Campaigns - Single Player Only - Why?

[Capt Cliff]

Can anyone explain why campaigns are only for single player vs the AI?? In CMx1 we had operations which are great. As a matter of fact I only play PBEM games using operations. Am I missing something that the "operation" is part of the "battle" system, I checked and NO it's not! If the campaign is something new and not a replacement for CMx1 operations why have it only against the AI only?

The loss of the campaign/operation feature allowing multiple battle over the same area using PBEM is a serious flaw. If I had known this before I most likely would not have purchased the game.

[Sergei]

There's a thread about this from just a few hours back, why start a second one?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97814

[Wodin]

Should have tried the CMSF demo or the CMBN demo and read up on the game...or asked the question before purchase...

[Capt Cliff]

I just saw the thread and nice that you can build a camapign for PBEM.

Wodin, I did download the demo and there were so many un-selectable areas I assumed it had to do with the demo's limited access capability.

I also just noticed in the campaign section that you can't fight multiple battles over the same area. Like fighting for St. Maire Egliss. Any damage to the terrain, ko'd vehicles and the like are not saved from battle to battle!!?? Anyone else see this as a problem?

[Baneman]

Well, it's not really a problem. It's a nice-to-have, but programming resources being finite, BF obviously decided we couldn't have it yet.

[Capt Cliff]

Well, it's not really a problem. It's a nice-to-have, but programming resources being finite, BF obviously decided we couldn't have it yet.

Let's hope they patch it. CMAK didn't save ko'd vehicles at first, during ops. But they patched it.

[Schrullenhaft]

Yes, it is unfortunate that we cannot carry over damage and knock-outs from battle to battle. However I doubt that a "patch" to CMBN will offer that 'feature' in the future. It's possible that a future game/family will offer improvements that allow carrying over damage and knock-outs from battle to battle, but I don't know where in the "list" such a feature is in terms of future coding. I don't think anyone can give you an answer as to when that feature will be implemented.

If you find the lack of features put you off on purchasing the game, you should wait awhile or ask questions BEFORE purchasing the product. Many of these limitations existed in CMSF and are carried over to CMBN. Admittedly it is hard to figure out what questions to ask about features that do or don't exist in a game beforehand. However the manual is available online, so that can provide a starting point for questions. This particular issue is specifically mentioned in the manual.

[Capt Cliff]

Yes, it is unfortunate that we cannot carry over damage and knock-outs from battle to battle. However I doubt that a "patch" to CMBN will offer that 'feature' in the future. It's possible that a future game/family will offer improvements that allow carrying over damage and knock-outs from battle to battle, but I don't know where in the "list" such a feature is in terms of future coding. I don't think anyone can give you an answer as to when that feature will be implemented.

If you find the lack of features put you off on purchasing the game, you should wait awhile or ask questions BEFORE purchasing the product. Many of these limitations existed in CMSF and are carried over to CMBN. Admittedly it is hard to figure out what questions to ask about features that do or don't exist in a game beforehand. However the manual is available online, so that can provide a starting point for questions. This particular issue is specifically mentioned in the manual.

Thanks for the explaination. I assumed, badly, that CMBN was like CMAK but with the CMSF system. But it isn't. CMBN is more like CMSF than CMAK, too bad. The inablity to fight over and over again on a certain map is very restrictive. Something not done so much in modern (CMSF) battles but was done in WWII a lot. But then in Afghanistan there are villages that have been fought over a lot.

An yes it is in the manual, hand written or scribbled, that if you don't read the manual cover to back you could miss it. But reading a PDF file on the screen I have found to be a real pain.

Again thanks for the responce. I can only hope BF expands the games potential rather than rationalizing what is currently there as ... "the way it is".

[GDog]

What's the differnece between CM1 and CM2 that prevents multiplayer campaigns?

Here I am dreaming up campaign ideas to bring to life with the CM2 editor...CM1 looks so ugly now it's hard to go back!

[Sergei]

What's the differnece between CM1 and CM2 that prevents multiplayer campaigns?

That's an incorrect question, as two player campaigns are allowed. To quote myself from the other thread:

The campaign author designates if the campaign is playable by two players. But the issue is that, regardless of whether units are tracked or not, a campaign made for single player would likely be very lopsided as a two player game. It would need to be designed, or at least adjusted, for that kind of play so that both players have a fair chance of winning, and also that taking a beating in one battle doesn't totally ruin the game.

So it's possible, but the two player option is locked away for the default campaigns because they are heavily adjusted toward a single player experience and simply wouldn't work with two players. Also I think a two player campaign should be shorter in length and, if it's intended to be played in TCP/IP, having battalion size forces would be a bad form. That's my thoughts, anyway. You can offer your ideas for what a good two player campaign should be like, and maybe someone will create that?

[Runyan99]

Yes I'm looking forward to playing some user generated 2-player campaigns.

[Capt Cliff]

What's the differnece between CM1 and CM2 that prevents multiplayer campaigns?

Here I am dreaming up campaign ideas to bring to life with the CM2 editor...CM1 looks so ugly now it's hard to go back!

The big difference is you can't fight over the same battle map. All damage on the map will not be carried over from Battle 1 to Battle 2. So it does make it difficult to have battles for historical towns that recieved damage over time, historically.

