Will Operations make a return?

[Smeel]

First of all, I'm really looking forward to this game, it looks absolutely fantastic. I'm one of the younger player, so I made it later late to the "party", still playing through the cmx1 games.

I don't know if this has been answered before, but will Operations make a comeback in CM:BN? Having ordinary mission AND some operations in a campaign would be neat

[ChrisND]

Nope.

(added for ten character limit)

[Smeel]

That's too bad, are there any posts stating this? Haven't played the cmx2 campaign mode yet, but I'm sure it's a blast too!

[YankeeDog]

IIRC, Steve stated quite a while ago that CMx1-style Operations would not be making a return in CMx2 for the foreseeable future. Some searches for past posts of his should turn up the information.

Worth noting here that since CMx2 allows for significantly longer scenario time, and also has new features like ammo resupply, you can get some of the feel of the CMx1-style operations by constructing a very long scenario, with waves of reinforcements and resupply.

[panzermartin]

CMx2 would be ideal for CMx1 style operations. The new, finer engine begs to be played in smaller tactical battles over a moving map with shifitng borders and peristant terrain damage.

If they could combine this with the current scenario/campaing scripting it would be more than awesome.

[gibsonm]

Well they can’t / wont so it isn’t happening.

[MeatEtr]

IIRC, Steve has mentioned in the past that persistent map damage and vehicle wrecks will make it back in. When that actually will be is anyone's guess.

No redrawing of a frontline is planned at all. No rolling huge map to travel across. But this can be semi-simulated by the scenario designer by creating the end of the previous map onto the start of the next map.

I'd like to see Steve weigh in on this for an update or maybe to correct me if I'm wrong.

What are the next planned improvements for the campaign system and when can we expect them?

As it stands now, I consider the CMx1 Ops superior to CMx2 campaigns.

[YankeeDog]

It would be cool to eventually see some improvements to the campaign system and editor to create a more continuous feel between linked scenarios in a campaign.

Persistent map damage and vehicle wrecks would both be steps in the right direction.

Another good improvement would be to allow campaign designers to cut and paste a section of a map for one scenario into the next scenario of a campaign (with things linked so that damage and wrecks, as applicable, would also come along). This would effectively allow campaign designers to re-create the "rolling map" feel of CMx1 campaigns, and in fact would allow even more possibilities.

[gibsonm]

Well you can already do that - to a degree.

I’m currently part way though a series of linked battles using the one map (but the blue player fills different roles).

So in Mission 1 you are the “recon guy” and you are conducting the recce.

Mission 2 you are the Main Body guy and you get a brief from the “recon guy” and you link up with his forces (already on the map) as you advance, etc.

Buildings that I think will be damaged in Mission 1 will be edited for the map used in Mission 2 (similarly there will be BlueFOR and RedFOR vehicle wrecks, etc in Mission 2 based on where I think its most likely that they would happen in Mission 1).

etc.

But it needs to be a sizeable map not a postage stamp.

[panzermartin]

Gibsonm, that sounds like a great idea. I would love to see more "mini campaigns" played over portions of the same big map. 2-3 battles are enough...Honestly, no matter how well a campaign is designed, one can lose interest very fast when battles with no topographical continuity dont give you a sense of advance or connection with the events.

[Battlefront.com]

Definitely no return to a multiple battles on the same map with a dynamic moving "front line". That's not anything we're interested in trying to do as it is a development black hole.

Having persistent map damage, that can be carried forward to another map, is something we are quite interested in supporting. I don't know when that will happen. When it does happen it will allow campaign designers to have battles fought over the same terrain, and the results of each carry forward, but without a dynamically assigned front line.

Steve

[kulik]

What about the multiplayer feature? More players on the same side?

(Didn't wanted to start a new topic for it.)

[gibsonm]

Nope.

Not in the foreseeable future anyway.

[Erwin]

"Definitely no return to a multiple battles on the same map with a dynamic moving "front line". That's not anything we're interested in trying to do as it is a development black hole."

It seemed to work quite well in CM1. Just curious... why did it become a problem?

