Will Operations make a return?

[gibsonm]

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?

There’s already an ongoing discussion about “experience” in the Campaign Generator thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94789

[Erik Springelkamp]

Forum users are a tiny, and generally not representative, part of the total customer base.

[Battlefront.com]

lolwut?

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

My point is simple. If Person A kicks up a fuss, pouts, is demanding, etc. about a particular feature, and Person B kicks up a fuss, pouts, demands, pleads, etc. about the same exact feature BUT in a completely different way... there is little chance of making both happy if the feature is of a significant scope (like Campaigns or QBs, for example). Especially when there are also Player B, C, D, and E also having their own calls for "pay attention to me or I'll leave" behavior. So if people like this, like you, are serious about their promise to leave if they don't get what they want (the rest be damned), then it's obvious that SOMEONE is going to leave unhappy. We can't do anything about that, so if you're the one that goes away that's your choice and we're not going to lose any sleep over it because it's not within our control to change.

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?

None... which is why I said we got it wrong. Obviously. But what inspired the failed CM:SF system? Two groups:

1. The player that said they didn't like QBs because they were way too flexible/gamey. They wanted more refined choices because they didn't want to try and build a force from scratch or fight against someone who had 15 Jeeps with MGs to Flag rush.

2. The hardcore QB player that would spend hours on this Forum arguing about this or that tank having this or that number of points more than this other thing which had less points than that... etc.

What we messed up in the process was the primary reason why the hardcore QB players played. They are a smaller % of our total audience, but we didn't find the right recipe for the larger % without alienating the guys who loved playing QBs as their primary means of play.

Considering all the things we had on our plate with CM:SF, in hindsight it probably would have been better to have not had a QB system at all than what we shipped. But the motivation for doing something other than what CMx1 had was, and is still, completely valid. We didn't misread our customer, we just didn't come up with the optimal solution. We think we've got that addressed with the new CM:BN system.

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.

Currently Campaigns can be 2 player if that's what is what the campaign desires, but obviously not with a Human as the second player. I don't think it would be that hard to add, however we have no immediate plans for doing so.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Forum users are a tiny, and generally not representative, part of the total customer base.

Yes, and that is a very important factor to keep in mind for everybody.

The problem is this forum is the primary place for interfacing with the customer. So we have to try and determine what type of player we're speaking to. It's not easy, but coupled with other data you guys don't have, we feel we do a very good job of it overall. The proof? We've outlasted nearly all other wargame companies, and countless other game companies. It's hard to imagine how we could have done this if we misread our customer base.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

We've outlasted nearly all other wargame companies, and countless other game companies. It's hard to imagine how we could have done this if we misread our customer base.

It's because we get that warm and fuzzy feeling whenever we think of you, Steve.

Michael

[Elmar Bijlsma]

My point is simple. If Person A kicks up a fuss, pouts, is demanding, etc. about a particular feature, and Person B kicks up a fuss, pouts, demands, pleads, etc. about the same exact feature BUT in a completely different way... there is little chance of making both happy if the feature is of a significant scope (like Campaigns or QBs, for example). Especially when there are also Player B, C, D, and E also having their own calls for "pay attention to me or I'll leave" behavior. So if people like this, like you, are serious about their promise to leave if they don't get what they want (the rest be damned), then it's obvious that SOMEONE is going to leave unhappy. We can't do anything about that, so if you're the one that goes away that's your choice and we're not going to lose any sleep over it because it's not within our control to change.

I was commenting on the part I had bolded which sure looks like a threat to ban me.

As for my "pay attention to me or I'll leave behaviour",

I voiced my dissatisfaction with a certain aspect of the game (and also my hope it will get better) and was challenged on why I was even here by YD. I answered that question as a reasonable person and it doesn't suit you or this discussion to try and twist it in to anything else.

