Anyone missing CMx1-style campaigns?

[Steiner14]

Whenever I play a campaign, I always miss real tactical considerations that go beyond the next two hours.
I'm wondering if others are missing the CMx1 style campaigns, where several battles were fought on the same map with evolving building destruction? 15 years later, an enhanced version of that system should not be impossible - it would offer tremendous possibilities.

A few thoughts, that compare the IMO tactically way superior static CMx1 campaign system to the current CMx2 system. Compared to the CMx1 system the current system is nothing more but a simple story-telling mechanism without tactical depth while a static campaign system potentially offers the highest tactical uncertainty, freedom and difficulty for the player:

Right now every campaign is more or less the same: the individual battles need to be balanced, because they are disconnected, while the core force is more or less for keeping the storyline together and adding to the balance in the one or the other way.

Contrary to this, the CMx1 system allows:

The player more or less receives a certain area (= the map) assigned and is responsible for holding or advancing on it and being responsible for all his forces.

The knowledge about the enemy could be absolutely zero, since there are several battles on the same map to find out what is going on. It could be up to the player to get a clear picture. Not in two hours but over one or even several "days" (battles):
Is enemy present at all? Are tanks present? Are ATGs present? Could I reach that hill or that position immediately?
If enemy is present, how strong is he? (this becomes even more interesting with the later discussed feature of reinforcements) Is he dug in? Can the goal be reached by a smashing quick advance or would it be suicide?
Instead of dreaming about an attack, will I be happy to hold the position for a few days until reinforcements arrive?

I'm also thinking about the tactical challenge how to realistically approach defenses, for example in front of important bridges, bridges that must be taken intact. Or parts of cities, that over the span of several battles could turn into dust.

Reinforcement model with the static CMx1 system:
Because there is time to fight a battle over several scenarios, there is no need for predetermined reinforcements arriving at certain times, at highly unrealistic timespans.
Reinforcements could be handled similar to artillery or air support - but arrival times would be realistic: a day, up to several days.

Additionally the ordering of reinforcements by the player could be combined with a price (the costs could be displayed to the player in equivalents of infantry platoons or tanks). It's then up to the player if he wants to "spend" these additional costs, of if he saves them.

The cost of these points could be made dependent on how quickly he needs the reinforcements (emergency/quick/when available).


Reduced design work:
One map per campaign would reduce the amount of work for the designers. Result: More campaigns, more tactically realistic content, with less efforts for the designers. Less time being spent on artificially balancing single battles.

I imagine instead of two campaigns that come with a game, there are five or ten campaigns! Varying from big attacks, to small platoon sized probes against a village, recon of a huge map, potential attacks, totally unexpected developments, things falling apart,...

If there are only two campaigns, and one capaign would be a totally unbalanced "things falling apart"-campaign, this would be not understood. But with a big variety of campaigns that would change totally.


The crown of the development would be the combination of both systems. A static battle that could switch, depending on several factors to a different location. But so far we don't even have static campaigns...

What do you guys think about the current campaign system VS a static system?

[Steiner14]

No response?
Does this mean everyone is happy not being able to play through the different phases of a battle?

[Toblakai]

No response?
Does this mean everyone is happy not being able to play through the different phases of a battle?

I want to answer you, so that you do not think that your thread will not be read
I am personally not interested in campaigns because I only play h2h and not against the AI.

[Steiner14]

CMx1 campaigns allowed h2h. I think that's a naturalness and another aspect why the CMx2 campaign system sucks.

[Bidermann]

Yes I do , had some great fun with 2 player campaigns

[Hedgehog]

Yes me to, I enjoyed the CMx1 Campaigns, sadly the new games CMx2 fall down badly on that one

[H1nd]

CMx1 campaign features would be nice addition to the cmx2 but If i can't have both I will have CMx2 because the ability to tell a longer story with multiple battlegrounds is in my opinion much more important. In a sense cmx2 is more true to the meaning of a word "campaign". But once again, having the features from cmx1 would be very nice indeed.

[Steiner14]

H1nd,
how can telling a story be more important than being able to simulate the different phases of battles?

The current system can not simulate realistic recon or the impact of it to plan a good or bad attack.
It can not simulate the impact of continued attacking/defending the same area.
It can not simulate the preservation of forces.
It can not simulate the wear and tear.
It can not simulate reinforcements and supply.
It can not simulate the impact of losing time and a digging in enemy.
It can not simulate the importance of the cover of the night for preparing positions or re-positioning.
It can not simulate the impact of drastic weather changes on a given situation.

