CM2 campaign proposal, BTS please read.

[SenorBeef]

I want to propose a user-created campaign system that would not require much work or endorsement from BTS, but would allow those wishing a campaign system to have what they want.

This evolved from ideas started on my QB generator (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019148) thread.

The mini-campaigns that are out there are currently are quite interesting, since you get a 'feel' for some of your men. But unfortunately, they're not implemented in a way where relative casualties and kills and such can affect them. The to&e always as they will be on the first, second, third, ect battle, not dynamic.

I'm thinking of a system wherein I (as a programmer) could team up with a good map designer to create a mini-campaign. They would, naturally, design the scenarios, historical forces, maps, ect.. while I would write a program that would keep track of unit kills, losses, accomplishments, ect, to keep track of their relative strength and their experience. And even supply situation.

Now, I've read that CM2 is going to allow more detailed AARs. This is great... one big feature everyone would like to see is the true (non-FOW blocked) kill lists of each unit after the game. With this, it would be relatively easy for BTS to write a quick function that would sequentially output the kill list of each unit to a text file, as well as the casualties and status (broken, ect, for fatigue reasons, perhaps).
My program would then be able to read this AAR text file and determine what units are to move up in experience, who needs rest, what units are disbanded to consolidate into new formations, ect, all automatically.

Additionally, a feature I requested for consideration was the ability to import a text format (of BTS' choosing) that would allow text files to be imported into the CM2 scenario designer units list. This way, my program could read the AAR files, interpret what units go up in experience, are disbanded, ect, and then create a new file that reflects this, which can, hopefully, be imported into the CM2 scenario editor, so that the next battle would reflect these changes automatically.

With the help of a good map designer, or several, mini-campaigns could be designed that would create a campaign-setting to CM that would be completely unsupported by BTS. It would simply be an add-on utility for those interested - no promises from BTS, and no 'caving in' to their idea not to have 'core units' and such. The work on their part would simply be to allow detailed data to be outputted to text files.

The fact that cm textures are modifiable has been one of the great assets to the game. Much free work has been done to improve the graphical environment of the game. All for free, from the talented CM fanbase that do it just for the love of the game. I propose the next form of user-based improvement of the game comes in the form of user-made campaign manager programs. All that is required on BTS' part is to allow the data (aar data, ect) to be used, changed, and imported back into CM in the same manner that mods do with the graphics. This is all free for BTS, improves the games for those people who want to use it, and doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't. All that is required of them is simply allowing the output of more detailed aars (already planned) to text files, instead of the screen alone, and to allow importation of standardized text files into the scenario editor.

Additionally, I could poll the intelligent people of this forum for basic rules on how replacements and such should affect unit quality.. and we could, together, devise a system by which unit replacements, supply, ect. are determined. My point being is that together we could work out a system by which this would work. I would be perfectly willing to write up the actual program that does all the work. All that is required from BTS is support for outputting AAR information to text files (easy) and allowing importation of standardized text files to the CM scenario editor (a bit more work, but still easy).

I'm sorry this is a bit redundant, but I'm sort of merging two posts into one with this.. and I'm fairly tired. But I feel strongly about this, and I'm willing to do all the programming myself if BTS gives us the extra features to do it with.

Thank you for your time, and any comments would be appreciated.

[M Hofbauer]

I feel strongly about this as well. Seriously, without exaggeration, I think such a campaign system would almost double the value of CM to me.

I hope there will be some such system, be it either BTS-designed or made by great volunteers such as SenorBeef.

[Panzer Leader]

I love you man. No I mean I REALLY love you.

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SenorBeef:
Now, I've read that CM2 is going to allow more detailed AARs. This is great... one big feature everyone would like to see is the true (non-FOW blocked) kill lists of each unit after the game. With this, it would be relatively easy for BTS to write a quick function that would sequentially output the kill list of each unit to a text file, as well as the casualties and status (broken, ect, for fatigue reasons, perhaps).


My program would then be able to read this AAR text file and determine what units are to move up in experience
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this mean that your system would rely on how many kills a unit gets to increse experience? Sounds like Dungeons and Dragons to me. Perhaps I'm misreading this. What other factors would you base "experience" on? I think BTS hit the nail on the head right in the manual when they say that increasing experience levels in the course of two or three games is unrealistic. I can certainly see a unit downgrading in experience as casualties are taken and replacements absorbed - but surely you don't mean to suggest that "kills" in any way contribute to a unit's experience...yes?

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Panzer Leader]

I would argue that kills increase experience. Think about a tank crew. How would they improve. at the gunnery range? Maybe a little. Through combat? Hell yes. Same with infantry. They learn to avoid artillery, know when to run, know when to sneak. Through combat.

In an operation I can totally understand not increasing experience levels. But are you suggesting that on their trek across the steppe 6th Army did not go from green to veteran (and better?)

There should (in this highly unlikely suggestion) be some formula for increasing experience along the lines of +combat experience,-recruitment.

[The Commissar]

Sounds like something I would enjoy myself.

A *bump* for attracting attention!

[ParaBellum]

Sounds like a good idea to me.
Not that I want my forces to go from green status to elite after two battles, but if my green troops get into combat, fight well and don't suffer too many casualties, after two, three engagements I think it's pretty realistic for them to be modeled as a more experienced unit.
I think the step from green to conscript or from conscript to regular could be simulated over the course of a few battles.

