Campaign Resolution

[Mad Russian]

It has been pointed out that to advance in the campaigns you must win the scenarios. Each one that you are playing.

For me that does a couple of things. First and foremost it kills the replay value. If I'm forced to play the scenario over and over until I get it right I'll have lost interest in it pretty soon.

But, that's not what I see happening with PC. Instead what I see are scenarios that you are pretty much guaranteed to win. They don't go down to the wire with you sitting on the edge of your chair screaming at your computer. They don't. [:@]

In PC you take the German forces and advance slowly across the map with all the time you need. You win each battle and collect your medals and go on.

I'm in a PBEM as a Soviet player right now. We are past turn 24 and I've given exactly TWO orders. Both of those were to fire artillery. That really wants me to try another PC game in PBEM. [>:]

Now, I possibly see the reason for that. I think all the scenarios on the CD's are included in campaigns. If that's the case they are set where they are easy enough for the gamer to win and go to the next one. While in it's own right that doesn't sound so bad, consider this, at what level of game play do you set the play balance so that everybody can advance to the next scenario in the campaign? It has to be fairly easy or nobody is going to be playing more than the first couple of scenarios in the campaign.

We need to have a campaign system where you advance no matter what you did in the current scenario.

From my experience the PC scenarios have a very German bias. That's not all bad either. Except, the books I read say the Germans lost WWII. They even lost it on the Russian Front. Which means they lost more battles than they won.

But in PC we are having them win the battles before they can advance in the campaigns?

Where does that make sense?

It would be easier to remove the coding that has to check to see if you won that just let the gamer play on with whatever he/she has left.

Those of you that have come from the CM gaming world and have played any HSG scenarios, mine especially, know I come to fight!

The tougher the fight the better.

I want my computer monitor to be cracked and smoking when I'm done with a scenario. [X(] WIN, LOSE or DRAW! I don't care! What I want is that intensity of the moment where you are screaming at your computer monitor for him to FIRE, or REVERSE, or WHATEVER!

I don't see how that can happen in scenarios set up inside campaigns if you have to win to advance. [:-]

I highly recommend that feature be changed to allow you to possibly choose if you want to play that battle again or move on.

At the least you fight the battle one time and you move on.

That's what I think. What do the rest of you think? [&:]

Good Hunting.

MR

[junk2drive]

I think you are not the normal casual gamer that sees games as entertainment. You are a passionate wargamer.
 
Therefore the PC campaign aspect has been designed to give the vs AI player a casual challenge with a carrot on a stick system.
 
I fondly remember playing Command and Conquer and Starcraft where you had to finish a level before you could go on to the next. Lose and you had to start over.
 
As far as German bias, I think you can, as a beginner to PC, play the German campaign through, then for more challenge, play as Soviet. Replay value? You could repeat the previous sentence on higher difficulty but I think most people would prefer a random generated campaign.
 
Maybe people like you will stick to scenarios unless you or someone finds a way to make campaigns more to your liking.

[benpark]

I strongly agree with the concept of being able to advance in a campaign even with a loss/draw.

[rickier65]

I have mixed feeling about this. I'm fine with the way it works now, but would be ok with being able to proceed. I actually think the way it is now is better, but I don't feel strongly. If you loose a battle, you've likely also suffered significant casualties, and that will give you trouble as you proceed.

Rick

[junk2drive]

Steel Panthers has branching campaigns where your next battle is determined by your level of victory or loss.
JTCS campaigns are like that except if you lose badly you are relieved of command (cannot continue).

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive
JTCS campaigns are like that except if you lose badly you are relieved of command (cannot continue).

..are shot!
Remember who you are dealing with here.[;)]

[pensfanvw]

I think you should be able to progess with the campaign even when/if you lose a battle. To me, it feels unrealistic, after losing a battle, to have to do it again. There should be some kind of punishment for losing a battle (loss of units, morale, experience etc.), and lose too many your career should end. I'm new to this game, but these are my thoughts.

Al

[Mraah]

In my opinion ... (regarding random campaign not historical)

We must considered the "big picture" when it comes to how our little campaign battle plays out.

For this to work then there has to be another engine that drives an entire front worth of battles on a daily (hourly?) basis. In other words, our campaign destiny shouldn't be pre-rolled at startup, but more dynamic.

We can have our little company of tanks perform amazing breakthroughs only to find out our brothers are not having as much luck.