[akd]

Definitely no return to a multiple battles on the same map with a dynamic moving "front line". That's not anything we're interested in trying to do as it is a development black hole.

Having persistent map damage, that can be carried forward to another map, is something we are quite interested in supporting. I don't know when that will happen. When it does happen it will allow campaign designers to have battles fought over the same terrain, and the results of each carry forward, but without a dynamically assigned front line.

Steve

And as discussed before, going beyond the binary win/lose scenario progression formula would allow much more dynamic progression in a "one map" campaign (operation). Please allow objectives to trigger map progression.

[YankeeDog]

"Definitely no return to a multiple battles on the same map with a dynamic moving "front line". That's not anything we're interested in trying to do as it is a development black hole."

It seemed to work quite well in CM1. Just curious... why did it become a problem?

Really? I thought CMx1 operations were pretty seriously flawed. For starters, as the attacker, all you had to to do advance the "front line" was sneak one unit past one area of the defense, and this would advance the front line for the next battle. Made attacking pretty trivially easy.

I did play a few static (i.e., no moving front line) operations that played fairly well. But given a choice a static CMx1 operation and a longer scenario with ammo resupply, I'll take the latter every time.

[Erwin]

You are correct TankeeDog, it was possible to easily break the system - as in any game. But, it is just as easy to break the CMSF system as well.

Much of the discussion of sim vs game that we enjoy here, turns around the argument that one needs to act in a realistic manner in order to achieve realistic results. Many people here are very against treating CMSF as a game in which one can game the system. And that is fine. However, gaming the system certainly can be done in CM2 as well as in CM1.

So, the specific example you mentioned is not really an issue.

[Battlefront.com]

Erwin,

So, the specific example you mentioned is not really an issue.

You are in the minority

There are a lot of fairly recent discussions about this specific topic in the CM:SF Forum, not to mention in any of the three CMx1 Forums. Two facts can be easily gleaned from the hundreds of pages of commentary:

1. Most people did not like Operations at all. They wanted a system far closer to what we have in CMx1, but probably erring more on the PanzerGeneral side than we care to go towards.

2. Of the people who liked to play Operations, the most common reason for them to post was to complain about the frontline calculations. It wasn't just about "sim" to them, it was about having a result that seemed "unfair" from a game standpoint.

As I've said many, many times before... we could implement a half dozen completely different Campaign designs at the same time and we'd still have most people complaining about them and saying we should do something entirely different. There's just way too many methods for making campaigns, there's just way too much passion from people about their own particular chosen method.

It's foolish for us to try and please one of the smaller campaign factions with a system that is the most technologically difficult to implement. Especially when we know that segment won't be satisfied until we've made a system that we feel is practically impossible to make. Hence why we're not going in the direction of Operations in any purposeful way. If we happen to make the current Campaign system lend itself to Operation type battles somewhat, that's an unintended bonus.

AKD,

Yes, with persistent map damage we would have to make some other changes to really leverage that sort of behavior change.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

I think with the release of the new CMBN and influx of new players, old and new, the Campaign/Op topic will be brought up more often. Especially from the returning CMx1 players.

I still think, even more so CMBN post-launch, if there was a poll option for the forums we could show BF that most in fact do consider CMx1 Ops over the new CMx2 scenario-string-campaigns. Sure it was flawed, no debating that, but it had far more potential than the current CMx2 cam. Not that it matters now anyway, it's dead and buried.

I know I'm considered a passionate Op lover, but the funny thing is, and in all honesty, I'm not. It's the disappointment of the new CMx2 scenario-string-campaign that has made me one.

Like that old adage, you don't know what you got until it's gone.

[ChrisND]

I still think, even more so CMBN post-launch, if there was a poll option for the forums we could show BF that most in fact do consider CMx1 Ops over the new CMx2 scenario-string-campaigns. Sure it was flawed, no debating that, but it had far more potential than the current CMx2 cam. Not that it matters now anyway, it's dead and buried.

The campaign system can, with a few new features added somewhere down the line, depict battles that operations did. You cannot say vice versa about operations.