[Sergei]

In general I would find such, umm, "exporting battle report" option worthy of support. I'm sure there would be many uses for that.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:


Does this mean that your system would rely on how many kills a unit gets to increse experience? Sounds like Dungeons and Dragons to me. Perhaps I'm misreading this. What other factors would you base "experience" on? I think BTS hit the nail on the head right in the manual when they say that increasing experience levels in the course of two or three games is unrealistic. I can certainly see a unit downgrading in experience as casualties are taken and replacements absorbed - but surely you don't mean to suggest that "kills" in any way contribute to a unit's experience...yes?

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


To be honest, the methods by which experience and such would be determined are up to discussion. I have no real solid plan for that. I was mostly proposing the BTS include the option to have such a system - and then, once thats taken care of, we can all discuss how such a system might work.
I think kills might be a part of how experience goes up. A green unit that manages to kill twice as many as its own squad seems to be headed on the way to regular status... but that was just an example of the way these could be done.
In this thread, I'm just proposing to BTS that such a system could exist - and the specifics for such a system are totally up in the air now, in no way solid. Killings -> experience was just a possible example.


EDIT: On further thought - experience won't be one of the huge items that this system might track. Supply level, fatigue level, replacement level, ect will be just as important.
I'm thinking that perhaps not a war-wide core unit campaign (ala Panzer General) wouldn't be the best way to go about this - and is what BTS opposed...
But an operation-wide campaign of several units, perhaps (ala CC2, arnhem) might be a good place to represent control over a series of units. Experience gain isn't hugely important here (although some greens might go to regular, and some regulars to greens due to losses), but supply, fatigue state, casualties, ect. are. And I don't see anything patently unrealistic about a CC2 style operation-campaign, rather than the PG type that BTS really objects to.

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergei:
In general I would find such, umm, "exporting battle report" option worthy of support. I'm sure there would be many uses for that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is true also. Other uses I have in mind are things like simplified scenario management for scenario designers - perhaps they want to design a scenario in which all units start on low ammo, and don't want to edit each individual ammo count for each unit. I could design a historical force selector that could automate such tasks.

Additionally, the AAR->text file would allow a program to organize AARs in a statistical fashion. Average kills per MG, that sort of thing. As well as re-organize (list) units based on kill/death ratio, or most killed tanks, or whatever you might want.. so that you could see the performance of your various squads in a statistical sense.
A "medal" system, to those who wanted it, could also be implemented on this basis.. evaluating the AAR and such.

A simple features, requiring little of BTS' time, would open the door heavily to user customization and additions in the same way that allowing graphics to be modified has improved the game through the mod community.

[Jeff Duquette]

I also like Senorbeefs proposals and love to see a campaign layer added to CM2.

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:
I love you man. No I mean I REALLY love you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eek! Just say "Thank you" and back away slowly, guys!

In all seriousness, I would truly like to see this implemented as well. While I recognize that in the scale of CM huge casualty lists are common, this feature would be fun, yes FUN, for some folks. Double the value of the game? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly would increase the "fun" value of the game.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I want it badly. Even if only one platoon out of the company improves during a battle. Plus what about veterans helping the newbies out before and during the battle. I mean if the newbies follow the lead of the vets, then its like fighting a squad of vets.

[Warphead]

Yeah, the optional "exporting battle report" would be nice. Not much trouble for BTS and there could be really interesting uses...

[Clubfoot]

A great idea!

And since CM2 will also model the general physical fitness of your troops (July CGM, pg. 60), the debilitating effects of harsh Russian winters and food shortages could be tracked as well.

grand fun.

[George-III]

Excellent idea SenorBeef. The more I work on the Random Battle Generator the more I miss a command line system to launch QB's. If CM also exported a comma delineated file with AAR and unit data info, the number of uses for player made programs would be HUGE.

I hope BTS responds to this idea. If it turns out to be possible to create this program I would be willing to help write it. I am a very old-school programer - (everything is in DOS Basic) - but if I can help in anyway just let me know.

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, I certainly hope it sees the light of day; many (including me) have expressed these wishes for months. It is nice to see some people taking an active part.

I am satisfied with the response to my question, also - I do agree that experience should not change much.

The example about tank kills is a not bad one - I was referring more to infantry - most infantrymen never see the enemy (I posted a good quote some months back about a platoon commander taking over a Bren and wiping out an enemy MG42 - without ever having seen a human being - I suspect this was the norm). Of course, perceiving that you have killed something will affect your morale - but morale and experience are two different things.

And I think that applies to tank gunners, as well. A few kills won't necessarily make you a better gunnner - expert marksmen with 1000 bullseyes under their belt still miss 100 percent scores occasionally. But they will indeed increase your confidence in yourself, and your morale.

Anyway, not to detract from the main issue - that this is a good idea, and that while details like this need to be worked out, it may be premature to discuss them now. Go to it Senor Beef, George III, et al... I wish you luck.

[killmore]

I already have a multiplayer campain system for CloseCombat.
See: http://home.san.rr.com/apiotrow/MMCC3/
(You can create your own campains in minutes)
I wanted to make one for CM but I need at least a saved game file format.
So far BTS is not responding...

