Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Dynamic, Persistent Campaign

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Dynamic, Persistent Campaign Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/12/2014 9:11:29 PM   
apoll

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline 		Hello fellow CMANO enthusiasts! I wanted to run this suggestion up the flagpole to see how many of you would salute it. Don't misunderstand my motives here; this simulation is already superb. But one thing I think that would take it firmly into the halls of legendary status would be the addition of a dynamic, persistent campaign generator. I think this would really be the crowning achievement for this fantastic simulation. I wanted to see how many of you think the same, and to wonder if it is really feasible.

It occurs to me when I sit down to play one of the excellent community scenarios that, when it came to the conclusion, how much more engrossing it would be if your results carried onto the next time period (say...24 hours) and you had to continue operations against the enemy who sallied a second or third wave to contest the sea space. What if you had the mission, over a week or tie or even six months, clear the Soviet/Chinese/US/enemy navy from the sea space...or take an island chain in the face of persistent and determined opposition. And you did not really, beyond the order of battle information, have an idea of how strongly or weakly the enemy would respond. And imagine a feature which really placed intelligence to the forefront of your battle planning; intelligence estimates suggest the enemy's most likely course of action was X, and you planned off this, only to find out during the course of the battle that your on board and national collection assets started to build an altogether different intelligence picture that was fed to you piecemeal during the battle. How amazing would that be? Finally, imagine if every time you generated this battle campaign, it was different and you had no real idea what was going to come next. A further refinement of this would also to give you latitude in building your battle group from the available pool; you would this with the knowledge of the initial intelligence estimates on what you were likely to face. Sometimes, what you needed was available...sometimes it was not...and if you lost badly the previous phase, then these assets would not available for repair and return to the battle fleet.

I for one would absolutely love this addition. In fact, I would pay for it as a fundamental addon to the simulation. I would practise my tactics in the ding,e scenarios, but the final test would be in such a campaign as described above. How feasible is this do you think? Whistling Dixie? Or a serious possibility? I'd it worth the effort even...?

What do people think?

Apoll
Post #: 1
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/12/2014 9:34:43 PM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 1203
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline 		In short: Far too complicated, and most of it can be simulated through individual extra-large scenarios and scenario sets (the giant Play the Fool scenario where you must retake South China Sea islands is one, and the Northern Fury campaign is another). Even battle damage could be simulated if you were willing to alter the later scenarios in the very capable editor.

Also, there's many points of failure that sound good in the intro but are mundane, impossible, or even both in practice. On the former end you have a dynamic battle with random events. On the latter, random could mean surprises-or it could be like the Steel Panthers computer putting all its eggs in a few lightly armored vehicle baskets, handing the player an easy victory. Inaccurate intelligence can be done in briefings that the writer can distort.

And this is my personal opinion, but I'm not the biggest fan of giant fantasy WWIII scenarios that the super-large campaigns would probably become as. I prefer regional conflicts or small exploratory scenarios.

(in reply to apoll)
Post #: 2
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/12/2014 10:14:54 PM   
greg_slith


Posts: 490
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline 		I, for one, would love something like this. I sometimes go "all in " when playing a scenario instead of worrying about having enough assets for the next battle. There are victories and there are pryyhic victories and a campaign game would make a player chose which he was going for. Do you throw everything and a kitchen sink at a USCVBG regardless of loss or nibble at the edges first? Just my two cents.

(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 3
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/12/2014 10:52:46 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		A) I don't want to be another War in the Pacific...a game so detailed and all encompassing that it becomes almost unplayable as a simulator of modern naval and air battles

B) Why can't you build most of this out today. The exact example you give is exactly what you can build.

I would suggest just trying to build that now.

(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 4
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/13/2014 1:14:06 AM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline 		As written, I think it would be fearfully difficult to add it to the game.

However, it would not be difficult to add the aspect of performance in earlier battles to a series of scenarios designed to be played as a series, as long as the player does not mind doing a little work.

