Matrix Games Forums

I tried to make a defensive campaign (for delaying-screening operation), which might be made up of series of defensive missions. But it seems that it is not possible.

I tested several cases, but it seems that the game recognize "campaign path" as offensive operation only, not defensive operation. As a result, when I make a campaign with path from east to west from Fulda or NGP map and choose any NATO, my NATO force starts from eastern side of tactical map, and attack to the PACT forces in the west. This is totally opposite from what I wished to make.

I wish to make a defensive campaign. This campaign should be made up of series of defensive battles plus one or two counter attack. Campaign starts from far east of the map, but battle will be continued to the west direction. My forces should continuously defend (one or two counter attack) the area during each battle, and move to next map in west direction, performing delaying / screening operation.

After several tries, I found our that the player have no control over the choice of offensive / defensive / meeting engagement, also I cannot control the direction of our forces. Is this correct? I checked the campaign generator manual again, but no comments over player control of mission type or direction of force. I guess, at current system, force direction and mission types are purely controlled by AI, is this correct?

How can I set up such defensive campaign? Is this possible?

It's not possible AFAIK, which is kinda sad because what you are trying to do is exactly what Italian forces were supposed to do in case of a warsaw pact invasion. About campaign mission types, it works like this: if you lose the offensive attack, next scenario you'll have to defend in the previous square, if it ends with draw it will be a meeting engagement in the same square instead.

You can control the side on which your units deploy. If you want your units always deployed on the west side of the battle you need to place the first waypoint in the campaign generator on the extreme west, and each subsequent waypoint further east. I found it best to do no more than three waypoints.

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

I tested several cases, but it seems that the game recognize "campaign path" as offensive operation only, not defensive operation. As a result, when I make a campaign with path from east to west from Fulda or NGP map and choose any NATO, my NATO force starts from eastern side of tactical map, and attack to the PACT forces in the west. This is totally opposite from what I wished to make.

In its current form, the campaign always starts with a meeting engagement. What follows after that depends on the battle results. Both sides are trying to get to the opposite side of the campaign path.

I wish to make a defensive campaign. This campaign should be made up of series of defensive battles plus one or two counter attack. Campaign starts from far east of the map, but battle will be continued to the west direction. My forces should continuously defend (one or two counter attack) the area during each battle, and move to next map in west direction, performing delaying / screening operation.

In the current system, I think it would be quite uninteresting if one side was always attacking or defending. Something like it can be added later, if we can get a good idea of how it should work.

You can adjust the starting sector by editing the "startLocation" attribute in the campaign.xml.

After several tries, I found our that the player have no control over the choice of offensive / defensive / meeting engagement, also I cannot control the direction of our forces. Is this correct? I checked the campaign generator manual again, but no comments over player control of mission type or direction of force. I guess, at current system, force direction and mission types are purely controlled by AI, is this correct?

The direction follows the campaign path, and the mission depends on the battle results.

Here's a detailed chart with the current player mission type and the battle end condition, and how many sectors there will be movement, and what will be the next player mission type.

DEFENCE
Total defeat: -3 sectors, defence
Major defeat: -2 sectors, defence
Tactical defeat: -1 sectors, defence
Draw: 0 sectors, meeting
Tactical victory: 0 sectors, advance
Major victory: +1 sectors, advance
Total victory: +1 sectors, advance

MEETING
Total defeat: -2 sectors, defence
Major defeat: -1 sectors, defence
Tactical defeat: -1 sectors, defence
Draw: 0 sectors, meeting
Tactical victory: +1 sectors, advance
Major victory: +1 sectors, advance
Total victory: +2 sectors, advance

ADVANCE
Total defeat: -1 sectors, defence
Major defeat: -1 sectors, defence
Tactical defeat: 0 sectors, defence
Draw: 0 sectors, meeting
Tactical victory: +1 sectors, advance
Major victory: +2 sectors, advance
Total victory: +3 sectors, advance

How can I set up such defensive campaign? Is this possible?

I think currently the only way to make something like it is to give one side an overwhelming point bonus, and adjust the "startLocation" to be very close to one end of the campaign path. If we want to have a realistic attack then one side should have an overwhelming force anyway, not a textbook 1:3 ratio or such?

In this approach, I think there should be a limit to the number of battles. Currently there's not.

ORIGINAL: Veitikka
In the current system, I think it would be quite uninteresting if one side was always attacking or defending. Something like it can be added later, if we can get a good idea of how it should work.

You can adjust the starting sector by editing the "startLocation" attribute in the campaign.xml.

It is not always attacking or defending. For screening/delaying operation, it will be mostly defensive and several counter attacks. Plus, I guess current dynamic campaign system can lead to the situation of always attacking or always defending, depending on the result, isn't it?

I believe such screening/delaying operation will be really really fun, of course. And it will be realistic as well, as players can follow the known / declassified historical operational plan. Playing such scenario from PACT side will be fun as well, I'm sure of it.

Does the "startLocation" in campaign.xml also modifies the direction friendly and enemy for each battle, regardless of starting location?

I think currently the only way to make something like it is to give one side an overwhelming point bonus, and adjust the "startLocation" to be very close to one end of the campaign path. If we want to have a realistic attack then one side should have an overwhelming force anyway, not a textbook 1:3 ratio or such?

In this approach, I think there should be a limit to the number of battles. Currently there's not.

Forcing huge point bonus to PACT, and forced to lose every battle? Is this correct? Could you let us know or any example campaign file or setting? To my understanding, it seems that such defensive campaigns are not possible in AB.

