The CM Normandy Campaign/Operations Discussion

[Michael Emrys]

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.

FWIW, I agree. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say that the folks who want campaigns should be lashed to a grate and left in the burning sun. If there were an easy way to give them what they want, I'd say go for it. But it seems to me that CM's strongest point—and its strongest selling point—is a top notch combat system, and that should not be compromised.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

My apologies to you.

No apology necessary. I believe you are a fine fellow and an asset to the community.

Michael

[benpark]

Not to completely beat the now zombified horse, but something akin to the older operations seems more tied to the tactical outlook than the current campaign structure. One location with a fairly contained set of forces seems like the right fit for CM. I'm not interested in seeing a campaign layer put over the game, just to have a single extended battlefield-particularly with the WWII titles.

If persistent damage could be included at some point (thanks for considering it), it seems that the older style of operations could somehow be shoehorned into the current structure. I think that the passage of time could be simulated through some clever scenario building.

Or, an idea for working within the current game structure- a new type of extended scenario could be developed that adds a paused phase for a "night turn", then a "day turn"- when in reality it is one long scenario with the same time frame as individual ones (or truncated). Pair this with triggers and we are able to deal with a lot of the AI oddities that come with a moving front line.

[Battlefront.com]

Elmar,

This thread has the capacity to make me unhappy.

Every time we get into this discussion, someone is unhappy. The reasons are as I have stated time and time again... it is impossible, and I mean absolutely impossible, for us to please all customers all the time in general, but ESPECIALLY for campaign systems. I've already detailed why, but it's ignored because no single person wants to be the one that isn't being catered to hand and foot.

"It's all about me, me, and only me" is an understandable position for a customer to take, but that's not something we can work with as designers.

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.

Can you acknowledge that there are other people who said exactly the same thing about Operations? Because they most definitely did. So who are we to listen to? You or the other person? From your perspective I'm sure you want us to listen to you. And if we felt you were in the larger group, we no doubt would. But that's not the way we see it so unfortunately for you, Operations as they once were in CMx1 (not to mention what people wanted them to be) are not on our ToDo List.

What we are planning on doing is introducing some elements which would allow someone to mimic an Operation.

You can argue the point all you want, but I cannot be made to love this sterile excuse for a campaign.

I would never tell someone that they are wrong to love one system and not another. It would be nice if you could extend the same courtesy to your fellow gamers.

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.

Sure, change always comes with the downside of some not wanting to make the transition. This is unfortunate, but it's not something we can avoid. As long as we make a game that is as popular or more popular than the last one, we're fine with losing customers. We lose customers all the time for tons of reasons (outdated computers, new baby, changing interests, death, etc.) so we have to keep things in perspective. If we lose you as a customer, I personally would miss you... but I wouldn't do anything anything differently from a business standpoint to keep you specifically.

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.

If we gave you everything you have ever asked for you would ask for more. You're a wargamer, we'd be an absolute bunch of fools to expect anything else

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.

Random maps will be back in at some point in the very near future, which will result in maps far superior to CMx1. Conceptually we're all in favor of putting it in ASAP, but we can only do so much at one time. We decided to focus on QBs for Normandy and we believe the result will be better than CMx1 and absolutely better than CM:SF. So that's not in the "tall grass" at all. The Campaign system now is working better for more people than Operations ever did, so while it will see steady improvements over time the basic nature will not change. Though, as I have said, we do plan on giving the campaign guys some more tools to mimic Operations very soon.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Not to completely beat the now zombified horse, but something akin to the older operations seems more tied to the tactical outlook than the current campaign structure. One location with a fairly contained set of forces seems like the right fit for CM.

Which is exactly what inspired the original Operations concept. I personally still think it's the better fit for CM, but after 10 years of hearing customer feedback we've got no doubts that you, Elmar, and I are in the minority. As a developer this is problem, especially when that feature is a very technically difficult one to maintain.

If persistent damage could be included at some point (thanks for considering it), it seems that the older style of operations could somehow be shoehorned into the current structure. I think that the passage of time could be simulated through some clever scenario building.

Yes, absolutely. At least it would get pretty close to what old Operations were like. Not as dynamic, but probably more satisfying in some ways because of the tighter control of parameters by a single designer.

Or, an idea for working within the current game structure- a new type of extended scenario could be developed that adds a paused phase for a "night turn", then a "day turn"- when in reality it is one long scenario with the same time frame as individual ones (or truncated). Pair this with triggers and we are able to deal with a lot of the AI oddities that come with a moving front line.

This would probably get us into a bunch of trouble given the blurring of lines. However, the existing campaign structure with persistent map damage could definitely simulate a battle at different times of day, weather, scope, etc.