[YankeeDog]

Hey, it's not like I haven't had my share of disagreements about BFC's design decisions. I still think they screwed the pooch with the way they changed small arms ammo loads and automatic weapons behavior in CMBB, and the way Artillery pricing and availability was done in QBs CMAK was broken, IMHO. The way air support ordnance is done in CMSF still leaves me scratching my head. And I've made my arguments about these and many other issues here on the forums. Unfortunately for me, BFC decided that they couldn't, or weren't willing to heed my calls of "fix or do sumfink!" in these areas. Anyone who would like to send me flowers or other messages of condolence, please do.

Spirited argument about game features and design is part of what these forums are for. But sooner or later, ya gotta move on... Steve & Co. don't see everything exactly the way I do and I've learned to live with this. It's their game and until I win the lottery and can hire BFC to make my own personal wargame, either I accept the aggregate whole as worth my playtime and $$, or I don't. Fortunately, for me, at least, the negative annoyances are far outweighed by the fun of the positives. Sorry for anyone that this isn't the case; I hope there's another game developer out there making something more for your tastes.

[Erwin]

"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."

I completely understand and agree with that, Steve.

And to paraphrase what Catacol said: "I am disappointed that operations, delays, and CM1-style charts will not be in, but the game will still be great."

But, we'll have to agree to disagree that "people just don't want this stuff."

I still play in numerous CM1 team campaigns etc. and even after 10+ years of serious play, I STILL need to refer to the charts. I have no idea what the stats are for a Matilda Mk whatever vs a Pz IIIG or a Pz IIIJ vs a Valentine Mk II vs a Valentine Mk IX or whatever. I could understand the vagueness for modern weapons systems due to classified issues and that there were relatively few different types of weapons systems in CM2, but WW2 is well documented.

It will be very interesting to see how new inexperienced gamers cope. We here all want BFC to remain successfully in business as you are unique in making the sort of quality games we in this niche market love.

And as YankeeDog said: "Spirited argument about game features and design is part of what these forums are for. But sooner or later, ya gotta move on..."

[Gromit]

Hey, I know... how about you guys doing something novel for a change and move on? This operations teeth-gnashing that happens everytime some long-lost poster brings it up and precipitates all you drum-beaters to pull your heads out of the sand and come calling has long since grown old... and become truly obnoxious.

Care to wonder why guys in this 'club' get snippy replies from the likes of BFC's beta testers and the majority of members like myself? Because we are beyond tired of hearing the hue and cry for a feature that according to the owners has no chance of returning to the series- along with all the other assorted teeth-gnashing issues we have been hearing about since 1999.

It might surprise some of you to learn that I find the feel that operations gave CM a great one, and would welcome their return. But it's not happening, period. So, I decided that this particular battle was lost and to put all that baggage in the attic and move on. These boards are strewn with the flotsam of ill-tempered and obsessive folks who can't seem to let issues drop. For them the glass is always half-empty because they aren't getting their way. Their attitude is what ends up making the rest of us crazy after over ten years of listening to this nonsense.

For the rest of us, there was a nice size bone Steve gave out concerning expansion of the existing campaigns. Heck, if some of the things said happen I think it will actually end up better than anything the old ops system was capable of representing. You know, every once in a while a person gets rewarded for having a little faith in someone. Charles managed to find a way to make trenches and other fortifications work within the confines of CMx2, maybe... just maybe he and Steve can refine the current campaigns and pull another rabbit out of their collective hats. But part of that "faith" in them is acknowledging that when they officially say something is no longer a viable course, then we as their customers need to move on with them instead of brow-beating BFC about what "could have been if only"...

As I said in my reply to the '09 Holiday Bones, Norman Style thread here, have a bit of respect. Along with some faith in BFC it will go a long way towards them achieving excellence with Combat Mission now and in the future.

[BFCElvis]

I was commenting on the part I had bolded which sure looks like a threat to ban me.

