Will Operations make a return?

[YankeeDog]

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.

Well, if it's not enough for you, then why are you still here? Not trying to be snippy here and I certainly don't dispute your "right" to participate in the forum and say what you want about the games. I'm just not sure why you keep eating at this restaurant if you don't like the way the chef prepares the food... Personally, I'm pretty amazed by the depth of the combat simulation in CMx2, and haven't regretted my purchases in the slightest. Is there more I would like to see? Sure. But there's always more and what's on the table right now is keeping me happy.

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

I don't think the current campaign structure is "unwieldly" so much as it is very basic. If you win a scenario, you move on to battle A. If you lose, you move on to Battle B. There's very little else to it. It tracks "core force" casualties.... can't think of much else. For what it is, it works fine. But it's very basic and I assume they didn't spend much coding time on it. So I really hope there weren't many "delays on account of the current unwieldy campaign structure." There shouldn't have been.

Granted, everything takes *some* coding time, and even simple features have to be debugged, etc. But the current campaign system is basically just an automated flowchart. I'm not a programmer at all and I could build a concatenated spreadsheet in Excel right now that does what the current campaign system does.

This isn't a criticism; I'd rather have a simple system that works well for what it is, and has good future potential, than a hack attempt at something more complex that doesn't work very well, and is difficult to expand and improved in the future.

[panzermartin]

I cant forget the wow feel when I first realized in CMx1 operations that maps can roll as you advance and borders can shift, while terrain damage and KOed vehicles remained at the same spot as the sun rised for the next mission. The wow didnt last long due to the well known bugs.

I realize this is too much work to get right, but it has greater potential imo than the current linked system and blends better with the more detailed combat scale. I dont really find the CMx2 combat scale combatible with a system as large as a campaign. But if we had something like eg battle for Carentan, where you could fight individual smaller actions here and there on big scrolling map in a week's time, this scale would be perfect.

[gibsonm]

I cant forget the wow feel when I first realized in CMx1 operations that maps can roll as you advance and borders can shift, while terrain damage and KOed vehicles remained at the same spot as the sun rised for the next mission.

Well that’s unlikely to happen when the maps are only what 2km x 2km is it?

Or is your idea of “rolling” moving into the house across the street?

[panzermartin]

2x2 is the max playable area. I dont see why this will restrict larger operational maps *in the future*. CMx2 engine is made to be flexible and evolve with each release, isnt it?

[MeatEtr]

I cant forget the wow feel when I first realized in CMx1 operations that maps can roll as you advance and borders can shift, while terrain damage and KOed vehicles remained at the same spot as the sun rised for the next mission. The wow didnt last long due to the well known bugs.

Most probably share those WOW moments and many more, I know I do. Which is exactly why it should of never been thrown out like garbage. It's like playing a videogame in beta stage and saying "Oh this sucks, stop making it now!".

YankeeDog, there already was a great foundation made over a decade ago. The CMx1 Ops were never worked on again after CMBO.

[gibsonm]

2x2 is the max playable area. I dont see why this will restrict larger operational maps *in the future*. CMx2 engine is made to be flexible and evolve with each release, isnt it?

Well it hasn’t changed that much in the last 4 years.

Certainly if you buy a “state of the art” machine today you might be able to play much larger maps but the scenario designer can’t assume that every user “out there” has just bought a “mid 2011” machine.

Same reason why things like “To the Volga” weren’t repeated (too much feedback from people with machines that couldn’t run it).

Sure in 10 years time who knows but of course if they make the terrain grid finer still then the overhead goes up exponentially so you might end up still with maps no bigger than 2km x 2km but very detailed ones.

[Erwin]

"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."

This is a very valid point and from a biz POV of course it makes most sense.

However, from a player POV I just don't buy the argument that "only a few people liked it." There must be just as many opinionated and vociferous folks over at BoB, and over the 10 years we've been playing CM1 I do not recall any problems mentioned re the CM1 Operation system.

If it's not working from a financial/biz pov, then fine. But, plz don't say that no one wanted it, cos of a "few" loud complainers here.

[gibsonm]

There must be just as many opinionated and vociferous folks over at BoB ...

The same BoB that refused to have anything to do with CM:SF and AIUI (because I left there in 2008 as a result of that closed door policy) is now interested again because the Second World War is again the timeframe?

If “yes” then there certainly are “many opinionated and vociferous folks over at BoB“.