I read a very good book about the 4th Armoured Division (off topic, yeah, the west front) .... It was amazing how one Combat Command would be pushing through like crazy whilst the other CC was bogged down only to have the division commander tell the successful CC to HALT and wait for the slower CC's to move up and cover the flanks.

Anyway .... It's all in the big picture ... IMO.

Rob

[Stridor]

ORIGINAL: Mraah


In my opinion ... (regarding random campaign not historical)

We must considered the "big picture" when it comes to how our little campaign battle plays out.

For this to work then there has to be another engine that drives an entire front worth of battles on a daily (hourly?) basis. In other words, our campaign destiny shouldn't be pre-rolled at startup, but more dynamic.

We can have our little company of tanks perform amazing breakthroughs only to find out our brothers are not having as much luck.

I read a very good book about the 4th Armoured Division (off topic, yeah, the west front) .... It was amazing how one Combat Command would be pushing through like crazy whilst the other CC was bogged down only to have the division commander tell the successful CC to HALT and wait for the slower CC's to move up and cover the flanks.

Anyway .... It's all in the big picture ... IMO.

Rob

I really wanted to add something like this whilst I was writing the RBG/RCG systems, however there was no way to get the game engine to programatically tell me the results of a particular engagement. Hopefully something to be fixed for PC3

Regards

S.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

I think you are not the normal casual gamer that sees games as entertainment. You are a passionate wargamer.

Therefore the PC campaign aspect has been designed to give the vs AI player a casual challenge with a carrot on a stick system.

I fondly remember playing Command and Conquer and Starcraft where you had to finish a level before you could go on to the next. Lose and you had to start over.

As far as German bias, I think you can, as a beginner to PC, play the German campaign through, then for more challenge, play as Soviet. Replay value? You could repeat the previous sentence on higher difficulty but I think most people would prefer a random generated campaign.

Maybe people like you will stick to scenarios unless you or someone finds a way to make campaigns more to your liking.

Well J2D, you've known me the longest of anyone on these forums, that's not a member of HSG. I'll go by your assessment of what I like and don't like. I rarely make my opinions known as you are aware.....[8|]

I very much do prefer the game to "LEAN" towards historical. [&o]

Not to the point where people shoot at me from inside my computer though....[X(]

There needs to be a balance. It's what we are all looking for. If the balance I'm looking for isn't for everybody I'll just play the scenarios and go from there. That's been a standard of CM since it's inception with the extremely poor campaign/operational system it uses. It would be nice to be able to string some historical campaigns together and get a feel for that too though.....IMO.....[:D]

However, I don't see a reason that the campaign, not moving forward unless you win, isn't something that's easier to accomplish than forcing the game to check it and redo the same battle over. It should be easier to just let the campaign continue than to have it force it to reset.

Whatever Erik and Matrix come up with is what we'll use. I'd like to take a moment to thank both Erik and Matrix for the work they've put into the system so far. Without them we wouldn't be discussing anything here.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
From my experience the PC scenarios have a very German bias. That's not all bad either. Except, the books I read say the Germans lost WWII. They even lost it on the Russian Front. Which means they lost more battles than they won.

This is primarily at the time of the battle of Kharkov in 1942. The books I read say the Russian won in 1945 not May of 1942.

Still there are a number of Kursk battles thrown in. They are before the Germans ran out of steam and tanks.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
From my experience the PC scenarios have a very German bias. That's not all bad either. Except, the books I read say the Germans lost WWII. They even lost it on the Russian Front. Which means they lost more battles than they won.

This is primarily at the time of the battle of Kharkov in 1942. The books I read say the Russian won in 1945 not May of 1942.

Still there are a number of Kursk battles thrown in. They are before the Germans ran out of steam and tanks.

So once the emphasis changes to later war you'll have to lose the battles as the German player before you can advance in the campaigns then?

That makes alot of sense.[:D]


To be fair, that's true. The Germans were tactically superior during the summer of 1942. However, wargames are an abstraction from the start. Most battles were fought at 3 or more to 1 to insure the victory went to the attacker. In a wargame scenario that would be boring.

What are we, am I, looking for? Those times when the balance was in doubt. It may only have been for an hour out of a 3 day fight. It might have been for 12 minutes out of an hour long fight.

So, while the Germans were tactically superior during this very time period you are talking about the Soviets came very close to destroying the German southern drive before it ever got started at Kharkov. So close in fact that they had to use their offensive forces to save their own battle formations. That doesn't seem much like a German bias need applied there.