You can specify weather, maps, campain points, make your own campaign map, supply point, surrounded areas get less points and tons more

I can EASILY add DAY/NIGHT ...

[HawkerT]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SenorBeef:
.. and I'm fairly tired. But I feel strongly about this, and I'm willing to do all the programming myself if BTS gives us the extra features to do it with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear SenorBeef, I am very very tired too right now, so I will not elaborate on your exellent idea, but just give you my warmest thanks and support, I also feel very strongly about the issue raised and will help you in any way I can.

This praise also goes to PanzerLeader, Canuck and everybody else who actively supports the idea of campaigns in CM . Your positive and solution focused attitude serves you credit.

Thank you again and good night.

Frans.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Well, I certainly hope it sees the light of day; many (including me) have expressed these wishes for months. It is nice to see some people taking an active part.

I am satisfied with the response to my question, also - I do agree that experience should not change much.

The example about tank kills is a not bad one - I was referring more to infantry - most infantrymen never see the enemy (I posted a good quote some months back about a platoon commander taking over a Bren and wiping out an enemy MG42 - without ever having seen a human being - I suspect this was the norm). Of course, perceiving that you have killed something will affect your morale - but morale and experience are two different things.

And I think that applies to tank gunners, as well. A few kills won't necessarily make you a better gunnner - expert marksmen with 1000 bullseyes under their belt still miss 100 percent scores occasionally. But they will indeed increase your confidence in yourself, and your morale.

Anyway, not to detract from the main issue - that this is a good idea, and that while details like this need to be worked out, it may be premature to discuss them now. Go to it Senor Beef, George III, et al... I wish you luck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm not talking about a PG style campaign necesarily (although its possible). I'm talking about, really, extended CM operations with more detail. Or something similar to the close combat 2 campaign system.

Units, after a few battles, might go from green to regular if they consistently inflict decent casualties on the enemy, don't take huge ones of their own, and generally don't end the game in a "broken!" morale state (which I hope the AAR might be detailed enough to report.. or perhaps the AAR can include whether the unit went to "!" status at all. This would help determine whether a unit would be 'promoted').

So I'm not talking about commanding units that go from green to elite over the course of a mini-campaign/operation. I'm talking about a unit with staggering losses going from regular to green or conscript, or a conscript going to green, green going to regular.

Units will also be destroyed, their remaining members consolidated into other units.. and their experience will 'mesh' and such. Or you might get whole new green or conscript replacement squads...

As I said, specific implementation is currently in the air. Currently, I just want to get BTS to make this all possible. We have all the time in the world to work out the details of the system.

But as I said, my idea is to generate a 'campaign' game more similar to close combat 2 than panzer general. Although.. if I made my system modular enough, I suppose either can be done.

I'm willing to dedicate alot of time to this project. I truly love CM, and I want to do what I can for people who wish to have a bit more continuity to their CM games.

Again, this is a proposal I want BTS to accept here, not a program-design thread at this point.

If you support this idea, please make a post, so that they can see the popular support behind this.

EDIT: Clarity and spacing

[ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

[Panzer Leader]

Loved Panzer General, never played CC2, what is the difference in their campaign system?

(bump included)

[SenorBeef]

An additional feature I request is this:
Allow victory flags to have names, or at least values (flag 1, 2, 3, ect), and report it in the AAR.

This way, my campaign system, rather than having 'generic' victory points, might have something like 'VL 1: Hill 101' and VL2: 'German supply road'

In this case, my campaign manager could read the AAR and execute a predetermined action if a certain victory condition were met.

For example. Perhaps the mission briefing might state something like "Division wants you to take hill 101 if possible for observation. If you can do so, you can use some of the divisional spotters located there for artillery support".. an action that triggers the player to have an FO in the next game.
Or, similarly, if a russian force holds an important road junction, labelled 'German supply road', or somesuch, then the german forces in the next battle can be less supplied, with less reinforcement.
This adds a layer of strategy above the tactics, in deciding which objectives are important to you as a player, an adds variety and an extra layer of complexity to the simulation.. and again, would be easy to implement.

[Thomas Norton]

I would very much like to see this become part of the CM package too. I know, right now, some parrot is about to tell us that the BTS line is that the game scale is not right for this concept. Great thanks for that insight. Now, on to this great idea.
We are going to be dealing with nations at war that did some rotation of units for R&R, but not on the scale of the American Army.
Thus, the units will be in and out of action for almost four years. That will mean equipment changes, so a key issue will be how long should you model this op? I would love to fight Stalingrad from start to finish, but other battles on the eastern front lasted many months too.
Anyway, any idea, that really could add value to CM has got to be a great idea. I think this is one.

[Warmaker]

Nice ideas SenorBeef. Bring some spice for the campaigns...

[Kestrl]

What happens to your new veteran tank crew after they get their tank knocked out or disabled? do they return as veteran or regulars in the next battle. I don't think a campaign option is needed in CM. I don't think its going to happen in CM2.

[ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Kestrl ]

[gunnergoz]

Speaking for myself (whothehell else, eh?) I'd love to see a CC2 type campaign option in CM version whatever...

It wouldn't need to be too complex, but simply allow me to nurse a few key units from green to elite over several operations or series of battles.

