Campaign mode next time around?

[Jensen76]

When I heard about this game originally there was talk of a campaign mode.
Apparently these plans have been scratched - but will the campaign mode perhaps make it into the next title...?

The lack of a "grand" campaign was what kept me from buying HTTR - and I only found out about the scratched campaign mode in COTA a few days ago after having bought it (my own fault - I haven't really been following the development).
I'm not, by any means, regretting my purchase as I've wanted to get into this series for a while, and so far (after the starting tutorial, halfway through the advanced) the game has been a great experience. It is a very fine piece of work.

But will we perhaps see a grand campaign next time around? Could one even imagine a campaign mode being added to COTA down the road...?


Regards,

Jensen

[Banquet]

It's definitely on the wish list. I would like to see a campaign option added to future games.. but above that on my list would be unit stats available ingame and and ability to have some control over the arrival (waypoint) times of units (and see ETA's of arrival times) so attacks can be co-ordinated to some degree and we have a better idea how long a move/attack will take.

Most important of all, I just want to see the next game. So I hope Dave doesn't push too many features in BftB and end up going under.

[Grouchy]

Ooh yes, the campaign mode wonderfull topic. My no1 feature wish as well.
Dave you read this? [:'(]

[Bil H]

VERY low on my wishlist  ( [:'(] to Grouchy)... I doubt I would ever use it and I doubt it could be done in a realistic manner with the current release schedule.
 
Bil

[MarkShot]

I guess I don't really understand the campaign thing (the importance which some place on it) that much. For a game, that does a good job of modeling reality, a campaign mode with connecting maps and linked connected scenarios seems a bit out of flavor with the rest of the design. Such an implementation seems a bit artificial. I would hope over time that as CPU power increases that the game could simply be scaled up: bigger maps, larger forces, and longer scenarios. Effectively, the campaigns would really just be a matter of scaling. It's easy to see that architecturally the major design aspects of the engine should be able to accomodate this.

Upscaling would also provide a lot more randomness and possibilities for the player than a disjoint linear or tree oriented implementation.

You can see the remnants of COTA's early intention of to have a campaign mode in many of the scenarios as the EXIT objective theme is widely used throughout the scenarios.

[GoodGuy]

Well, I doubt that a campaign mode is going to happen in the next installment. Although, it does have a nice ring to it. Hmmm...like a historic set of battles, just like in COTA, maybe just connected via a "next" button that just brings up the briefing for the following mission (in the historic order).....that would be a neat interim solution.

Then, let's just say Panther makes a sh**load of bucks with BFTB [;)], a menu could be added, which would offer to select between a historic or a what-if-campain, where the latter would take into account all achievements and remaining units collected during the last mission (especially the stolen/repaired enemy tanks ;p), adding a part of the force (or even better, you could select your fav units) to the pool of units listed for the next map. Then 3D maps....multiple scenarios covering several different what-if-results, etc etc....

Ohh......I fell asleep....had an interesting dream.........I think it was about a campaign mo..... [:D][;)]

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
VERY low on my wishlist  ( [:'(] to Grouchy)... I doubt I would ever use it and I doubt it could be done in a realistic manner with the current release schedule.

I'm with you Bil. In particular the [:'(] to Grouchy but that's just a personal thing ... [;)]
I do like my history to be historic and campaign mode can get so out of kilter. Mark's upscaling can do it better. If we could have the Market Garden campaign on one map as one scenario a la W@W then that would complete my dream. However with this game and its use of resources know it's not going to happen.
Ray

[Grouchy]

Infidels [:'(]

Dear Ray,

If we ever gonna visit Normandy and Point du hoc I would be very, very careful.

[MarkShot]

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe

However with this game and its use of resources know it's not going to happen.

Moore's Law - just give it to 2-3 more generations of processor technology and it will be feasible. Of course, there are other ways those cycles could be spent like friendly FOW.

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: Grouchy
If we ever gonna visit Normandy and Point du hoc I would be very, very careful.

You could have thrown me from the top of the Waterloo monument but my bodyguard was ever watchfull, Anyway, what do Dutch people know about hights?
Ray

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
Moore's Law - just give it to 2-3 more generations of processor technology and it will be feasible. Of course, there are other ways those cycles could be spent like friendly FOW.

Hey! Poor old pensioners like me can't keep investing in upgrades to get the latest processor. I'm still saving to upgrade my computer to Windows 95. Will that run on an 8086?
Ray

[wodin]

With scenarios lasting upto 8 days Ive no need for a campaign.