My point is simple. If Person A kicks up a fuss, pouts, is demanding, etc. about a particular feature, and Person B kicks up a fuss, pouts, demands, pleads, etc. about the same exact feature BUT in a completely different way... there is little chance of making both happy if the feature is of a significant scope (like Campaigns or QBs, for example). Especially when there are also Player B, C, D, and E also having their own calls for "pay attention to me or I'll leave" behavior. So if people like this, like you, are serious about their promise to leave if they don't get what they want (the rest be damned), then it's obvious that SOMEONE is going to leave unhappy. We can't do anything about that, so if you're the one that goes away that's your choice and we're not going to lose any sleep over it because it's not within our control to change.

Steve

You have misinterpreted what Steve said (even after he explained it). What he was saying was that they can't please everyone and if it is you that is pleased someone else will probably not be pleased and "pack their bags". Either way someone is packing up.

I can see how you might have read his original quote to mean something like "if you don't like it pack up your bags and get out and if not I'll get someone to pack them for you" but as he pointed out in the follow up quoted above that isn't what he said or meant.

[Barkhorn1x]

The OP stated; "Will Operations make a return?"

After 6 pages of blah, blah, blah the answer is an emphatic NO!!

End of story. Life is too short.

[Rocky Balboa]

The OP stated; "Will Operations make a return?"

After 6 pages of blah, blah, blah the answer is an emphatic NO!!

End of story. Life is too short.

I think it's safe to say that operations as they were designed in CMx1 will not make a return, however the very generic term Operation(s) can be made to apply to any multi-battle system that might be designed in the future.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You have misinterpreted what Steve said (even after he explained it). What he was saying was that they can't please everyone and if it is you that is pleased someone else will probably not be pleased and "pack their bags". Either way someone is packing up.

I can see how you might have read his original quote to mean something like "if you don't like it pack up your bags and get out and if not I'll get someone to pack them for you" but as he pointed out in the follow up quoted above that isn't what he said or meant.

Ah, I see it now. Right you are.

Sorry about the misunderstanding on that score, Steve.

[MeatEtr]

The OP stated; "Will Operations make a return?"

After 6 pages of blah, blah, blah the answer is an emphatic NO!!

End of story. Life is too short.

Right, which probably everybody in this thread already knew besides the OP.

Which is precisely why I asked this on the first page.

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

I don't think there was any response to it, unless I missed it.

[Catacol Highlander]

Currently Campaigns can be 2 player if that's what is what the campaign desires, but obviously not with a Human as the second player. I don't think it would be that hard to add, however we have no immediate plans for doing so.

Steve

Not sure I made myself clear - sorry. I mean can 2 players play against each other over a campaign style format where 1 acts as the guy driving his units forward gaining experience and "winning" battles, and the other plays the role of the spoiler trying to derail his campaign? In other words replace the computer AI in a single player campaign with a human player?

[scottie]

Probably not much point in asking due to NDRs, but here goes anyway:

1) How many Campaigns ship with CMBN ?

2) What additional features do Campaigns support over what was on offer in CMSF Campaigns ?

Thank you.

Scott

[dan/california]

I am %99 percent that their is both a German and an American campaign. There have been no major changes to the campaign system announced, that I am aware of. It has taken all they had just to get everything working in the main game for Normandy.

[gibsonm]

Probably not much point in asking due to NDRs, but here goes anyway:

1) How many Campaigns ship with CMBN ?

2) What additional features do Campaigns support over what was on offer in CMSF Campaigns ?

Thank you.

Scott

1. Yes one of each (US / German).

2. Water.

No, its not shipping yet.

[scottie]

No, its not shipping yet.

LOL

Thanks for the reply.

[Paulverisor64]

I was curious about what Operations even meant in terms of CM so I pulled out the CMBB manual and it described this as a series of maps that could move forward or back dependent on how well each side did in the skirmish. Reinforcements would include some disabled yet not destroyed equipment and personnel that broke but did not get killed.

I am not so certain in how Campaigns might compare to this. In my guess there would be a similarity in the fact that there would be a series of maps, but after that it would be for the most part different. I don't believe reinforcements would be determined by survivors of the previous confrontation. Once one map had been played the action would progress to the next map. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My take on this would be that it would be epic if the whole theatre of play would be dynamic; where the progress could be seen on the main battle map. Even though there might be independent maps the tactical and strategic aspects could be outstanding. I would think that this could be played out 2 vs 2 or even 3 vs 3. I am certain that something of this magnitude would be a huge logistical challenge but would be awesome to see in the next generation of Combat Mission games. I have to believe that there would be a very strong market for this.