If it included options for exchanging equipment, upgrading versions, adding replacements and taking advantage of leaders and their experience...well, WOW, it'd knock me for a loop!

I love CM and only ask that the system as we know it, grow without sacrifices, i.e. corruption or dilution.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kestrl:
What happens to your new veteran tank crew after they get their tank knocked out or disabled? do they return as veteran or regulars in the next battle.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As yet undetermined. Again, this thread is for an idea proposal, not working out the details of the system.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>


I don't think a campaign option is needed in CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, thats nice. Many people do. Thats the beauty of an optional, additional system.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>


I don't think its going to happen in CM2.
[ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Kestrl ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why not? All I'm asking is for them to allow some extra features - detailed AARs, outputted as files.. importing scenario data from files... They're not being asked to design the campaign system. They're being asked to 'open the door' so to speak, for someone else to do it. And for those who are interested to enjoy it.

[Uedel]

I would strongly recmonet such a feature. Even with the VL´s taken reportet so Camp. Designers can maybee also decide on this not only what troops next battle u get also to choose maybee what map next to use.

for the diskussion of the rules and working out all the things we should open an WEB-page for all intrestet to work with you and support u either with datas and or infos. Maybe some can take over writting specific code etc... something like an open source group for CM Campaigns -->CMCPG :cool:

to kestrl: if u dont like this happen in your game just simply dont download the add and dont install it. so it doesnt influence your style of CM playing :D ;)

[Dirtweasle]

Sounds great. Short of a full blown campaign system integrated into the game itself, which seems to be not in the works. This sounds like a good work around.

[Peterk]

There's a way to do a campaign without really needing anything more from CM than what it is giving right now - using the Mega Campaign system idea for SP.

Basically, your program would just have to ask the user to input the Score (and maybe the final morale) after a scenario is played, and then you use that value to determine which scenario variant is the next to be played. You'd have to create multiple variants of lots of scenarios to deal with the OOB/set-up zone changes for the various win/loss combinations but it would be lots of fun to play.

As an example - scenario 1 is a mission where the US has to take a town. If the score indicates that the US did in fact take the town, you would branch to a mission 2 where the US gets to setup in the town and its unit strengths will be adjusted in some way (maybe 3 variants for easy victory, difficult victory, and average victory). Same thing for a defeat - mission 2 would be maybe a 2nd attempt to take the town, with multiple variants. A draw, might be a meeting engagement with both sides in the town at the outset.

[Lempereur]

Bump**

Rowans flight Sims incorporate some detailed campaign systems wich make the missions so much more meaningful. A campaign mode for CM would make the game a dream come true.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Peterk:
There's a way to do a campaign without really needing anything more from CM than what it is giving right now - using the Mega Campaign system idea for SP.

Basically, your program would just have to ask the user to input the Score (and maybe the final morale) after a scenario is played, and then you use that value to determine which scenario variant is the next to be played. You'd have to create multiple variants of lots of scenarios to deal with the OOB/set-up zone changes for the various win/loss combinations but it would be lots of fun to play.

As an example - scenario 1 is a mission where the US has to take a town. If the score indicates that the US did in fact take the town, you would branch to a mission 2 where the US gets to setup in the town and its unit strengths will be adjusted in some way (maybe 3 variants for easy victory, difficult victory, and average victory). Same thing for a defeat - mission 2 would be maybe a 2nd attempt to take the town, with multiple variants. A draw, might be a meeting engagement with both sides in the town at the outset.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is an idea we can work with if BTS doesn't allow us to add a campaign utility (by not being able to import files, ect)..
But in my proposed system, it would be enourmously more detailed than this. Each squad, vehicle, and team will be tracked for supply, casualties, kills, experience, morale, physical state ... and VLs will be meaningful beyond simple 'victory points', and such.
Adding some sort of campaign system like you mentioned would be good, if we end up not being able to do this for technical reasons - but short of that, the system I proposed is much more detailed.

[JasonC]

I can give a little insight on unit upgrades through action, based on my 6-battle mini series with 10 players, set in Normandy. They started green, and for some commanders stayed green throughout. Others had reached regular status for fair portions of their force by the end of the series.

The way I tracked it was pretty simply. I counted total forces defeated and multipled that by the victory total over 100. That gave a measure of combat success. For each squad worth of replacements taken, I deducted the point cost of a squad from this success total, as "dilution" by new greens. Then partial upgrades were awarded to surviving units on the basis of a "cost" to upgrade from green to regular of 3 times the point cost of the unit. If I had used conscripts, I would have allowed them to increase to "green" for 1 times cost - and I planned on veterans "costing" 10 times cost. I did not envision increases beyond veteran, except perhaps for snipers.

What I found with the above system was that players needed to win fights economically to increase skill levels at all. Winning ugly left the dilution cost eating up almost all the points awarded, with at best only very slow progess towards regular status, for one platoon. But players that totally defeated enemy forces roughly their own size, for little loss, rapidly progressed from green to regular - first for a portion of their force, later for more, etc.

If victory score did not reach the level needed to cover replacements, then the force size would shrink. In addition, because of the natural of my campaign, replacements were not available after each battle, but often waited until some later trigger event - like finishing the fights at one location.