[YankeeDog]

The campaign system can, with a few new features added somewhere down the line, depict battles that operations did. You cannot say vice versa about operations.

Bingo. I think what's going on here is that for the last few years BFC has, for better or for worse, concentrated the basic combat engine of CMx2. As a result, they have had to compromise on the depth of some of the secondary features of the game, like the scenario editor, in-game unit data, flexibility in the campaign system, etc.

You can agree or disagree with this strategic decision, but the fact of the matter is that this is where we are. If you want more peripheral stuff like more features to the campaign system, in-game unit stat displays, etc., you have to live with less features in the basic combat engine. If Operations/more complex Campaigns is a "must have," what do you think should have been cut for now? Tank & vehicle re-crewing? On-map indirect fire, Weapons scrounging? Or wait x months longer for the release?

The relative simplicity of the current campaign system has nothing to do with the potential. Potentially, the Campaign system could easily do what the old Operation system did, do it better, and also do more. It's a better foundation. It's just that right now, all we have is the foundation.

I guess BFC could have tried to shoehorn the old Operation system into the new game. But this still would have taken substantial coding time (re-built from the ground up, remember?) And long-term, this would have been a dead end, as I really think it had reached the limit of its potential.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The campaign system can, with a few new features added somewhere down the line, depict battles that operations did. You cannot say vice versa about operations.

I don't see how you can make that assumption. If we are handing out fictional upgrades to the campaign systems then upgrading the old Operations to allow them to switch maps between battles isn't far fetched.

1. Most people did not like Operations at all.

*snorts derisively*

Is this the same majority that didn't like Cherry Picking QB?

If you were reading a lot of complaints, I reckon it's because it got played a fair deal and had its faults. I don't believe for a nano second that it was complained about because it wasn't wanted.

On the desirability of a more sophisticated campaign in general:

People love to upgrade things and improve their pixeltruppen. People like it so much that the MMOs are making money by the wheel barrow load. People the world over are grinding their little hearts out just to obtain that +1 boost to their strength stat. A +1 that only goes to make grinding that little bit easier.

I reckon that if BFC just tap in to that desire a little, they'd be improving their game a lot. Current campaigns just don't cater for people that want to care about their troops. The kill stats are a good first step towards giving a reason to care about the success or failure of my pixeltruppen. I hope they build on that.

[MeatEtr]

The campaign system can, with a few new features added somewhere down the line, depict battles that operations did. You cannot say vice versa about operations.

This is all hypothetical, so somewhat pointless. But do you honestly think adding scenario string cams to CMx1 would be more difficult than adding CMx1 Ops features to CMx2?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Bingo. I think what's going on here is that for the last few years BFC has, for better or for worse, concentrated the basic combat engine of CMx2. As a result, they have had to compromise on the depth of some of the secondary features of the game, like the scenario editor, in-game unit data, flexibility in the campaign system, etc.

Except we are now in 2011, more then seven years after the release of CMAK. And there are so very many features still missing, some seemingly never to return. There comes a point when that is just not good enough. I hope they can finally play catch-up now that Phillip Culliton is programming sidekick to Charles.

You can agree or disagree with this strategic decision, but the fact of the matter is that this is where we are. If you want more peripheral stuff like more features to the campaign system, in-game unit stat displays, etc., you have to live with less features in the basic combat engine. If Operations/more complex Campaigns is a "must have," what do you think should have been cut for now? Tank & vehicle re-crewing? On-map indirect fire, Weapons scrounging? Or wait x months longer for the release?

I see your "peripheral stuff" and raise you the delays on account of the current unwieldy campaign structure we have now.

[ChrisND]

This is all hypothetical, so somewhat pointless. But do you honestly think adding scenario string cams to CMx1 would be more difficult than adding CMx1 Ops features to CMx2?

It would change the scope of the feature. Wouldn't be much of an Operation in the original meaning anymore then, would it? It'd be the current Campaign system with persistent damage. The front line stuff would have been thrown out anyways because it didn't work well at all. If there's some massive difference beyond the front lines feature that I'm missing, please remind me (it has been a while since I played an Op, so maybe I am missing something here).