[astano]

I am not so certain in how Campaigns might compare to this. In my guess there would be a similarity in the fact that there would be a series of maps, but after that it would be for the most part different. I don't believe reinforcements would be determined by survivors of the previous confrontation. Once one map had been played the action would progress to the next map. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right that in CMx2 campaigns there is a series of unconnected maps. However, troops DO carry over from one to the next. The campaign features a set of "core forces" that can carry over their casualty, fatigue, and ammunition statuses from one battle to the next.

The scripting of these campaigns can be fairly dynamic though. For example, a different set of results can cause your troops to be reinforced or resupplied or bring up an entirely new scenario - that is, if you win Battle A and Battle B you can get Battle C, or if you win Battle A and lose Battle B you get Battle D.

[Paulverisor64]

You are right that in CMx2 campaigns there is a series of unconnected maps. However, troops DO carry over from one to the next. The campaign features a set of "core forces" that can carry over their casualty, fatigue, and ammunition statuses from one battle to the next.

The scripting of these campaigns can be fairly dynamic though. For example, a different set of results can cause your troops to be reinforced or resupplied or bring up an entirely new scenario - that is, if you win Battle A and Battle B you can get Battle C, or if you win Battle A and lose Battle B you get Battle D.

I do like the different dynamic map outcomes that you speak of using the Campaigns. I also like the fact that your original troops DO carry over in the same state as from the previous battle map.

It sounds as if careful thought was put into how the entire theatre would unfold.

[Sixxkiller]

BFC has never been just about only trying to please the largest share of the customer base. A 4 letter word that comes to mind to prove my argument, CMSF, proves that.

And this is a non issue because at risk of me "violating" my NDA, there's not a single line of code to make Operations come back. None, zero, zip, nada.... but thats been stated repeatedly. And believe me I LOVED the Operation type games. It helped far more with the immersion factor for me, seeing as how I am one of those WoW type players as well. In a perfect world, this game would be part this and part Panzer General, but it is what it is, the Campaign system doesnt suck, and unfortunately we cant have it both ways.

And before you guys all up and leave, you may wanna play the game first. It kicks CMBO's ass in every way I can think of. EVERY WAY!

[gibsonm]

I was curious about what Operations even meant in terms of CM so I pulled out the CMBB manual and it described this as a series of maps that could move forward or back dependent on how well each side did in the skirmish. Reinforcements would include some disabled yet not destroyed equipment and personnel that broke but did not get killed.

In effect its one “large” map say 10 km deep and you move back and forth on that map depending on the outcome.

So in Battle 1 you might advance, in Battle 2 you might be pushed back (and in passing see the wrecks and damage from Battle 1).

I am not so certain in how Campaigns might compare to this. In my guess there would be a similarity in the fact that there would be a series of maps, but after that it would be for the most part different. I don't believe reinforcements would be determined by survivors of the previous confrontation. Once one map had been played the action would progress to the next map. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes a campaign on the other hand is a series of independent maps Battle 2 might be 50km away from Battle 1 and you’d normally not return to the ground of Battle 1 unless the designer set it up that way.

My take on this would be that it would be epic if the whole theatre of play would be dynamic; where the progress could be seen on the main battle map. Even though there might be independent maps the tactical and strategic aspects could be outstanding. I would think that this could be played out 2 vs 2 or even 3 vs 3. I am certain that something of this magnitude would be a huge logistical challenge but would be awesome to see in the next generation of Combat Mission games. I have to believe that there would be a very strong market for this.

Well there is no “main battle map” and forget about multi player (apart from inviting your friends around and they each take their turn in some sort of hotseat - Player 1 moves Coy A, Player 2 moves Coy B then presses “go” and then the Red team has their turn) for a while.