack of interest of the modern setting, not the system itself.

But, you take the CMx2 'Campaign', associate a single infantry battalion with it, and fight your way across Normandy - where do I sign up? I have had all sorts of ideas for units that this would work with. While you may not have persistent damage, you will have consistent units showing up in each battle and you will feel those losses you took in the last battle, and feel the pain of getting green replacements. As for taking specific ground, if you win that scenario to take that hill, the following scenario is a dusk counter attack by the Germans and your forces are the exact ones from the last scenario, warts and all.

So while I liked the original ops okay enough, I personally prefer the new Campaigns much, much more. I call dibs on a campaign for the 116th Infantry going from the bluffs above Omaha to Brest in Brittany - or I would consent to Rune doing it

Chad