[Banquet]

ORIGINAL: wodin

With scenarios lasting upto 8 days Ive no need for a campaign.

I think the plus point of a campaign is the sometimes mentioned situation where you get a decisive victory - but you know that any minute the whole situation is going to collapse. You hang on for the end time but you know full well that, victory or not, is wasn't looking good when the game ended.

The campaign I'd like is the same as we have now - except that certain scenario's could be linked so that losses in one game were carried across. Victory points could be carried across so that if you lost everything - but got your points - in the next scenario, you'd have little left to fight with and so lose points. On the other hand if you get fewer points in one scenario, but get lots of units out the exit point - you have more units to reap your revenge next time.

That's the plus side for me - it would encourage more realistic play. However I agree with others that if the scenario's are setup with accurate starting forces for that particular battle - you know you are fighting with what the commanders had, rather than a hypothetical situation.

[Rooster]

I'm for campaigns. I think they increase immersion into the series because I'm get heavily invested in the outcome of each game.

As for historicity, well, that goes out the window at some point anyhow, unless you repeat the historical commander's every decision and the AI or your opponent follows suit. Why allow random weather patterns, for instance?

- and a 'nother thought: if things get off-kilter, who is to say that this might not have been the case except for some bad or good luck. It would be far more fascinating to see some ahistorical set-ups because then you'd have to nothing to trust but your own generalship, rather than to fall back on executing a plan that you've read about in the history books.

[JudgeDredd]

I don't want my wish for a campaign mode to be confused with the normal train of thought....I would simply like linekd scenarios. I know the engine and the calculations it has to do make a "proper" campaign mode very unrealistic....but what I've said before is I do not mind jumping in and out of various levels....so start of with the campaign map, go down to tactical level for a particular region and do the business...then when the battle is done, back up you go to strategic level....
 
Or if the "hardware limitation" found that hard to cope with, just a bunch of linked scenarios....one of the things that kept me away from HTTR was the fact that that great campaign was reliant on each other objective being achieved...and it wasn't implemented. I do understand why it wasn't, and I have no problems with the reasons for it, but that is mainly what kept me away from HTTR...I couldn't "see" it as the Market Garden campaign.
 
I may still get it one day, though...COTA is sooooo good.

[Dogbert]

I think the "simple" campaign idea with linked maps and forces is very good. The campaign creator would have to be able to script replacements, reinforcements and withdrawals between battles, though... perhaps with different effects depending on victory levels (or even branching campaigns where different outcomes lead to different battles being fought).
One problem I can see, codewise would be that the game would need to know that a unit in one scenario is the same as in another... so they would need some sort of global ID tag added, which could be a pain to keep track of for the designer.

[Arjuna]

While I appreciate that having a campaign feature would be nice, doing it properly is a BIG job. We are only doing one BIG new feature per title and right at the moment we are booked out for the next five titles, so it will be a while before we contemplate it.

[JudgeDredd]

That's ok...at 6 months per new release, and Campaign being 6th big feature on the list, that's....lets see...first 1/2 of 2009? That's ok...I'll be around I hope.

[Agema]

Do you mean a scripted, linear set of battles, i.e. Battle A -> Battle B -> Battle C?

Or do you mean a campaign mode, such as the Total War system?

The latter would be really exciting... but ludicrously hard work. The former I think flatters to deceive. My experience of that sort of campaign is that they reward success and punish failure. The end result is that victory or defeat just snowballs on from one battle to the next, especially if one of the results is crushingly decisive. Undoubtedly that's a big issue with poor scripting of the campaigns I've played: if you were short on troops after reverses, any high command would chuck you an extra brigade or division to save the day, not leave you with some shattered remnants. Maybe you could 'buy' the extra reinforcements for a VP penalty, whatever. Nevertheless, I don't think it really adds enough to just playing a series of unlinked battles to justify inclusion ahead of some advantages that can be made to the game engine instead.

In both HTTR and COTA, you can make sort of approximate a campaign. In HTTR for instance, play each mission following the progress of XXX Corps across the bridges. If you get a decisive victory at Eindhoven, give yourself a favour side option tick at Nijmegen, and if you get a decisive victory there, tick the favour your side for Arnhem. In COTA, do the same following the Allied retreat in Greece.

[wodin]

I thought the campaign mode was the new feature in BftB.

What is the BftB new feature?