Yes, you can create human vs human camapaigns ... but again you can't fight over the same battle area. Well you can but all buildings are healed up and all craters are gone.

[hoolaman]

So it's possible, but the two player option is locked away for the default campaigns because they are heavily adjusted toward a single player experience and simply wouldn't work with two players. Also I think a two player campaign should be shorter in length and, if it's intended to be played in TCP/IP, having battalion size forces would be a bad form. That's my thoughts, anyway. You can offer your ideas for what a good two player campaign should be like, and maybe someone will create that?

Yes even if the default disc campaigns were opened up to two players, you'd have to find a VERY understanding opponent who is willing to be the outnumbered static defenders over many many WEGO turns.

A two player campaign is a very interesting proposition but getting it right would be hard. I guess historically "maintaining balance" over a campaign was called a stalemate, and it is inevitable that gains in early battles will compound into a walkover in later battles. So its likely that many of the later missions will not even be played, and/or two distinct branches must be created depending on who gets the upper hand.

[winkelried]

So its likely that many of the later missions will not even be played, and/or two distinct branches must be created depending on who gets the upper hand.

This approach would be similar to the "old" reserves approach. So if one of the opponents gets pushed back too much, then regimental, divisional or even corps reserve could show up in this branch.

I currently work on a campaign where the fighting is around a single village for 3 days. To determine the level of destruction a battle leaves on the map i run some tests and then make a guess and "destroy" buildings in the editor for the next battle. Sure it's never the same building that gets blasted. But it's close enough.

What I learned to love already, is the AI. Real cool what you can the AI make to do. But as Murphy says: "There are never enough groups". ;-)

Two things I think could be added:

(1) A timing for the support targets (just as group targets have). In one battle I need a smoke screen after a intermediate target has been reached. would be nice to synchronize.

(2) Would it be possible to have an AI vs AI mode? Playtesting would reach a completely new level with this :-)

[GDog]

The big difference is you can't fight over the same battle map. All damage on the map will not be carried over from Battle 1 to Battle 2.

Next question is what is the difference between CM1 and CM2 that prevents this then?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Next question is what is the difference between CM1 and CM2 that prevents this then?

I'm not trying to be annoying, but that is the difference.

CMx1 and CMx2 are completely different game engines. CMx2 shares (if I understand correctly) approximately zero code with CMx1; everything needed to be built from the ground up. And my guess is, either something in the way that terrain or campaigns (or both) is handled makes it difficult/time consuming to code persistent terrain deformation in CMx2. Probably the only person who really knows is Charles.

[C'Rogers]

From what I remember, BFC believed that very few people ever played the Operations style of gameplay. Some did, and some were fanatical about it, but they figured they would get more worth out of the campaign style they put in. It was nothing against operations (I think Steve even once said he was fond of them) there just wasn't the player base to justify it. Maybe one day they'll return.

[Capt Cliff]

Next question is what is the difference between CM1 and CM2 that prevents this then?

Beats me. Coding most likely. The ability to save the battle map condition. BF Teech Support added to this thread about this issue, on page 1.

[Sgt Joch]

From what I remember' date=' BFC believed that very few people ever played the Operations style of gameplay. Some did, and some were fanatical about it, but they figured they would get more worth out of the campaign style they put in. It was nothing against operations (I think Steve even once said he was fond of them) there just wasn't the player base to justify it. Maybe one day they'll return.[/quote']

IIRC the decision to drop CMx1 Operations and move to CMx2 Campaigns was based on complaints from players about how Operations worked, but someone would have to dig out the old threads to see BFCs rationale. Personally, I liked Operations and played many by PBEM.

In theory, you can do more or less the same thing with Campaigns, by having a campaign on the same map, I seem to recall there were some short user made CMSF campaigns done that way.

The lack of persistent damage is an issue. It has been raised in the past, but probably won't be addressed until the scenario editor is revised, hopefully for the Bulge Game.

[Capt Cliff]

IIRC the decision to drop CMx1 Operations and move to CMx2 Campaigns was based on complaints from players about how Operations worked, but someone would have to dig out the old threads to see BFCs rationale. Personally, I liked Operations and played many by PBEM.

In theory, you can do more or less the same thing with Campaigns, by having a campaign on the same map, I seem to recall there were some short user made CMSF campaigns done that way.

The lack of persistent damage is an issue. It has been raised in the past, but probably won't be addressed until the scenario editor is revised, hopefully for the Bulge Game.

Thanks Sarge!! But the Bulge game is $110 down the road ... and in these economic times chances of people buying are getting chancier. IMHO.

[mjkerner]

I've always wondered about the problem with "saving" damage on maps. I wonder how difficult (it must be very difficult) it is to extract a map from a saved game saved file? Obviously, if that could be done, voila! I assume that a saved game file is hard coded such that we can't extract the map from one like we can extract textures from a brz file.

[Capt Cliff]

I've always wondered about the problem with "saving" damage on maps. I wonder how difficult (it must be very difficult) it is to extract a map from a saved game saved file? Obviously, if that could be done, voila! I assume that a saved game file is hard coded such that we can't extract the map from one like we can extract textures from a brz file.

The data has to be there it's a matter of extracting it and reapplying it to the battle map if that battle map is chosen again. Unless they out sourced the code to China and no one at BF can read it now, no just funning.