I also had reinforcements, add on units rather than upgrades to or replacements for the core force. I allowed those to be earned purely from victory level times enemy force sized faced, without any adjustment for losses. This meant that a successful commander, in the sense just of winning the battles, would continue to receive new reinforcements to further his mission. But if his wins were expensive, his force stayed pegged at "green" quality. Economy in losses without mission success would tend to maintain force quality but not earn reinforcements. Disaster would shrink the force and lower quality.

Since I was running the system as I was making it up, I didn't need to follow too-rigid rules in any of the above. But the initial system I hit on for earning upgrades worked well, and I encountered no reason to revise it.

As an example, a player takes on a 500 point enemy defense and gets an 80-20 score at the end. He thus earns 400 points - 80/100 times 500. But he lost a green platoon worth of causalties, which subtracts ~100, its point cost. The remaining 300 are 3 times 100, enough to upgrade one surviving green platoon to regular status.

His force will be down the platoon lost until replacements can be taken. One platoon becomes regular for the next fight. When he can take replacements, he will replace the lost platoon as greens, and keep the one regular platoon.

Now, imagine that instead he still won the same fight, but with only a 60-40 score, and with a loss of 2 platoons. Then he earns 60/100 times 500 = 300 points, but spends 200 for replacements. He only has 100 left, which would only upgrade one squad to regular. It will take three such performances to move just one platoon to regular status. Also, of course, until he can take replacements he is short 2 platoons, which may lead to defeat in the next fight.

For applying the points to survivors to upgrade them, I followed a simple rule. Oldest surviving hands upgrade first to a given level, then next. Nobody bumps to the one higher up (veteran e.g.) until the rest has earn its way up to regular.

I made an exception for snipers, however. They counted as one skill level below their rating for increases in skill, so they would generally tend to be 1 skill level above the rest of their force. This also made it easy for any green sniper that the owner didn't get killed to make it to regular and thus do something.

Notice also that earning vet status is pretty tough with the above system. Losses taken in battle are a constant drag. Occasional lost battles drop the points built up so far. New forces entering the force are always green, and have to be "earned up" to regular, for progress toward veteran status for older elements to resume.

An all-regular force that won a battle against a force of equal size with a perfect 100-0 score, without any losses, would upgrade just 10% of the force to veteran. It would take 10 such perfect games in a row to make a uniform veteran force - one reason I discounted the possibility of skills above veteran by combat experience gained in a few battles, alone.

It seemed to work. In any event, it is not rocket science to work out a decent system.

[Mr. Johnson--]

How long would it take to do that Jason?

Would it have been nice to grab a text dump file that had a list of units, ie. AO Platoon HQ-3 kills 2 casualties, A1, A2?

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:
How long would it take to do that Jason?

Would it have been nice to grab a text dump file that had a list of units, ie. AO Platoon HQ-3 kills 2 casualties, A1, A2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I was actually in Jason's campaign, which was a good learning lesson while it lasted. And that is actually one of the primary things that got me thinking about a system similar to this.

The reason Jason had to stop all of it, however, was because it was simply too time consuming to do this all 'by hand'. He had to figure out casualties, how they effect units, ect, ect, all with nothing more complex than a pen and paper, I'm assuming.

Something like this would perfectly be able to help Jason's campaign, and those like it. It would automate the tasks that are currently very time consuming to do 'by hand' in CM.

Things like CMMC would benefit because COCAT could output a unit file which could then be imported into CM scenario editor .. CMMC GMs would be able to create tactical battles in half the time, rather than looking at a cocat file, memorizing 2 units, going into CM, buying those 2 units, going back to cocat, getting another 2 units, going back to CM... ect.

I'm just asking for a way to automate and make some things more flexible and efficient that are already being done - albeit just more slowly and alot harder.


EDIT:
In reply to the post:
It wouldn't be as hard to read, for a campaign designer/master as
A-0 Plt HQ 2 casualties, A-1.. ect, ect.
I would write a module for the program to read the text file, and display it in a more user friendly form, so they could hierachally and graphically see the information the AAR is outputting.

[ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

[JasonC]

Well, we were trying to do it with ten players at once. We did a game a week at first, more like one every two weeks later on. The two biggest time sinks were #1 waiting for all the files to trickle in and #2 (hardest for me) tweaking each of the freshly designed scenarios for each player's force situation.

For one person it would be a snap, no longer really than designing new scenarios. Three or four at once and it will be a little bit of work, but probably manageable. I don't recommend more than that - 10 was way too much to handle at once. It did make for some interesting AARs and lessons learned, though, because you could compare things people tried and see how well they worked.

It also took time to write up the briefings and "lessons learned" files, and sometimes I wrote lengthy responses to somebody's AAR for a particular fight. Mostly not, though (there are ~60 AARs LOL). I hope to get all of the AARs and performances made available on the web sometimes, and I've had a volunteer to do the hmtl work. I just haven't gotten my act together to send him what he needs yet.

Yes, it would be useful to have a text file with units and their state, what happened to them in the game. I wasn't using a system that differentiated experience based on what that particular unit did, expect for the snipers. And there I relied on the AARs, not anything the program gave me. But someone might well come up with a way of extending the system to show greater unit-by-unit variation, especially in the case of tank aces and such-like.