And I’m not sure how valid it is to use them as a test case since they refused to even consider the newer Campaign model. IMHO, you should at least try the alternative before rejecting it.

[Erwin]

"you should at least try the alternative before rejecting it."

Yes, of course I agree...

However, my point was that BoB folks have never been shy about loudly complaining about stuff, and the Operations feature in CM1 was never one of the BoB issues. I would say that most thought the Operations feature to be great - just look at the number of CM1 Operations that were created in 10 years compared to the Campaigns created for CMSF in 3 years (or however long its been out).

If it's technically or financially not viable, well that is that... But, from the posts above I would say that there are as many of us who enjoyed that feature and would have liked to have seen in in CM2 as there are detractors.

[gibsonm]

If it's technically or financially not viable, well that is that... But, from the posts above I would say that there are as many of us who enjoyed that feature and would have liked to have seen in in CM2 as the detractors.

Well even if you just made a blanket assumption that all 34 posts above were “pro” and they must certainly aren’t, I’m not sure what percent 34 makes out of BFCs customer base (For BGFCs financial future I hope not very high at all).

If you had hundreds posting here about “we want operations back” it might carry more weight about their alleged popularity (or not).

But that just gets you back to the validity of “polls” on sites like this.

None of which really matters because just like the “penetration table“ saga, BFC have made a decision and its time to move on.

[Erwin]

Excuse me, but from the posts in these forums by the same two or three dozen folks, it's hard to see who is the "customer base."

I thought the customer base and financial springboard to all else was similar to the base that loved CMBO and all the features it introduced into gaming.

Are you claiming that you now represent the customer base, Major? And what do you consider that base comprises of? Am just curious.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Well, if it's not enough for you, then why are you still here? Not trying to be snippy here and I certainly don't dispute your "right" to participate in the forum and say what you want about the games. I'm just not sure why you keep eating at this restaurant if you don't like the way the chef prepares the food... Personally, I'm pretty amazed by the depth of the combat simulation in CMx2, and haven't regretted my purchases in the slightest. Is there more I would like to see? Sure. But there's always more and what's on the table right now is keeping me happy.

I'm currently still here because I too dig the depth of the combat simulation. It's the rest of the game I'm not enamoured with. Hence I continue to voice my hopes that this area will be improved and hence I voice my dissatisfaction with the current pace of progress.

But yeah, since you ask, if BFC continue with this slow pace in this regard I'll not be their customer for very much longer.

I don't think the current campaign structure is "unwieldly" so much as it is very basic. If you win a scenario, you move on to battle A. If you lose, you move on to Battle B. There's very little else to it. It tracks "core force" casualties.... can't think of much else. For what it is, it works fine. But it's very basic and I assume they didn't spend much coding time on it. So I really hope there weren't many "delays on account of the current unwieldy campaign structure." There shouldn't have been.

My point is more in the making of the campaign instead of it's coding. Steve's objection to the operations focus on that it takes too much time to code to get right. But the great effort getting the campaign out the door causes great delays.

The clear advantages of campaigns aren't that clear to me.

[gibsonm]

Excuse me, but from the posts in these forums by the same two or three dozen folks, it's hard to see who is the "customer base."

Agreed.

Are you claiming that you now represent the customer base, Major? And what do you consider that base comprises of? Am just curious.

No.

I’m just saying that comment like this:

But, from the posts above I would say that there are as many of us who enjoyed that feature and would have liked to have seen in in CM2 as there are detractors.

Really means:

Of the 35 posts (less multiple posts by the same person, less posts against the idea) is a fairly optimistic definition of “many of us”.

Especially if say a few thousand people bought the game.

But again its not my call, and the people whose call it is have made it.

[BFCElvis]

I'm coming to this thread very late and forgive me if this has already been brought up.....

I am someone who loved the CMx1 style operations but have no idea how they would work with the CMx1 engine even if BFC were inclined to do it. The strategic AI is completely different in the 2 engines. The flexability system in CMx2 that gives more varied experiences during solo play wouldn't. Work with a system that moved a map and front line from battle to battle. Without scripting the CMx2 AI would simply sit in place doing nothing when the game began. Head to head would be OK I suppose but then you're really narrowing the amount of interested player, in my opinion.

[Erwin]

"Of the 35 posts (less multiple posts by the same person, less posts against the idea) is a fairly optimistic definition of “many of us”."

Of course... IF this is the only forum you frequent...

