Matrix Games Forums

Hi,

ORIGINAL: The Plodder
Actually it probably wouldn't be too difficult(just time consuming) to have a branching campaign ala SP Mega-campaigns,if you could save the type of victory had (minor,major) you could have a spreadsheet that could have set conditions and show the player what scenario to use depending on the results of the last one.You could also factor in replacements etc.

OK, I bite.

Your idea is a very neat one. I thought of it before [:)](and many others as well maybe).

What I had in mind were along your lines : a global map with linked maps. Forces go and fight from one map to another. Like some board games : for example Path of Glory.

I had the idea of a small application where the player would enter its results (victory/draw/defeat), a specific achievment (number of kills, points, objective, etc.) and a choice (reinforcements, air drops, etc.). It means 5 possible new scenarios out of one result.
The application, based on the player input would choose the proper scenario and map in it database and copy to a specific location. The player would always find one campaign scenario. It is easier.

Now, let say you begin to design a 10 days campaign : 2 days scenarios, 5 linked maps. You need five maps.
First round is one scenario. Second is 5. Third is 25 (5x5). Fourth is 125. And fifth is 625 (5^(round-1)). You can think of reusing some scenarios and most of them will be on the same base but it's still a lot.

Reducing the number of results lead to less player decision and exponentially less scenarios to design : 2 (win or else) is 16, 3 (win/lose/choice) is already 81.

I don't know how a SP mega-campaign is designed, but this scheme surely need a lot of time. It is doable with COTA as it is now and might be a lot of fun to play against the AI.

If someone feels ready to go into such an adventure, I might be tempted to help.

My 2 cents,

JeF.

I nearly forgot to add that, even if I miss a campaign mode like many others, I think Arjuna is right to take their time to do it in their own way : realistic. This will take a time to be done properly.

JeF.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

CMAK being mentioned in the same breath with COTA makes me shudder with terror

Why? CMAK is a very, very good game in it's own right.

CMAK is OK, but what sense is there to play operational level in real time, then go BACK to turn based stuff for TACTICAL level? Anyhow, it strikes me as bizarre, but of course that's just my opinion. I'd rather go the other way round - real time for tac, turn based (if it needs be) for operational.

Anyway, COTA is SO detailed, in fact could be considered "grand tactical", all individual weapons are modelled and most of it's mechanisms are purely tactical in nature, and no worse than similar systems in CM. In short I see no reason to implement CM in this case at all, but again, thats just my opinion.

I thought when speaking of campaigns and "mixing systems" people want to use COTA for pseudo-tactical or semi-operational resolution, and something "bigger" for higher level, semi-strategic planning? I see no need to use anything on levels "below" (ie more tactical) than COTA.

That was my point, though I wasn't very clear in explaining it [;)]

Oleg

My Real Wet Dream of this Engine is, where u have a Operational Map (somhow like TOAW) where u move your Division arround the Campaign Map and when the encounters occour you get to the Tactical Map of the current engine. THAT would be unbeatable.
Then add the possibilities to manage Resupply lvls and Reinforcement assingmant and voile you have one of the greatest Wargames ever build. But i gues it will stay a wet dream.

Even if i [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o] to Panther Games to make them come true......

Yes JeF, that was my thinking (if you can call it that [:'(]). Though I too am impressed by the example presented by Bil.

I just took a look at the features of TOAW III (probably too small) and the Decisive Battles of WWII series (probably the wrong world region - for now [;)]). (I wouldn't dare mention anything else on this forum [X(].) Neither of them seem to fit the kind of operation/strategic meta campaign aggregator we would need; but, there are better thinkers out there than me.

I was kind of interested earlier in this thread Dave intimated, by his question, that it might be possible to collect the data for the surviving units at the end of a scenario (this would be useful short cut, especially if it could be imported into another).

Sorry, again no solutions just more procrastination.

TANX
Andrew

Andrew,
 
Don't read too much into what I said above. I was just looking to see if there is anything we could do to facilitate things but, and it's a big but, without a major commitment of development time. In other words if there is something that is quick and easy and we can squeeze it in then maybe we could look at it. However, my preference is to avoid the quick dodgy fix. If it's worth doing it's worth doing well. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Andrew,

Don't read too much into what I said above. I was just looking to see if there is anything we could do to facilitate things but, and it's a big but, without a major commitment of development time. In other words if there is something that is quick and easy and we can squeeze it in then maybe we could look at it. However, my preference is to avoid the quick dodgy fix. If it's worth doing it's worth doing well. [:)]

And you continue to do things very well [&o]

It even seems to be rubbing off on the Socceroos. Well done all around.

ORIGINAL: 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.

I feel the same way. One great thing about HTTR-COTA is that each scenario has its own flow and logic so that mentally you really get immersed in the unfolding situation, the terrain, the ups and downs of single companies, the brazen triumphs of certain undeserving Brigades and the misfortunes of virtuous Battalions. I'm sure other frameworks would breed other pleasures, but at the moment, those don't seem uniquely HTTR-COTA-esque. For example, at the moment, the idea of a theater-level campaign reminds of of War in the Pacific which was fun, but excessively time-consuming.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
and it's a big but

Everyone I know has a big "but". C'mon, let's talk about your big but.

Name that movie for extra credit.