As for the system I describe, it is trivial for a "GM" to do it for a small number of games. It could easily be automated, I'd think. Perhaps settings could be provided for operations designers, or scenario-sequence designers.

For example, operations designers now get settings like "night falls when?" One could provide such a setting for when replacements are received. Operations have reserve force slots that get released on some trigger. One might provide reinforcement slots triggered by combined score-time-opposition totals racked up so far. (E.g. reach score time enemy size 1000 and get a second company. Reach 3000 and get a tank platoon. Or whatever). And the experience system could function as I outlined, with perhaps tweakable levels for how hard it is to gain levels. So getting to regular from green might cost 2x, 3x, or 4x unit cost after replacements, depending on how long term and representative the campaign is supposed to be - set by the campaign designer.

The idea would be to have a "campaign" type, different from an operations type, that linked a series of scenarios on different maps instead of the same one. With the force and experience triggers occuring between. So someone might put together a campaign that tracks an infantry battalion through its fights in Army Group South or something. With the player starting with only a company, and perhaps commanding the battalion by the end of it.

The BTS people would need to provide the type and some variable settings, and to be sure it works they'd probably want to make a couple themselves. Others would make more and could change the parameters, e.g. if they thought units should gain experience less rapidly, or fewer additional forces should be available, or replacements should be more frequent. Dump all of that into the campaign designer's lap - LOL.

Of course, people will try it even without any additional tools from BTS. It is just such a natural. With what we've got now, it is perfectly doable if you've got a GM willing to design a lot of scenarios on a production-line basis, and spend a little time tweaking them. And if you keep it small, both in scenario sizes and in number of people playing at once, under one GM.

The games are even faster than PBEM, because the AI can command the enemy side. The scenarios don't have to be too balanced, and in fact they should not be "even" fights most of the time, or the causalties will run so high they will burn out the core units very rapidly.

The auto-generated maps are the essential tool, and CM already lets designers use them. You generate a few to get the right basic idea, then tweak it for the particular elements needed for the plot of the scenario. You do not have to lay down each tile. You do have to design the defenses, but that can be fun in itself. Getting the AI to give a tactical challenge while outnumbered, is itself an interesting tactical problem - LOL.

I heartily encourage BTS to provide more, but whether they do or not, I also encourage more scenario designers to try a spell of GM work. But for 4 players or less, and keeping the scenarios small, I strongly advise. And the GM needs some free time, too. If you plan only 4-8 scenarios all told, that will also work better than an endless campaign, simply because the time commitment will be self-limiting - about a month or two. And if a player is unreliable or not prompt, you just have to say "sorry" and go on without him. Usually players are great about it, because it is fun and they are getting it for nothing - LOL.

[Andrew H.]

Jason: that's an interesting system; more importantly, it seems relatively realistic. With that system, it's easy to imagine the groans of the troops as the new green replacements come in. It's also easy to see attrition at work, as the ranks of the experienced troops become thinner and thinner.

Did you do anything with the leadership attributes (aka hearts, moons, stars clovers?).

[Mr. Johnson--]

Damn FNGs.

[JasonC]

Yes, I did add commander points for overall successes, but I hadn't really formalized it. After a few fights the players that had done best got one extra ability. They started, as I recall, with a platoon HQ with +1 morale, and after a while some of them earned +1 command, too. They were pretty basic Lts, no great shakes - LOL.

To formalize that sort of thing, I think I'd use some sort of progressive cost tied to total force x success, like for reinforcements. But track them seperately for HQs added later, so they don't get all of them. By "progressive" I mean something like the 1st command "point" costs 300, the 2nd 600, etc. By 3000 you have 4 "pips". If an HQ is wiped out, it starts over with nada. Add bonuses in a random field. Or, one might lower the numbers but raise only a random HQ's score. Some gain would happen more often; they'd accumulate over time in randomly scattered places, as long as players didn't get their HQs killed off regularly, or lose all the time.

[Midnight Warrior]

I think that this is a great idea! With something like this one could quickly dump a friendly order of battle text file into some other program such as an EXCEL spreadsheet for recoding stats or for campaign play. I think that being able to import or export sceanrio order of battle text files would add a whole new dimension to game play.

[Wolfpack]

Yes, Jason, I seem to recall the second half of our campaign was scheduled to start about now was it not? smile.gif No problem...I can imagine what a pain it was to do...I have problems enough keeping up with my PBEM games. It was a very fun experience, and even something small like that to be automated would, I think, please a goodly number of CM fans.

[SenorBeef]

I was talking with a GM in CMMC about this, and he gave me some ideas regarding CMMC, also.
I could write a specific utility designed to assist CMMC GMs and such, by automatically translating cocat .uni files into CM OOB files, automate their unit replacement system, ect.
I wouldn't mind doing this at all because I know how hard GMs work for CMMC, and how swamped they can get with manual work, so if these features are implemented, this'll be another program I put on the to-do list.

[JasonC]

That would be great, S-B. Really. If I could focus on designing the contents of the scenarios when running a campaign, then I'd run them a lot more. It is the tedious work of adjusting each OOB to the dynamic force of each player, tweaking the set up accordingly, etc, that eats up the time, and without a payback of interest. Designing scenarios and setting up defenses also takes time, but it is fun.