During Operation Winter Storm the Germans were on the defensive. The Red Army was tactically so inept that they were about to destroy the 6th Army at Stalingrad. They were tactically so inept that they came very close to encircling and destroying the entire southern third of the German line in Russia.

Yes, I'm saying the Soviets were no less than equals in many of these battles and in many cases were in a better position to win. IMO, and from what you just said it seems intentional, that's not reflected in PC:OWS or PC:K. That's okay. I understand that better now with the idea that you have to win the battle before you can move ahead.

Every wargame has a combat model. The scenarios/campaigns and operations are very scripted by the designer. He knows what he wants to see happen and pretty much how. The good/great designers allow for multiple ways to achieve the end result, with varying results possible for the scenario. Forcing a gamer to get a win before advancing is a bit too much scripting for my tastes is all.

Good Hunting.

MR

[spellir74]

Dynamic Campaign as said...

If one loses a battle, an easy mission** is presented so the player can win points (eg a high value [200pnt?] flag will be on map).

(**easy mission: like patrol an area or hold a lesser flank/road /field against what will ultimately turn out to be a _probe/patrol_; relieve a recon/engineer detatchment, for example, embroiled in small engagement; etc.)

Then with those new won points, player advances to next actual scenario in campaign, able now to buy reinforcements. (He will probably get some greens but what are ya gonna do.)

Also, in keeping with the stock vibe as is, some unacheived goals would sometimes have to be re-attacked --ie same scenario again. HQ helper should be easily accessed from with the game and could allow player to 'up' his reinforcements --despite his previous point loss --and decrease enemy units. This scenario redo could be a smaller battle than the one that just occured or bigger if the reinforcments are offered.

A new write up explaning the situational developments could be generated: A commanding officer... His tone can be either "we all took a beating here etc etc, and this is what we have to do [rear guard, re assault or redeploy]" or "[you really need to get it together over there... Take these reserves And Hold/Seize Those Positions!!]" or "I'm taking you/your battered force off the line ...Patrol/relieve [sector 'n']" (the patrol/relief scenario above).

[If the new small scenario is RBG --rather than developer made-- the RBG would have to know and use unit info from the campaign.]

Like Stridor said above, none of this is just simple to do [especially that last RBG bit there]. But it is code-able (by those who know such things).

These are not entire battles. They are simply numberless engagements within Historic battles.

If you lose [2-3?] times in a row you are dismissed to boot camp.

[[Boot camp tutorials could--_like in ALL computer games, always_ -- be better. They teach nothing now about armour at all; no less anything about tactics; no less specific idiosyncrasies of PzC controls and engine: eg insights about 'advance', 'bound' or 'engage move' etc, etc, etc; the armour-weapons 'spec' button compendium (or the pa-tetique Russian Inf). Even the infantry boot camp offered leaves much to be desired. I would never assault an open field that way --just to get to church on time; and the close assault anti tank mission...  bleck. Sorry but its true --like _all games always_. Apparently the X amount of "gaming hours" the customer is supposed to get for his money is in figuring out what to do rather than apply-ing knowledge. Again this is most games I have ever touched (eg that tedious famous submarine thing); PzC isn't even that guilty: after gettin my ass whooped in OWS scenarios a few times I was becoming okay.]]

Scenario designers could take a crack at a Lehr Campaign. Pop up orders en-scenario would make that (and any scenario/campaign) much better. I would create that --since scenario creating is something I can do -- but I'm trying to learn modeling right now (and before that it was XML idiosyncrasies and WWII History).

(<<<More interesting scenarios include: popup order changes/messages, air strike arty in rear message, dynamic campigns as above, beflwgs and comm spot HT types affording barrage/strike accuracy or availability and or morale advantage, munition schleppers reload [eg APCR] if within 15m for multi phases, ARV and medical increases recovery potential (helps end points), div/rgt recon increases reinforcement chance (as bfwg, comm HT might), pioniers affording minefield and fjording advantage [if within 10m for multi phases (not contiguous)]>>>).

-----------
Just some thoughts.

[Erik Rutins]

We definitely do plan to improve the campaign system further. Among the things we'd like to do is the ability to have branching campaigns that don't require a victory in order to proceed. However, I don't see many campaigns being able to continue after multiple losses.

[Mad Russian]

You're not looking at the results of a campaign, so to speak, when you do them tactically, as much as the unit you are portraying and it's involvement.

Now, if you are going to string battles of a campaign together that represent the campaign itself, that's one thing. To have a particular unit you are following during a campaign that's another.

Units could lose several actions in the campaign and still have the campaign be successful.