Do you frequent BoB and anyn other fan sites, or is this the whole bubble?

I agree that you can't make a projection to anything from a couple dozen people, but that argument cuts both ways.

[gibsonm]

Do you frequent BoB and anyn other fan sites, or is this the whole bubble?

No as I said above not since about 2008 (or perhaps a little earlier).

Spending 4+ hrs a day "here" (this and the Beta forum) is already enough of a comittment to an unpaid "spare time" activity.

I agree that you can't make a projection to anything from a couple dozen people, but that argument cuts both ways.

Sure, but I'm not making the agrument that "its not popular".

I'm stating the fact that BFC has made their decision and unfortuantely its not in your favour - I'm not pushing a "yes" or "no" barrow.

[Battlefront.com]

But yeah, since you ask, if BFC continue with this slow pace in this regard I'll not be their customer for very much longer.

That's your choice, of course. As we have said from the beginning, we can not be all things to all people all the time. If you can't accept that, then you start packing your bags now or someone else should, because clearly we are not going to start pleasing everybody and therefore SOMEONE is going to have to go if they feel strongly about something they aren't going to get.

My point is more in the making of the campaign instead of it's coding. Steve's objection to the operations focus on that it takes too much time to code to get right.

I'm honestly baffled by how you could think this. You've participated in many of the previous campaign discussions and this is one of the LEAST important points I've made. The most important point is this:

The VAST majority of our customers did not play Operations and wanted multi-battle Campaign system put in its place. Of the people who played Operations, I don't know of a single one of them that was entirely satisfied with the system as it was. Oh sure, the rose colored glasses came on pretty quickly after we dispensed with Operations, but that record is in the Archives for all to see. Rose colored glass do not change the meaning of black and white text.

But the great effort getting the campaign out the door causes great delays.

The campaigns don't delay release. Fixing bugs, adding features, getting in final artwork, etc. is what determines the pace of development. If the campaigns were done today we still wouldn't be releasing tomorrow.

The clear advantages of campaigns aren't that clear to me.

They don't need to be. The advantages need to be clear to us, and they are. Even though the current system definitely should be improved over time, the level of complaint and dissatisfaction expressed about the current system is not on the same order of magnitude as the old Operations. And it was easier for us to code and it has the capability of being a solid base for future enhancements. We're quite happy with that.

Steve

P.S. As a reminder to new viewers... I came up with the Operations concept. I fought against the guys who wanted more traditional Campaigns. There was no stronger advocate for Ops than me, but I'm not blind to reality.

[Battlefront.com]

However, from a player POV I just don't buy the argument that "only a few people liked it." There must be just as many opinionated and vociferous folks over at BoB, and over the 10 years we've been playing CM1 I do not recall any problems mentioned re the CM1 Operation system.

Well, your recollection isn't very good

Just go back and look at the more recent discussions like this. Enevitably the pro-Ops guys say "Ops rocked! I don't understand why you dropped them! Nobody complained about them!! You should have done them again!! But you shouldn't do it like you did before because it was broken and very frustrating to play".

I'm serious, this is almost word for word what people have said.

Operations had a lot of potential to please a segment of our total audience. But that segment was not larger than the "Campaign" lobby and was beset with complaints about the execution of Operations.

When it's clear we can not please more than a minority of players, it is better to shoot for the largest chunk and do the best we can to make that chunk happy. Going for the Operations crowd was a non-starter because it was small and the technical needs extremely high.

Obviously you can disagree with our methodology of determining this balance, but I must point out that your methodology is worse. Both are, to some degree, anecdotal... but you have a bias towards seeing what you want to see, sales and support are not an issue. This isn't so for us.

We can not afford to have blinders on. I loved the theory of Operations, but what I think of them is not relevant. We have to bow to what I think our customers, as a group, want. And if we get it wrong, as we did with the CM:SF QB system, we're not afraid to admit it. In the case of Campaigns, we got it right. Not perfect, but right direction for sure.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I can't say this any more strongly than as follows:

Operations, with a moving front line, will *NEVER* be in CMx2. We have absolutely no plans, nor desire, to put it in at all, ever. Never, ever, ever.

We don't care what people think about how we have come to the conclusion that we'll never do Operations like CMx1 ever again. It doesn't matter because you're not the ones that have to make these sorts of decisions. Nor do you have to live with the consequences.