The static system of CMx1 (ofcourse with the improvements of the CMx2 engine) would allow to simulate things like this:

The defender:
This is our MLR. It is your task to hold it. We don't know how strong the enemy is and what he is planning. Radio intercepts indicate that possibly something big is being planned.
Reinforcements for our division are on the way and are expected to arrive no sooner than in seven to ten days.


The attacker:
Your task will be to break through the enemy's defense and take village x and hill y which will allow us to close the street beween A and B. For this task you will be receiving rolling reinforcements for the next days.

Now, in most scenarios the setup is already telling half of the story. Which is logical, because only one single phase of the battle is portrayed and the recon has taken place already and everything is ready.

But a big static campaign could easily consist of 10 day and 9 night scenarios while the amount of work for the designer would probably not be much bigger than for a campaign with two scenarios now, because the tactical burden what, when and where to place units, which must take place at the beginning of every scenario now, and the necessity for the designer to deal with a map for each scenario, would be transferred as part of the tactical challenge to the player, respectively would be taken over by the engine, since everything would be taken over from the previous scenario.

Gameplay:
Instead that scenario designers waste most of their time on maps, and finding a setup and testing the balance, with static campaigns they could concentrate on modelling the course of the battle, the overall amount of forces and how they want them distributed over time for each side.

Receiving reinforcements would no longer be always a matter of minutes but of days and supply problems could be something the player must actively deal with, for example at night (supply trucks could offer some great possiblities to model that tactical problem, too).

After a night or during night scenarios the defending side even could receive a certain amount of additional foxholes or even trenches - therefore make the defender dig in over time.

The designer could make the weather change over days and the player experiencing what it means when everything turns into mud or snow.

And still enough possibilities to tell a story, but with a big advantage: it could be the story of a real battle.
The map's status, the buildings, the forces, their positions and status being saved and transferred over to the next scenario: therefore a better feeling for continuity should be the result compared with the "core force" concept and some storytelling to glue comepletely separate scenarios together.

[H1nd]

It is actually quite possible to build a campaign such as you describe in cmx2 as well. Only thing that is missing is the dynamic carry over of troop positions and battle damage. But technically one could design the campaign to take place over a single large map instead of chain of scenarios in different maps.

Example of recon in campaign can be seen in the stock german campaign of CM:BN where you will need to recon US frontline and the success will give you an advantage in the next mission where you will actually get to attack the place. I would love to see this more in current campaigns but the feature is there it is just not utilized.

You will have to take into consideration that the current system does allow branching campaigns so technically if the designer so wants, he can set say 3 different objectives and depending on the outcome (player manages to capture either 1,2,3 or zero obectives and all the permutations of the two and one out of three objectives taken) the campaign will branch into next scenario that reflects the players success or failure. Now ofc this is massive amount of effort but done in small enough pieces it could work in reasonable scale. Ofc it would be very nice and easy with the cmx1 way, I dont deny that and like i said, I would love to see it again. But to judge that the current engine cannot portray a drawn out battle with dynamic progress is wrong. It is simply not utilized, most likely because the majority of the players are happy with the new style linear (or slightly branching campaigns) but there is nothing stopping you or me from doing such a campaign.

Similarly your argument that the current system cannot represent changing weather and day and night conditions is plain wrong. It can. You can make a campaign with a scenario "defend the village untill nightfall" wich is followed by "we successfully defended the village, now guard it through the night against enemy suprise raids" or you lost and now you gotta take it under the cover of darkness etc etc etc.

The most important issue I think is that the game mechanics and most importantly the "human player factor" makes the combat in CM in general happen faster than it would in real life. THis is why we have scenarios where 12 hours battles are compressed to mere two hours. And remember that you can only affect the human player factor to very limited degree. (limited ammo comes to mind as one as well as very harsh penalties for casualties making the progress slower)

---

Come to think of it there is pretty much nothing on that list of yours that is not possible. You can ofc enlighten me but as far as i can think of it there is a way around to all of those points.

[Steiner14]

It is actually quite possible to build a campaign such as you describe in cmx2 as well. Only thing that is missing is the dynamic carry over of troop positions and battle damage.

This "only thing" is the main aspect of a real battle. Men are getting tired, if they cannot sleep. A building giving cover is being shot down. Units where they would be needed, are not there. And much more. All that can't be modelled, because the player's tactical input is eliminated at the next scenario.

Example of recon in campaign can be seen in the stock german campaign of CM:BN where you will need to recon US frontline and the success will give you an advantage in the next mission where you will actually get to attack the place. I would love to see this more in current campaigns but the feature is there it is just not utilized.

It can't model it, because in reality, the positions that are won, are becoming the base for the next action. But it takes time, they need to be supplied. Counterattack?