[James Bailey]

Senor Beef,

I am the head guy over at CMMC and wanted to share some of our thoughts.

Our basic mission at CMMC is to add an operational dimension to CM to allow large multiplayer campaigns on the Divisional, Corps and even Army levels.

Towards this objective, we have done a CPX (Command Post eXercise), US Inf Div vs. a German PzG Div in a meeting engagement. This was a 30 player game over 60 hours of game time. And we are just starting CMMC1, with over 125 players. The first CM battles of this one are underway. The motivation and knowledge people bring to CMMC is really amazing - lots of folks that really know operations and WW2 history.

Of course, supporting this effort is a cadre of GMs that resolve action, maintain FOW, built CM scenarios, etc, etc, etc. We have, and are, developing tools like COCAT and COMES to support the GM's life. However, none of them have come close to replacing the GM 'sweat' factor.

Organization tools (like COCAT) are great and building/adding feature to these are very helpful (for instance, we are adding a arty fireplan tool which is a huge step forward). And there are clearly things that BTS could do to make CM more 'campaigner' friendly.

However, the key operating weakness of CMMC is the GM to Player communication process. This process is the means by which Players learn what happens to their units and what is happening around their units.

Because WW2 combat operations are inherently very complex events, with lots of activity on a host of levels, proper GM to Player communication takes A LOT of effort. As we have established the work load right now, 1 GM is responsible for 1 Div (about 10 to 12 players) - this translates into a lot of work. Add to that the fact that players can interpret a written email in different fashions and that we require players to master certainly skills sets (like understanding how to explain their locations using Grid References), the workload increases again.

Now, looking at things from the opposite direction, i.e. the traditional wargame in which unit interaction is entirely explained by a system of rules (and therefore largely GM free): this system lacks flexibility because you are removing the key advantage of the GM - imagination and intuition.

So I would think that the best of all worlds would be a computer program that takes care of the admin while allowing a knowledgable GM to swiftly make the decisive decisions would be great. The program would then translate this into communication, which would be ease to produce for the GM and ease to for the player. Of course, the devil is in the details.

I have had some of my GMs thinking about ways in which we could approach BTS with a list of simple, yet very useful additions to make CM2 more campaigner-friendly. I would be very interested to discuss these with you, as well as additional thoughts on the operational dimension of CM.

You can email me at
jbailey@resolutecapital.com
or reply to this thread.
thanks,
James Bailey

[Major Tom]

Well, historically there was some sort of 'campaign' system going, however the field losses and the dilusion through replacements would probably result in a unit remaining at the same, and possibly decreasing in experience. Crack units were formed in between battles, not created on the battlefield. Your unit, if it started off at Regular, would probably remain as regular. Plus, trading in equipment for this and that was impracticle, since units at this scale had no control over their own replacements. This would end up in the individual having no choice over their OOB, since all units beforehand would be determined by the computer (ie. Brigade/Divisional command). Your unit will not vary too much from its original deployment.

If you have Panzer IV's at the beginnning of the campaign, chances are you will have them at the end. If you have Stug's at the beginning, you can bet your life that Division will not change your unit to Tigers.

Also, most units did not see a great amount of combat as a single cohesive formation. Units are routinely shuffled, broken down, combined and refitted. Rarely would a unit fight at one formation from 1941 to 1945, ala. many other wargame campagins.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:
Well, historically there was some sort of 'campaign' system going, however the field losses and the dilusion through replacements would probably result in a unit remaining at the same, and possibly decreasing in experience. Crack units were formed in between battles, not created on the battlefield. Your unit, if it started off at Regular, would probably remain as regular. Plus, trading in equipment for this and that was impracticle, since units at this scale had no control over their own replacements. This would end up in the individual having no choice over their OOB, since all units beforehand would be determined by the computer (ie. Brigade/Divisional command). Your unit will not vary too much from its original deployment.

If you have Panzer IV's at the beginnning of the campaign, chances are you will have them at the end. If you have Stug's at the beginning, you can bet your life that Division will not change your unit to Tigers.

Also, most units did not see a great amount of combat as a single cohesive formation. Units are routinely shuffled, broken down, combined and refitted. Rarely would a unit fight at one formation from 1941 to 1945, ala. many other wargame campagins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is all a very good post. And I agree with you, for the most part. Again, we're not talking about a war-long campaign in which Sergeant Joe goes from conscript to elite, commanding a BT-5 and ending with an IS-3.

We're talking more about a way of tracking losses, casualties, supply, objectives, ect, in a more complex way than CM operations are capable. What I propose would more resemble an extended CM operation than a panzer general style war-wide campaign.

The current CM operation system is more or less a hastily done system to give the players some sort of extended battle, rather than a well developed operation system tracking everything important to an operation.

Its not bad for what it does, and I don't blame them for not concentrating more on it, but the critical factor here is time. They didn't have time, and they don't have time, to implement an operation system - because they want to concentrate their development effort on their tactical game. I commend that, honestly, I would appreciate a better tactical game than a half-done campaign system.

However, because they don't have time to do it, doesn't mean their fanbase doesn't.

Together, we can manifest the ideas of what a campaign layer (or extended operation layer, if you prefer) game should be.. and all we need is a coder (which I've volunteered to do), and some good ideas, which are plentiful on this board.. and BTS to "open the door" so to speak.