Again, the current system is something we can build upon and improve over time. The old Ops system was a dead end even within CMx1. It might be that Ops fans, like you and Elmar, are just going to have to be patient (something wargamers aren't very good at ), but I am sure we'll soon have the ability to MOSTLY mimic Ops with the current system still doing what it needs to do for the larger chunk of our total audience.

Steve

[Wrath of Dagon]

but I am sure we'll soon have the ability to MOSTLY mimic Ops with the current system still doing what it needs to do for the larger chunk of our total audience.

Steve

That actually sounds really promising. Look forward to hearing more details on how it's going to work.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

People complained about the Operations because they got played a lot, and had a lot of issues. But people still played them. They liked them.

I cannot be persuaded that the group of people that liked the current campaigns is larger then the people that liked the Operations. You cannot be persuaded to the contrary. I think with that basis for discussion I'd do well not to discuss the current situation, it being as futile as it is aggravating.

One last thing .

Speaking of this amazing new l33t campaign system that's so awesome: when are you going to let me progress past Night Stalkers? It's been three years. Wouldn't happen to have a spare programmer for that, would you?

[MeatEtr]

People complained about the Operations because they got played a lot, and had a lot of issues. But people still played them. They liked them.

I cannot be persuaded that the group of people that liked the current campaigns is larger then the people that liked the Operations. You cannot be persuaded to the contrary.

This is exactly what my point was a few pages back. Not sure if it came across or not. So just gonna quote Elmar, thanks for sparing us the drama this time. Even the small amount of folks that responded in this thread backs this up.

Mark my words though, with the intro to WWII with the release of CMN, people are gonna want a much better campaign/Op. Since because the current system is much more passable with Modern era. I think we'll see this brought up a helluva lot more with the WWII setting than it was for CMSF.

[Battlefront.com]

People complained about the Operations because they got played a lot, and had a lot of issues. But people still played them. They liked them.

The people that liked them liked them. The rest told us to abandon the Operations system and go with a grander campaign system. Go back to the archives and see how many people demanded we stop fooling around with Ops and go with a Close Combat or Steel Panthers like system. You may be able to block this from your memory, since it doesn't help your case, but I can't because I'm looking at things objectively.

I cannot be persuaded that the group of people that liked the current campaigns is larger then the people that liked the Operations. You cannot be persuaded to the contrary. I think with that basis for discussion I'd do well not to discuss the current situation, it being as futile as it is aggravating.

Correct, it is futile to have a conversation with someone who isn't being objective. I understand that you don't care about anything or anybody else but yourself. You wouldn't be a wargamer if you did. But we have no such luxury and in the end we are the ones who succeed or suffer based on our decisions. When you make your own game and have your livelihood depending on your decisions, then we can talk on even footing.

Speaking of this amazing new l33t campaign system that's so awesome: when are you going to let me progress past Night Stalkers? It's been three years. Wouldn't happen to have a spare programmer for that, would you?

Hehe... you are quite an ornery Dutchman when you don't get your way, aren't you? I'm sure deep down you must realize how petty and immature you're being because I'm not telling you what you want to hear, but even if you aren't I really don't care either way. Snide comments never have, nor never will, influence our development decisions.

As for the Night Stalker problem, that should have been taken care of with the last patch or two. At least it should have been.

No system is perfect. No system is without its' possible points of failure. It's not something that we lose sleep over. If we did, we'd not have slept for the last 10 years.

Steve

[Boche]

Elmar Bijlsma : One last thing .

Speaking of this amazing new l33t campaign system that's so awesome: when are you going to let me progress past Night Stalkers? It's been three years. Wouldn't happen to have a spare programmer for that, would you

Seconded

[Battlefront.com]

This is exactly what my point was a few pages back. Not sure if it came across or not. So just gonna quote Elmar, thanks for sparing us the drama this time. Even the small amount of folks that responded in this thread backs this up.

No, I think people are tired of having this discussion. You Ops fans are fanatics and even I have a difficult time discussing things with you and I was the one that designed Ops in the first place. So in theory you should find nobody more sympathetic than me as far as valuing Ops. But as much as I did like them, and loved the concept, popular support simply was not there. And isn't here now.

Mark my words though, with the intro to WWII with the release of CMN, people are gonna want a much better campaign/Op. Since because the current system is much more passable with Modern era. I think we'll see this brought up a helluva lot more with the WWII setting than it was for CMSF.

I agree people will want more than we give them because that is ALWAYS the case. Definitely was with CMBO's Ops But an outpouring of people wanting to return to CMx1 style Ops? No, I don't think so. At least not as significant as the others wanting us to keep going in the direction we're already going.

We heard more complaints about Ops in the CMBO days than we have about the current campaign system in CMx2. And yet I would wager more people have played the CMx2 campaigns than ever played Ops. The system does a much better job than you Ops people give it credit for because it is counter productive to your line of argument. From our perspective, however, there's no question we have made the right decision for the right reasons.