As I said above, we don't always get things right. The QB system in CM:SF was a flop. We listened too hard to the hardcore QB player, took their complaints too seriously, and inadvertently developed a system for a group of QB players that simply didn't exist. We acknowledged this mistake early and pledged to make a better system. Which we have done.

Notice that this is not the case with Campaigns. The majority of complaints about the current Campaign system are that it is too "basic", not that it's inherently the wrong direction. The calls for action are calls for improvement, not calls for abandonment. Except for a minority of Operations guys and the dreaded "Strategic Layer" camp. These two groups are diametrically opposed, but have a huge resource investment as a common need. So we must ignore calls for Strategic Layers as much as we do Operations. We are intent on having a viable and thriving business for another 12 years, and building upon our current Campaign system is compatible with that goal, while pouring resources into minority supported systems is not.

Again, you are free to disagree with this. You are also free to start up your own wargame company and prove us wrong. I know many of you will continue to disagree, just as I know none of you will put your money where your mouth is.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

On that note, I'd like to create a brand new faction out of this whole Op/Campaign can of worms. I'd like to call it:

"CMx2 Campaigns made a CMx1 Op lover out of me!"

This will be our tagline, also can be used for bumper stickers and T-shirts.

(Disclaimer: Technically this faction has existed since CMSF shipped in 2007. But our numbers will grow as more returning CMx1 players are exposed to the new campaigns.)

[Elmar Bijlsma]

That's your choice, of course. As we have said from the beginning, we can not be all things to all people all the time. If you can't accept that, then you start packing your bags now or someone else should, because clearly we are not going to start pleasing everybody and therefore SOMEONE is going to have to go if they feel strongly about something they aren't going to get.

lolwut?

Keep that attitude up and kicking me off the forum is not a very great threat at all.

[noxnoctum]

I can't say this any more strongly than as follows:

Operations, with a moving front line, will *NEVER* be in CMx2. We have absolutely no plans, nor desire, to put it in at all, ever. Never, ever, ever.

We don't care what people think about how we have come to the conclusion that we'll never do Operations like CMx1 ever again. It doesn't matter because you're not the ones that have to make these sorts of decisions. Nor do you have to live with the consequences.

As I said above, we don't always get things right. The QB system in CM:SF was a flop. We listened too hard to the hardcore QB player, took their complaints too seriously, and inadvertently developed a system for a group of QB players that simply didn't exist. We acknowledged this mistake early and pledged to make a better system. Which we have done.

Notice that this is not the case with Campaigns. The majority of complaints about the current Campaign system are that it is too "basic", not that it's inherently the wrong direction. The calls for action are calls for improvement, not calls for abandonment. Except for a minority of Operations guys and the dreaded "Strategic Layer" camp. These two groups are diametrically opposed, but have a huge resource investment as a common need. So we must ignore calls for Strategic Layers as much as we do Operations. We are intent on having a viable and thriving business for another 12 years, and building upon our current Campaign system is compatible with that goal, while pouring resources into minority supported systems is not.

Again, you are free to disagree with this. You are also free to start up your own wargame company and prove us wrong. I know many of you will continue to disagree, just as I know none of you will put your money where your mouth is.

Steve

Just out of curiosity who were the players clamoring for a QB system that gives you completely random and often unbalanced unit arrangements after CMAK/CMBB?

[Catacol Highlander]

I'm very late into this thread as an avid player of cmbb and cmak... disappointed that operations will not be in, but nae bother: the game will still be great.

My question: will a 2 player campaign be possible, with units from both players developing through a sequence of battles and gaining experience etc? For people like me who never bother with the AI and only play human opponents that would be a very decent replacement for the old operations which were, indeed, flawed but actually worked rather well in a human on human extended contest.

[Berto]

I'm very late into this thread as an avid player of cmbb and cmak... disappointed that operations will not be in, but nae bother: the game will still be great.

My question: will a 2 player campaign be possible, with units from both players developing through a sequence of battles and gaining experience etc? For people like me who never bother with the AI and only play human opponents that would be a very decent replacement for the old operations which were, indeed, flawed but actually worked rather well in a human on human extended contest.

Yes, good question for Battlefront

We can play campaigns H2H in PBEM?

[gibsonm]

Just out of curiosity who were the players clamoring for a QB system that gives you completely random and often unbalanced unit arrangements after CMAK/CMBB?

I don’t think anyone did.

I think here he’s talking about the “cherry picking” Vs “must be a unit” type issue.

It was the implementation of the solution to that issue which generated re “adverse feedback”.