I like the full-automation of current dynamic campaign system, but at the same time, how about allowing some small windows for players to modify missions in the campaign? You can make 'user intervention' as an optional feature, so that the merit of full-automation would be still intact.

When path is done, AI automatically generate several green rectangles, which will be the battlefields during campaign. How about introduce an option, for players to set/modify the direction of force, mission type, and map size/no-go-zone for each of the rectangles?

This kind of feedback is actually what we have been expecting from the community, exsonic01.

We need a larger testing sample to see how to improve current system. It is still "work in progress".

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

It is not always attacking or defending. For screening/delaying operation, it will be mostly defensive and several counter attacks. Plus, I guess current dynamic campaign system can lead to the situation of always attacking or always defending, depending on the result, isn't it?

I believe such screening/delaying operation will be really really fun, of course. And it will be realistic as well, as players can follow the known / declassified historical operational plan. Playing such scenario from PACT side will be fun as well, I'm sure of it.

Yes, after the initial meeting engagement the rest of the battles can be all advance battles, or all defence battles.

In the system you're proposing, how to decide if the defending side should be defending or counter-attacking in a battle?

Does the "startLocation" in campaign.xml also modifies the direction friendly and enemy for each battle, regardless of starting location?

'startLocation' is the starting location (sector). The number of the sector where the first battle is.

I think currently the only way to make something like it is to give one side an overwhelming point bonus, and adjust the "startLocation" to be very close to one end of the campaign path. If we want to have a realistic attack then one side should have an overwhelming force anyway, not a textbook 1:3 ratio or such?

In this approach, I think there should be a limit to the number of battles. Currently there's not.

Forcing huge point bonus to PACT, and forced to lose every battle? Is this correct? Could you let us know or any example campaign file or setting? To my understanding, it seems that such defensive campaigns are not possible in AB.

Yes, the idea was to force one side to lose, but I don't know how well that would work in practice.

I'm not sure if you've understood the simple purpose of the 'startLocation' attribute correctly...

I like the full-automation of current dynamic campaign system, but at the same time, how about allowing some small windows for players to modify missions in the campaign? You can make 'user intervention' as an optional feature, so that the merit of full-automation would be still intact.

When path is done, AI automatically generate several green rectangles, which will be the battlefields during campaign. How about introduce an option, for players to set/modify the direction of force, mission type, and map size/no-go-zone for each of the rectangles?

As the name of the system implies, it's a 'generator'. It generates the campaign content, and also takes control of the environment, without letting the player to have much control of the overall course of the campaign (other than by winning/losing).

I know that you'd like to have a system where you can make campaigns where every battle is pre-made, and you're not alone. However, in this generator we decided to take a different approach. Some like it, some don't. It's possible that later we will come up with a system where every campaign battle can be customized, but it must be remembered that unless we will get help from the community the campaign content will take a huge amount of time and resources from the team. Even a single pre-made campaign can be a vast undertaking, if it's made properly.

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS
This kind of feedback is actually what we have been expecting from the community, exsonic01.

We need a larger testing sample to see how to improve current system. It is still "work in progress".

I'm glad to hear that there is a plan to improve.

ORIGINAL: Veitikka
Yes, after the initial meeting engagement the rest of the battles can be all advance battles, or all defence battles.

In the system you're proposing, how to decide if the defending side should be defending or counter-attacking in a battle?

Well, that is good point. Maybe you could give some "user intervention" option for players to decide for each mission, during campaign setting or before each battles. So that they can make a campaign contents with storyline, or campaign which could follow historical battle plan.

Yes, the idea was to force one side to lose, but I don't know how well that would work in practice.

I'm not sure if you've understood the simple purpose of the 'startLocation' attribute correctly...

OK I will check startLocation part.

As the name of the system implies, it's a 'generator'. It generates the campaign content, and also takes control of the environment, without letting the player to have much control of the overall course of the campaign (other than by winning/losing).

I know that you'd like to have a system where you can make campaigns where every battle is pre-made, and you're not alone. However, in this generator we decided to take a different approach. Some like it, some don't. It's possible that later we will come up with a system where every campaign battle can be customized, but it must be remembered that unless we will get help from the community the campaign content will take a huge amount of time and resources from the team. Even a single pre-made campaign can be a vast undertaking, if it's made properly.

I understand, but I think it wouldn't need complete overhaul of current campaign generator system, to include "user intervention" part for campaign making. You could leave all those random generator part all intact. But later, if you have time and resource, you could add an option for players to "just nudge a little bit" from randomly generated campaign, or make a "small window" where player can intervene to control start direction & mission type of each battle, from the automatically generated campaign. Then, you can add more several "freedoms" in the future, based on player's reflections...

I think this way is better, because current automated campaign generator will reduce almost all bothering labors to create campaign, and players can modify not all, but only allowed part. Considering too much freedom sometimes reduce productivity, this method (limited freedom based on automation) will help players to create their campaign easily, with low learning curve. This way, campaign making become easy but players can still design their campaign with their idea & intention included.

Then, it should be decided how small or big "window" should be allowed to players, that might be depending on coding difficulty and other factors... Maybe, in the far future, you could make "easy mode" to campaign modding, mostly relying on automated generator but player could modify part by part, and "hardcore mode" to give player all freedoms to decide everything and all choices of options, for hardcore players who wish to make their own story & world in AB.

Sorry if my post was pushing, but I just suggested some ideas, and I never mean to push. I can wait and we all can wait.