Campaign System

[Easymeat]

What does the CM community want from a campaign system? I was thinking along the lines of consequences. That is what happened earlier in the campaign affects how the campaign develops.

We can get info out of CM, alter the data if needed and put the info back in CM. If this sort of thing is not needed then it is not needed.

It may be best to make a list of what is wanted from a campaign system.

It could be linked battles or a series of battles which are generated randomly.

You could have a master map, units move around, come into contact with the enemy and a battle is generated and fought.

The computer does the bookkeeeping, tourney master has more time for other things, the players make a few choices and fight battles.

Lots of things are possible it is just a matter of specifications.

On a different point, a player created a CMBB database and posted it on Battlefront forum, these programs could update the database automatically. That is another use for these programs not just for a campaign system.

To put things in perspective, the smallest battle a player is willing to fight would be a couple of units on a small map, up to about 200 units on large map (Monty's Gambit, NP2 Blut). Anything larger in CM would be tedious.

So, the specifications, what is to be include and what is not?

Or it could be left for a few more months. Does CM have the potential or not?

[Easymeat]

I am thinking along the lines of containers which could be grouped together how the players see fit. So each side could have x number of containers grouped into differnet forces, recon, attack, defend. For example a platoon of panthers would be a container. The container could lose a unit but never exceed its initial number. So the panther container could be involved in a battle and lose 2 tanks. These tanks could be replaced depending upon the campaign rules and supply model used (don't have to be complex just a little realistic).

So for example you could have 20 panther containers, each container representing a platoon of panthers. If a battle occured on the master map, and 6 panther containers are involved as well as any other containers (infantry, artillery, aircraft etc) a battle would be created. The program would start CM, create a new battle, send the oob data for both sides to CM, number of turns, weather conditions etc, and a map. The map could be random or player chosen. Personally I think a few maps should be patched together to represent the the master map. After the battle the containers on the master map would be updated.

Is this what you have in mind? If you leave out stonkin graphics and the AI then a program could be written to do all of the above. I see it as bookkeeping and some rules on how the units move and interact on the master map.

Essentially the campaign system would never be finished as it could be added to every now and again.

[Mad Russian]

I am thinking along the lines of containers which could be grouped together how the players see fit. So each side could have x number of containers grouped into differnet forces, recon, attack, defend. For example a platoon of panthers would be a container. The container could lose a unit but never exceed its initial number. So the panther container could be involved in a battle and lose 2 tanks. These tanks could be replaced depending upon the campaign rules and supply model used (don't have to be complex just a little realistic).

So for example you could have 20 panther containers, each container representing a platoon of panthers. If a battle occured on the master map, and 6 panther containers are involved as well as any other containers (infantry, artillery, aircraft etc) a battle would be created. The program would start CM, create a new battle, send the oob data for both sides to CM, number of turns, weather conditions etc, and a map. The map could be random or player chosen. Personally I think a few maps should be patched together to represent the the master map. After the battle the containers on the master map would be updated.

Is this what you have in mind? If you leave out stonkin graphics and the AI then a program could be written to do all of the above. I see it as bookkeeping and some rules on how the units move and interact on the master map.

Essentially the campaign system would never be finished as it could be added to every now and again.

That is exactly what we were trying to do in exactly the same way.

Take a step up though. The generation of the battles was done by Bootie and I against each other. Since the premise is to win the campaign and not generate CM battles the higher level commanders try to overwhelm the defenders. This does not make for balanced battles very often.

Hence the issue of gamers playing a few turns and retreating from the combat so as not to take losses that affect later combats.

This lead to only one real combat out of 6. Not a good ratio.

Good Hunting.

MR

[McIvan]

The campaign would, I think, work best if there are territorial objectives that win or lose the campaign on points.....like flags, but applied to the campaign. You could also rule that encircled troops are subject to heavy attrition every phase, giving a definite incentive to conduct envelopments even if it wasn't a formal objective as such.

This would soon put an end to retreating in the face of heavy odds....sure you could do that, but it would become a strategic decision to be measured against the loss of ground in front of a deep lying territorial objective. Sooner or later....and I think you'd find it was sooner....the defender would stand its ground and then the real fun would begin.

[Mad Russian]

The campaign would, I think, work best if there are territorial objectives that win or lose the campaign on points.....like flags, but applied to the campaign. You could also rule that encircled troops are subject to heavy attrition every phase, giving a definite incentive to conduct envelopments even if it wasn't a formal objective as such.

This would soon put an end to retreating in the face of heavy odds....sure you could do that, but it would become a strategic decision to be measured against the loss of ground in front of a deep lying territorial objective. Sooner or later....and I think you'd find it was sooner....the defender would stand its ground and then the real fun would begin.

We have all that.

It does not put an end to retreating in the face of heavy odds. You going to sit and have your force destroyed when next turn you might be the one attacking at 5-1 odds? I didn't think so and neither is anyone else willing to do that either.

We played an entire round of this with those results and round 2 was shaping up to be another. You will get a battle that will be fought every so often but most of the time one side is so overwhelming that the battle is closed out as soon as possible.

At least that's what I've seen so far.

Good Hunting.

MR

[McIvan]

Aren't division/corp reserves going to even up the round two battles?

[Mad Russian]

Aren't division/corp reserves going to even up the round two battles?

As the attacker are you going to let that happen? Or are you still going to try attacking at 3-1 or greater?

The Generals, you know, those guys that tell everybody where to go and when to fight, are always going to try to stack the odds in their favor. If you start standing and fighting and losing units it will make it easier for them to do.

Good Hunting.

MR

[kineas]

Just an idea: play out the near-balanced battles, and have a well defined ruleset for automatically decide the unbalanced ones.

E.g. you declare this unit will suffer 50% casualties but manage to withdraw into safety.

If a player on that side says 'nah, that's too much I can do better' - then let them play the battle. The fun factor will be to achieve 40% as the new 'victory condition'.

[Easymeat]

That is the idea of this thread to get a discussion going and problems highlghted.

Writng a program to move counter on a board is easy. The game will need rules.

Another problem is time. What happens in the operational part of the campaign while a battle or battles are being fought.

If in the end a battle or operation is the best CM can do then so be it.

I think CM can offer a little more.

[Copper]

I think it would be better represented by giving commanders certain real war divisions that fought at a certain time in a certain area of the campaign. Those divisions would be managed by the QB generator in terms of whether one had certain nationalities, mechanized, infantry only or tank divisions, depending on the OOB of the division. This could then be broken down into battalion and regimental assets commanded by players.

The nature of war lends itself to inequality and very little balance with respect to how the ebb and flow of campaigns change.

There has to be a decision based on whether we want that kind of operationalization, or more of a domination type game where you should fight over squares based on fair generated QB's.

The immensity of the task of designing a scenario based campaign would break the backs of our entire CM development and design corps of volunteers.

I suggest that a commitee be established to work on this problem, create a framework based on criteria and objectives and then move forward introducing it to designers who can give feedback.

Perhaps a section somewhere devoted to this so that committee members can work and share ideas.

If there is enough interest and demand, then we may even think about looking for capital from volunteers to support it.

Cheers!

Leto