I'll use the British Armoured units during the Normandy campaign as an example. Pick any British Armoured unit you like. They lost action after action and yet the campaign was a success.

If however you want to follow the actions of the 11th Armoured Division, that's different. You keep losing action after action and things start to get dicey with losses, morale, etc....which IMO, is a better way of showing the effects of a loss compared to simply resetting the campaign and making you start over.

All of this said, at least PC has a campaign system and one that works for your intended purpose. That's far better than a game without one or a broken one. Kudo's to you for even including it in the game system.

Good Hunting.

MR

[spellir74]

Hello Mad Russian.

Regarding your last post --'15'...

What I think you're saying is what I call a 'ghost of war' campaign. Ie instead of following one combat group, each battle is comprised of different units, where-in the player is simply always just a spirit of war possessing that unit for the time being until moving on to some other location and kampfgruppe of the larger operation.

The player follows an operation not a singal combat group.

Actually I do like those, for they
1) allow more freedom as far as what type of force and objectives each scenario of the campaign has -- a recon Abteilung mission one time and a engineers-take-bridge the next time (with the one after that being, rear police capture downed pilot protected by partisans!)
-- and
2) you don't get too attached to / _too protective of_ any unit(s).

The negative is you don't get too attached to any unit(s).

In a ghost of war campaign, any given force could be decimated in one scenario yet the next scenario would come as planned for it is a different combat group of the korp/Div/Rgt/Btn anyway. The operaton continues but sadly not for those chumps passed.

If one wants to make that kind of campaign (I certainly do), medals and experience wouldn't be as relevant, so you could play them in chronological order as individual scenarios. But I guess the pre-scenario map screens and post campaign epilogue are desirable though. (Is music and video attachable to a campaign? I believe there is something like that potential there in PzC already.)

We do need the

Code: Select all

 to be changed to allow for progression-despite-loss continuation (as you know). 
 
 ---------
 So, Eric, we want two types of campaign change;
 -One is dynamic campaign. (As I attempted to explain in previous post.) The POV is following a specific combat group through their personal journey. (Sometimes they're redeployd to a quieter sector, because the player stinks.)
 -And two is continuation-despite-loss, for operation --and map and epilogue-- reasons. (Historic events.) The POV is 'spirit de guerre' ...possessing different souls from firefight to firefight to get his fix [like star trek ;-) ]
 
 (And here's what one does to have a "ghost of war" campaign still get the maps and epilogue goodies... In the first scenario of that campaign a unit will be the "core". This core doesn't have to show up in any other scenario I believe. (But note a developer could have that unit [maybe a recon /krad shutz/beflwg or such] make a cameo later on for interest's sake.))
 
 But again, either way, we need the [code] to be changed (as you know).

[Mobius]

Boy that is some serious campaigns. I do like the branching option but if you lose you might have to retreat to a scenario that you can win then keep winning until you reach that one again that you just keep losing. Go into the loop again and again a Ground Hog day campaign.
&nbsp;
What I at least want is what I tried to do in my new Kursk Prokhorovka campaign. Fight with two groups of units (opposite sides of the RR embankment) but keep their history alive until the end where it tells of their accomplishments. But when I switched from battles where the units were not present back to where they were they came back as green replacements. I eventually had to split a large campaign into two smaller ones.

[benpark]

I'd like to see both types of campaign offered, like the "linked campaign" and the "dynamic campaign"from the Campaign Series.

I really do think that losing should not make you have to replay the same scenario in both types of campaign. The punishment should be in the loss of forces that accompanies a defeat. Replacements should be scalable to the date the battle is, region etc. (taking historical rates/quality at the time into consideration).

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: benpark

I'd like to see both types of campaign offered, like the "linked campaign" and the "dynamic campaign"from the Campaign Series.

I really do think that losing should not make you have to replay the same scenario in both types of campaign. The punishment should be in the loss of forces that accompanies a defeat. Replacements should be scalable to the date the battle is, region etc. (taking historical rates/quality at the time into consideration).

Which should all be set by the campaign designer.

Good Hunting.

MR

[spellir74]

ORIGINAL: benpark

I'd like to see both types of campaign offered, like the "linked campaign" and the "dynamic campaign"from the Campaign Series.

I really do think that losing should not make you have to replay the same scenario in both types of campaign. The punishment should be in the loss of forces that accompanies a defeat. Replacements should be scalable to the date the battle is, region etc. (taking historical rates/quality at the time into consideration).

I agree with this.