With the current system the scenario designer guesses what could have happened. That's not a substitute to what really happened.
There is not even a possibility to judge the tactical situation and transfer it over to the next battle. Everything is judged only by victory conditions.
The phases of a real battle are not developing along victory conditions and therefore cannot be judged by them.

You will have to take into consideration that the current system does allow branching campaigns so technically if the designer so wants, he can set say 3 different objectives and depending on the outcome (player manages to capture either 1,2,3 or zero obectives and all the permutations of the two and one out of three objectives taken) the campaign will branch into next scenario that reflects the players success or failure. Now ofc this is massive amount of effort but done in small enough pieces it could work in reasonable scale.

I know what you mean. If we put the huge amount of work aside, it still doesn't model the phases of a battle. It only can show, what the designer believes is the most probable outcome, judged by victory conditions. Even the placement of units is lost. Probably the most important tactical aspect.

But to judge that the current engine cannot portray a drawn out battle with dynamic progress is wrong. It is simply not utilized, most likely because the majority of the players are happy with the new style linear (or slightly branching campaigns) but there is nothing stopping you or me from doing such a campaign.

Model the following: this is your MLR. We know nothing about the enemy. Find out where he is, find a weak spot. If you have found a weak spot, move your units into their attack areas.
Organize regimental and divisional artillery and air support for X time.
The night before x time heavy rain sets in.
At x time it still rains and doesn't allow any support from above.
The tanks suddenly are placed in mud.
The enemy is digging in with every hour you wait. Expected to receive reinforcements soon.
What do you do?

All the tactical decisions during one phase of a battle, that are affecting the next phase, are impossible to model with the CMx2 system.
Additionally the CMx1 model would allow to build such a "campaign" with ease, because the designer mostly only needs to care about the conditions, while the players need to take care of the tactical problems - not the designer!
The designer just throws the tactical problem at the players and they must cope with them.
The labor for the designer was probably less than like building two scenarios, but the result could be a campaign with ten or twenty battles, dynamically evolving over time.

Similarly your argument that the current system cannot represent changing weather and day and night conditions is plain wrong. It can.

The key is not changing conditions. Everything can be changed from scenario to scenario with a story. The key is the impact of TACTICAL DECISIONS BY THE PLAYER, in a changing environment. And to model that the unit placement and sometimes their supply must be conserved and carried over to the next phase and may not be replaced by new scenarios.

Placing a tank at a certain spot, can decide if an attack the next day can be successfully denied.
Moving the HMG positions during night can decide if the barrage next day goes into empty foxholes.

And I think probably the biggest flaw of the CMx2 system is the following:
Only the DESIGNER decides, while he builds the campaign, what is tactically important in his opinion, NOT the players.
The two systems compare like guiding sheeples from A to B, compared with giving humans a task and decide the outcome after some time.

The most important issue I think is that the game mechanics and most importantly the "human player factor" makes the combat in CM in general happen faster than it would in real life.

This is the old story told on battlefront forums for many years now. It doesn't become true, if it is repeated all the time, to cover up or excuse the flawed CMx2 system, which is not suited to model the evolution of a battle.
The reason why things usually are playing so much faster, is that
1. Only a certain phase of a battle is portrayed, a culmination phase, while the preparation phase or the phase after the attack is excluded.
2. Because of this contraint players keep moving their units under fire most of the time. If players would use the hunt command then suddenly units would stop moving if enemy was present. The pace would change dramatically. But for using the hunt command, there often is not enough time. It doesn't educate the players torwards a tactical thinking that spans over two hours.

THis is why we have scenarios where 12 hours battles are compressed to mere two hours.

I'm sure we have 12 hour battles compressed into 2 hours, because there is no possibility to model the different phases of a battle.
It's not possible to stop the advance because units have low ammo and wait for supply during night.

What is the reason for time pressure? Balance. To make it not too easy for the attacker to have all the time. Why ist that? Because in reality the defender in the next phase would probably receive some kind of support.
And nobody says that campaigns must be huge. The CMx1 model would allow to spread single scenario battles, even tiny ones, into two or three phases. Instead of one 90 minute battle, it could consist of 30 minutes of recon during night, 10 minutes maneuver during night and 50 minutes of the main attack during the next day.
The huge difference: it is the player who must find a solution to the problem, the player places his units according to the information he gatehred, instead of the scenario designer guiding everything and already telling half the story by the setup and force composition.

At one hand the current system creates artificial time pressure where it can be unrealistic, while for other battle phases it could be too much time. Many important and interesting tactical phases cannot be modelled at all. Is it possible to get enough troops there, without being spotted?

To me it's obvious that the static CMx1 system would be the solution. But it would also expand the variety of battles tremendously, while it would make the design process for campaigns way, way easier and faster.