Steve

[Jonny(FGM)]

Just my $0.02

I liked playing the old ops, despite their shortcomings, but i also like playing the campaigns, allbeit that most are too long to realisticly play H2H

I think the new campaign system was the right choice for the Modern Setting, add in persistent map damage (we already have a core forces file, perhaps a core map file would be a good way to go) and someway to calculate front lines when the same terrain is used twice, then we'd have a (near) perfect campaign system.

But hell, i've waited so god damn long for CM:N i'd be happy with just being able to play WW2 scenarios with the fantastic new engine : )

[Battlefront.com]

BTW... campaign fix posting from January. This was to fix the Afternoon Delight scoring problem:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90367&highlight=campaign

Night Stalkers, IIRC, was corrected back with v1.20 or v1.21.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Ah... found it:

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

Big discussion thread about campaigns from just about one year ago. The push in that particular thread was for a system that was neither CMx1 Ops nor CMx2, but rather the free form unscripted type I outlined earlier thread. In fact, I'd say that of all the systems THAT is the one most people theoretically want to have. But the resources needed to pull that off are simply astronomical and the payback will never make it worth it. And in the end a big chunk of the people pushing for such a campaign system would not like the sacrifices to the tactical system that would come along with it.

Close Combat got the closest, I think, but with each game they improved the campaign system it appears they lost customers because the tactical game system stagnated. And people still griped about the campaign system. Definitely a lesson that has not been lost on us.

Steve

[Wrath of Dagon]

Would it really be astronomical if you started out with a very simple version which could be build upon later?

[Chad Harrison]

Steve, I don't care, I really just don't care about what you think was wrong with operations.

Am I missing something here? The developers of a game made an internal decision with *their* game to put forward *their* best effort to improve *their* product. And you dont care what *they* think? You do realise that its *their* call right?

I absolutely agree that as the consumer of their game, we have every right to share our opinions and let them know what we like and dislike about their games. Having played BFC's CM for the past 10 years, I can gurantee that they not only listen, but actively put forth the effort to get in oft requested (and feasible) elements to their games. The return of the 'Blue Bar' being my personal favorite.

This is by no means a slight against you Elmar, its just irritates me when BFC has to spend their forum time defending their decisions, again, on the same subject, for the 100th time, instead of putting together the next Normandy Bone.

Maybe a nice bone is what this community needs to calm its nerves

Chad

[sfhand]

I am in the minority... I prefer pbem to all other forms of CM. From that perspective my experience of old style operations is pretty negative. Since one can't play the current campaign system against another person it, too, doesn't really pass muster. However...

As I wrote earlier in this thread, were we able to make larger maps I can see developing a scenario in such a way as it could be played like an old style operation in pbem. This could mean one side pushing it's way across a map only to be met by a larger force which then proceeds to push it back across the battlefield. Of course the players would need to follow the scenairo designers instructions, e.g. don't advance past phase line alpha until 1:05.

So, by adding to map size and length of turn it becomes possible for pbem players to enjoy the game to a much greater degree than they could the old style operations.

Not holding my breath on this...

[Battlefront.com]

Would it really be astronomical if you started out with a very simple version which could be build upon later?

That's what we are doing now. Spreading the development cost (which isn't just a $ issue, but a focus issue) over many releases is the only way to go. The thing that can't be changed over time is what ultimate goal we're hoping to achieve with the system. A "big picture" system is diametrically opposed to an Ops type system. As I've been saying consistently for years now, we are not going to direct our energies towards an Ops type system. That's been our position for about 10 years now and it's never going to change.

Again, what we can do is squeeze in SOME features that are dual purpose. They add value to the campaign system we are making, but yet also allow people to get some feeling of Ops back. The difference is one is deliberate and the other is a welcome side effect. Which gets me back to...

I think the new campaign system was the right choice for the Modern Setting, add in persistent map damage (we already have a core forces file, perhaps a core map file would be a good way to go) and someway to calculate front lines when the same terrain is used twice, then we'd have a (near) perfect campaign system.

The frontline calculation issue is the single biggest technical reason we dropped Ops. We will not likely go down that black hole again.

Am I missing something here? The developers of a game made an internal decision with *their* game to put forward *their* best effort to improve *their* product. And you dont care what *they* think? You do realise that its *their* call right?

He wants what he wants and doesn't like being told he can't have it. Not the most productive attitude to adopt, but it isn't all that unusual to see.

I absolutely agree that as the consumer of their game, we have every right to share our opinions and let them know what we like and dislike about their games. Having played BFC's CM for the past 10 years, I can gurantee that they not only listen, but actively put forth the effort to get in oft requested (and feasible) elements to their games. The return of the 'Blue Bar' being my personal favorite.

