Campaign Scenario

Tom Stearns · Post by **Tom Stearns** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:17 am

Maybe this question has already been asked, but, where is the grand campaign scenario? The four primary scenario area's are all fun and challenging. But what about covering the entire campaign? Was this intentionally left out? Is it coming in a download? I hope so, because that is what I'd really like to play, the whole enchilada.

Also a note to Marc. Has this game system been considered for a Normandy invasion game along the lines of Avalon Hill's Longest Day board game. Seems like a logical next step.

I really like the system and hope it gets adapted to other WW2 campaigns. Thanks for the effort.

Tom S

HercMighty · Post by **HercMighty** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 6:23 am

Check this out:

http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp? ... forums.asp

Nothing is written in stone and this may have changed but to this day I believe this is still the plan.

Grouchy · Post by **Grouchy** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:20 am

Sorry, there is no grand campaign scenario.
Don't see it coming as an official download. It's a whole diferent scale, lots of units and a big map needed.
The horsepower of the PC's today wouldn't be sufficient, and PG probally need to rewrite code to adapt HttR for all of this.

Arjuna · Post by **Arjuna** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 12:14 pm

Tom,

As Grouchy says today's PCs just couldn't support a map that large for HTTR. The route finding and LOS checks between all the units on map would slow the game to an unplayable crawl. We're pushing the envelope now with a 40 x 30km map and 500 units. Maybe in a few years time. Something to look forward to hey! [:)]

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 12:25 pm

Close Combat 2, circa 1997, had a campaign. And those PCs are now 8 years old !

Arjuna · Post by **Arjuna** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:02 pm

Hey it's now that I miss those old posts. Someone responded almost exactly the same as you did Joe and I gave a fairly lengthy reply at the time. Alas our Russian hacker has robbed us of that. [:@]

Suffice to say that Close Combat and HTTR are two very different fish. First off in CC you have a small map with a fairly course grid. I can't recall exactly but it's probably in the order of no more than 50 x 50 or 2,500 grids. In HTTR we use a 100m movement grid. For a map measuring 40 x 30km that's a whopping 120,000 grids. So finding routes can be around 50 times more expensive and that's just the navigate not evaluate. I dare say we do a lot more of that as well.

Similarly, for line of sight checks we use the same 100m grid and we have some 500 units on the bigger scenarios. CC may have had what 50 units max on a side ( I think IIRC that it was more like a couple of dozen ). LOS checks have to be done every minute between units within potential sight range. Once battle is joined that can involve a massive number of checks. Add an extra unit and you potentially add another 500 checks. Add another and you add 501 and so on.

In a nutshell HTTR is a lot more complex and realistic a simulation. It chews up the CPU cycles like a soldier downs beer after a 20Km forced march. We have spent many hours optimising it. That is not to say there isn't room for improvement, but it is not going to come close to being able to handle the map area and number of units required to simulate the entire battle. At best we could try and manage some sort of linked campaigns, where one battle is resolved on Map A and then you progress to another battle on Map B etc. To code this into the system would be a big job. It is on our wish list and is currently slotted for doing when we turn to the Eastern Front.

Tom Stearns · Post by **Tom Stearns** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:14 pm

Alas, I guess what you are saying is that Matrix's HttR sucks me in and gets me revved up playing the scenarios. Then I have to find about 15 square feet of unused sapce in my house, away from the dog and kids. Then I dig out and dust off my copy of SPI's HttR. Then take the next two year's of my life playing this game by myself, playing both sides.

Thanks guys.

Seriously though, I guess it gives me something to look forward to. Sounds like the linked campaigns would be the easier way to go. But truly a grand campaign scenario would be incredibly fun to play. It's why the old SPi game was always a favorite. Trying to break 30 corps out in time to relieve the airborne divisions. The off map movement for the Germans to bring in the myriad of reinforcement formations from different directions. OH, the options, the options. Ok time for me to stop. I really don't have the space or time to break the SPI game out.

Black Cat · Post by **Black Cat** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:06 pm

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

At best we could try and manage some sort of linked campaigns, where one battle is resolved on Map A and then you progress to another battle on Map B etc. To code this into the system would be a big job. It is on our wish list and is currently slotted for doing when we turn to the Eastern Front.

Why would this be such a big deal Dave ?

It would just be loading another scenario, on an adjoining Map, with units carrying over Losses and morale factors can be variables " fudged " by rest and reinforcements, so you load say one of 5-6 unit DB`s.

If your doing campaigns, IMHO you need a campaign feature now, even if it`s just linked scenarios.

P.S. Please check your EMail.