All that is required on their part is a willingness to allow user input in this fashion. The actual technical details involved in allowing what I asked for in the proposal are minimal - they just need to open the door for us to design our own campaign system.

Think of it this way. People have been doing a CM campaign game since the start of the game - but they've had to do it manually. To click on each unit, write down the casualties, unit names, ect.. and then calculate the replacements and such, on paper, and then manually go into the scenario editor and re-add all of these units with the same name, the replacement effects (experience, squad liquidation), and ammo/supply detail.

This has all been done by hand - we've had discussion of it on this thread, by Jason, for example. The problem is that, as Jason said, it takes hours and hours to track all of this out - and you can't afford to do it in great detail, because it would take entirely too long.

What I want to do is to automate this sort of system. You could make it into a set operation - a series of maps by a talented map designer, similar to the cm-minicampaigns, but with real dynamic data - or you could choose to do a GM to players sort of campaign system as Jason has done - or you could do a massively multiplayer campaign like CMMC. What I propose will open the doors to allow ALL of these types of campaigns to be practical, because the repetitive tasks that many people struggle to do manually, because they want continuity, would be automatic and detailed.

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

[Thomm]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OOB's will be exportable and importable so you can keep OOBs for specific historical units and carry them from scenario to scenario.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>... found on the Combat Leader Forum of Matrix Games ( http://www.matrixgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000322 ). Seemed relevant to this discussion.

Regards,
Thomm

[Dr. Brian]

Some great comments pro and a few con … but there has been no response from BTS, so this looks like a dead issue as far as implementing (in CM2 at least). :(

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian:
Some great comments pro and a few con … but there has been no response from BTS, so this looks like a dead issue as far as implementing (in CM2 at least). :(<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm hoping they're discussing it before they reply...

[SenorBeef]

Bump...

[deanco]

You've sold me, SenorBeef. I support your idea, and hope that BTS will meet you halfway on this.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco:
You've sold me, SenorBeef. I support your idea, and hope that BTS will meet you halfway on this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bumpity bump...

[Panzer Leader]

I have heard from Steve (let me find the quote):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> External Campaign System -> we currently have THREE folks asking to make a huge campaign system of one form or another. All three have made multiple detailed pitches to us. All three have started by saying all they need is the file format. All three have then described a system that requires much more involvement from us than just that to make their system work. We haven't rulled any of the three out (yet), but to be honest... I just don't see how it will be possible to do any of them. We know there is interest (though we don't think it is more than a decent minority of customers), but on balance it isn't as important as the other things we have to do. Remember, any campaign system is only as good as the tactical battles they contain. If we skip something major in order to do the campaign stuff, everybody suffers the loss.{correction. I made this sound worse than it really is. Let's just say that we are skeptical that "just an export file" will be enough. So we porceed with caution, but are still looking at the proposals I mentioned seriously <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on, Senor Beef, the ball is in your court, and we are cheering for you, so MAKE A GOOD CASE!!! And make it one they are willing to go along with (i.e. no code hacking) and we will get our campaign!

[aka_tom_w]

bump
just for fun

-tom w

[PeterNZer]

I think it's realistical not to expect this kind of things before the engine rewrite.

Lindan

[Freak]

Maybe not.

[Chad Harrison]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Come on, Senor Beef, the ball is in your court, and we are cheering for you, so [b]MAKE A GOOD CASE<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

amen to that! i said it once and ill say it again: a campaign would be the ultimate CM experience!!!!!!! to be able to take your tank crew through 20+ battles?!?! and yes i do feel that increasing experience would be appropriate for a campaign. just my two small bits.

[Eric Alkema]

I am intrigued by the idea of a campaign system. I played an operation recently and was struck by how differently I fought compared to fighting a single battle. As someone mentioned earlier, wining ugly is a bad idea in an operation, you risk being clobbered in the next battle. I like the idea of aborting an attack, regrouping, and trying again later.

The only shortcoming to an operation is that reinforcements are pre-programmed. You can’t make anything conditional on the results of other combat. That sounds like fun.

I am bewildered by Steve’s comment that all of the campaign suggestions to date would require more than text files in and out. It seems to me that quite a nice campaign could be implemented with nothing more than that from BTS.

BTW did Senor Beef mention what language he programs in?

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Eric Alkema ]

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lindan:
I think it's realistical not to expect this kind of things before the engine rewrite.

Lindan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er, I've mentioned several times that what I ask for isn't going to fundamentally change anything already in the game - it would require 2 add-on functons. One would output data that is ALREADY generated and kept track of - it would simply output it to a file, rather than to the screen.
The other is a bit more complex - but not hugely so. It would translate a text file of unit lists into whatever format BTS uses internally. This is also and 'add on' function, not requiring the internals to be entirely reworked, as far as I can see.

And to Eric: I'd probably be most of the logic in c++, and the interface in VB, its easier that way.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

[Scipio]

About the general idea:

YES YES YES
GIVE IT TO ME BABY
:cool: :cool: :cool:

Just to compare with Close Combat III - the game is (IMO) a little bit, uhm, simple... but I really LOVE to lead a force through the whole war, see them rise etcetera... It makes this average game good, so what could it make for CM?