True. Which, unfortunately, does give people the idea that if they complain enough we will change our minds. While that is certainly a possibility, sometimes it is not. Diverting our energies to an Ops system is just as likely as doing a Meta Campaign system. Which is to say the chances are zero.

This is by no means a slight against you Elmar, its just irritates me when BFC has to spend their forum time defending their decisions, again, on the same subject, for the 100th time, instead of putting together the next Normandy Bone.

Yeah, there isn't much new being said here that hasn't been said before by Elmar, me, or anybody else. Well, except up until now I don't think you guys were aware that we decided to abandon Ops shortly after CMBO was released. If Ops were such the awesome success for us as Ops fans think, I don't see how we could have come to the conclusion they should be dropped when CMx1 was at the height of its usage (CMBB sold less than CMBO, CMAK sold less than CMAK).

Maybe a nice bone is what this community needs to calm its nerves

Heh... doubt it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I am in the minority... I prefer pbem to all other forms of CM. From that perspective my experience of old style operations is pretty negative. Since one can't play the current campaign system against another person it, too, doesn't really pass muster. However...

As I've said for years now... no matter what system we pick, someone isn't going to be happy with it. This is not an ideal situation for any of us to be in, but it is reality.

It would be like asking people "if you could only eat one type of national cuisine for the rest of your life, which would it be?". I highly doubt we'd find many people agreeing on even one type. And even then, it would fracture from there. "I vote for Chinese!". "Szechuan or Cantonese style?" "Why Szechyuan of course, it's the best!" "No, Cantonese is the best!". And so the debate would go on and on and on and on with people still coming in and saying "Chinese sucks, go with Mexican" and "Mexican sucks, go with Canadian!". To which MOST people would say "Canadians have a national cuisine?"

As I wrote earlier in this thread, were we able to make larger maps I can see developing a scenario in such a way as it could be played like an old style operation in pbem. This could mean one side pushing it's way across a map only to be met by a larger force which then proceeds to push it back across the battlefield. Of course the players would need to follow the scenairo designers instructions, e.g. don't advance past phase line alpha until 1:05.

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

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Am I missing something here? The developers of a game made an internal decision with *their* game to put forward *their* best effort to improve *their* product. And you dont care what *they* think? You do realise that its *their* call right?

What I was trying to get across was that I am dissatisfied with the current system and hearing the rationalization again will neither sway me or increase my enjoyment. It's their call because it's their game, sure.

[Chad Harrison]

What I was trying to get across was that I am dissatisfied with the current system and hearing the rationalization again will neither sway me or increase my enjoyment. It's their call because it's their game, sure.

Fair enough. The current system isnt perfect by any means, but I think it will really start to shine as time goes on.

[GonzoAttacker]

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?

[Chad Harrison]

Heh... doubt it.

Steve

You never know Steve. You could always try. Along those lines, I propose the following actions:

1. Announce the official title of the game.

2. Open the dedicated forums.

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

I wager that after doing so, all OP's supporters will generally feel better about life and be 95% less likely to post another thread asking for the return of ops.

Now, I understand that things are busy at BFC. So I would be happy to tackle Item #3 if you can handle #1 and #2. I know, I know, its a big thing for me to offer. But hey, I am in a giving mood, so I will do this one for you guys. I just need access to the Beta. So . . . .

I am standing by to proceed. Please advise.

Chad

[Battlefront.com]

What I was trying to get across was that I am dissatisfied with the current system and hearing the rationalization again will neither sway me or increase my enjoyment.

Believe me, I'm very well aware of this Just as hearing your rationalization again will not sway us either. We made our decision to move away from Operations for very sound, pragmatic, and objective reasons. You do not have to agree with them or like the results of it (i.e. no Operations), but you should be able to understand that someone will be made passionately unhappy no matter what we do. And that someone might just have to be you. There's no way around it with something like this.

It's their call because it's their game, sure

Ultimately you guys decide if we succeed or fail. Not any one individual, of course, but the customer base as a whole. Which is the major reason why we moved away from Ops and towards the campaign style CMx2 now has. We heard the complaints about the Operations style system, both from fans and detractors, and our decision to move away from it was based on that feedback. That discussion started in 2000 and was largely over by 2001.

The fact that Operations had some serious technical hurdles blocking improvement was a side factor. If we felt the majority support for Operations was there we would have figured out how to get around those hurdles. But the support for Operations was simply not there and so the technical problems were just another strike against it.

Steve

[akd]

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

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"/"touch" 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 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 other battle outcomes that the game already tracks as determinants of campaign branching.

Some of the better user-made campaigns already have the user choose to "fail" a mission so as to introduce more freedom and a feeling of tangible decision-making, in the form of something as simple as going either left or right at the next fork in the road (which is so much more satisfying than being sent to one map if you suffer a minor defeat or another map if you achieve a minor victory).