Arjuna · Post by **Arjuna** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:19 am

Black Cat,

I've checked but can't see anything from you. Even checked the 70 spam/junk emails that have been filtered out for this morning. [:)]

Arjuna · Post by **Arjuna** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:34 am

Black Cat,

I don't mean to be discouraging but all too often what appears at first glance to be trivial is usually not so when it comes time to coding and implementation. We have looked into this issue in depth and to do it properly ( and for us there is no other way [:)] ) will take a quite an effort. It's a bigger job than implementing Resupply and Team Play, which are the "biggy" features up next for BFTB and BFN. It requires a fair amount of changes to be made in the underlying data structures. For instance it will require a scenario to be able to use variable force lists. At current they do not. They just have the one fixed list of forces with their values set in stone as it were. To this end we will be implementing a force list editor for use in the ScenMaker and the Order of Battle window that will appear in BFTB. This will help. But that's all the time we will have for that title.

Further there are a myriad of other "cases" which need to be addressed in the AI and the UI as a result of the presence or absence of certain types of units. For instance what if the Base unit gets clobbered in one scenario and with the new Resupply system you MUST have a base unit. What if a all the forces of one command are wiped out and you are playing a Team game? And so on...

This is not to say that we don't view a campaign option as desireable. Far from it. It's a question of juggling development, marketing and financial priorities.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 3:10 am

If this is not "such a big deal" for the developers then it certainly can't be that big a deal for people to do it on their own.

Simply play through each mini-campaign seperately, starting w/ the breakout from joes bridge, and note the results of each, especially unit strengths and such.

Then edit the next mini-campaign using the editor, modify starting values for each unit based on their ending values for the previous campaign, save it, then start that mini-campaign.

Repeat as needed until you reach Arnhem.

But wait, in order to get the units in synch you probably need to play 1 day's worth for each mini-campaign, save it, note the ending unit values for that day, then manually edit the corresponding map in the next "campaign area", modify their unit values based on the ending values for the previous campaign, and repeat. Probably need to do it once a day for each mini-campaign, figure the 3 main ones for the 101st, 82nd, and British 1st Airborne. Repeat each day, so make that 10 X 3 or 30 manual map re-edits.

Doesn't sound so simple now does it? In my opinion sounds like a lot of hard work. Imagine adding in things like synchronizing unit values from map to map, loading maps separately, and fighting separate battles on different maps for the same day. That's what the devs would have to code into the game.

IMHO I'd rather they release another game w/ more detailed supply rules and on another major operation.

Ray

Black Cat · Post by **Black Cat** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:31 am

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Black Cat,

I've checked but can't see anything from you. Even checked the 70 spam/junk emails that have been filtered out for this morning. [:)]

Sent you an EMail through the Matrix EMail system by clicking on the bar in the profile on the left , perhaps still not working....??

Black Cat · Post by **Black Cat** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:43 am

RayDude.

I`m not sure of the point of your response to me. Sure having the player use the editor to create linked and related scenarios is a PITA, as well as a bit anticlimactic, which is why those with access to the code can let the Computer do it better, and faster, then a player can.

But wait; Dave said that is on their list for the East Front ! My request was simply to move it forward in the process. I would point out that the actual Campaign Game request seems to surface here often.

If you prefer other mods before that more power to you.

Richmond516 · Post by **Richmond516** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 5:15 am

I've been wondering about that too but after having the Deelen scenario crash on me several times at max speed I think that you would be able to play any sort of grand scale battle at normal speed (and finish it in half a month no stopping hey!) and even that would be pushing it. The problem I think is that the game is really grand tactical level and simulates things up to the company and if you do that over such a massive area you've got serious problems. You might as well be simulating the Somme at platoon level.

But yeah, something to look forward to definitely... perhaps at battalion level at least?

Best regards,
Tom

Arjuna · Post by **Arjuna** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 8:34 am

Black Cat,

I have turned off Private Messages. You can email me at support[at]panthergames[dot]com.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 2:52 pm

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

RayDude.

I`m not sure of the point of your response to me. Sure having the player use the editor to create linked and related scenarios is a PITA, as well as a bit anticlimactic, which is why those with access to the code can let the Computer do it better, and faster, then a player can.

My point was to hopefully illustrate that the concepts which would be a PITA to do with the scenario editor are the same concepts that the Devs have to deal with in trying to make a grand strategic campaign, and that if it were "not such a big deal" to implement in the code then "it would not be such a big deal" to implement it in the scenario editor. In coding terms I don't see the "hooks" that are available in the editor which would lead me to believe it's just a simple change to add a grand campaign.

I'm sorry if I came off as to curt but I'm in the coding business as well - for satellite imagery. And just as it pains me to hear my boss tell me something is "easy to implement" when I know it isn't and he doesn't know the details of why it isn't, so does it pain me to see people telling other software coders something is "easy to implement" when they don't know the details of the code as well.

Black Cat · Post by **Black Cat** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 8:12 pm

Thanks for the clarification, my reply may have sounded rude, but that was more of a function of being late and tired.

The campaign issue may indeed just be my pet issue since I have perhaps too much time to play long and large scenarios and in fact is not really needed or even desired by most other players who want to complete a game scenario in a few hours.

I`ll of couse support with my $$ whatever They produce since I think it`s a really excellent and fun Game system.[:)]

Arjuna · Post by **Arjuna** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:35 pm

Black Cat,

No offense taken here. We know only too well about " being late and tired" [:)]