For example, say I write a trio of scenarios about an American convoy heading to the U.K. in a fictional World War III, set in 1985. The convoy sets out from New York with one destroyer and two frigates and twenty merchants and tankers of various sizes. The player plays the first scenario.

During the first scenario, he loses one merchant but is able to sink one Soviet submarine.

Before playing the second scenario, he opens it up in the scenario editor and, being careful to NOT hit God's Eye View, which would let him see where the submarines are sitting, he deletes the merchant he lost in the first scenario. He ALSO removes whatever torpedoes, etc. were expended by the convoy in the first scenario. So if he used a lot of torpedoes to nail that one submarine, he may pay for it later. He then saves the scenario as a separate scenario so he does not overwrite the original version of the scenario. All of the ships are in the baseline version of the scenario; it depends on the player to remove the ships he or she lost in the first scenario.

He plays the second scenario. This one is a disaster...he loses one of the frigates and four of the merchants. And the Soviet submarines escape unscathed!

Before playing the third scenario, he opens it up in the editor and removes the ships, etc. lost in the second scenario. He plays the third scenario; this time, as in the first scenario, he only loses one merchant. Not too bad, but when he gets to the U.K., he only gets points for the fourteen merchants arriving safely...and a Triumph is based on getting all 20 there. Instead of getting a Major Victory (14 out of 15) he only gets Average (14 out of 20). So his performance in the first two scenarios does affect the outcome of the final one.

There are a lot of options for this kind of linked series of scenarios.

I hope this helps.



(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 5
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/13/2014 2:00:01 AM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Having read the OP, found it difficult to come up with something that I would less like to see for CMANO. Sorry, six-months of theatre level operations at the individual unit level sounds like a whack of no fun and a huge hassle to boot.

-C

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 6
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/13/2014 10:51:54 AM   
apoll

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline 		Hmmm. Ok. Some really interesting thoughts on this. I guess the consensus falls somewhere between too much of a hassle...and we can sort of do this already with the tools at hand. I must admit that I am rather lazy here: I would much prefer the computer do the work for me in subtracting lost assets etc. plus I am not confident in my scenario design....

Thanks to all who have replied so far. Anyone else got a view?

Apoll


(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 7
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/13/2014 12:00:30 PM   
Tomcat84

 

Posts: 1952
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline 		I think while it would be interesting, I can imagine it would also be very difficult to code a competent AI that gives good and dynamic results while still making sense.

On the other hand, the next patch will add several features for scenario builders (like being able to reassign units to new and different missions through the event editor) that makes it more feasible than it is now to build scenarios that last longer and feature multiple battles involving the same units (if they werent killed in the first battle).

No longer will an AI aircraft either be assigned to one mission or none at all, you as designer will be able to first assign it to a strike mission to target A, and then for example 24 hours later trigger it to reassign to strike mission B. So multiple waves and longer battles will become possible, it'll just require dedication from the scenario designer to make it happen.



< Message edited by Tomcat84 -- 11/13/2014 1:01:33 PM >

_____________________________

My Scenarios and Tutorials for Command

(Scenarios focus on air-warfare :) )

(in reply to apoll)
Post #: 8
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/13/2014 1:45:05 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		I don't think we've had many scenarios that really test long durations out so don't really have a great sense of what to focus on..After next release please do try as we're willing to address any issues that shake out of it.

Thanks

Mike



_____________________________


(in reply to Tomcat84)
Post #: 9
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/13/2014 6:37:07 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline 		I think the more reasonable way to do something like this is when multiplayer is introduced. I'd suggested a kind of "game master" mode for one player before, which essentially makes him the live scenario designer. The idea would be to have two (or more) opposing teams, subdivided as necessary, plus the game master(s), who'd have a god's eye view of the map. The game master would be able to use the scenario design tools we already have to update the game as necessary - assign replacement aircraft, restock magazines, create engineering casualties, send messages to the fleets, etc. By doing this, you can skip a lot of the system design the Command team would have to work out (namely campaign AI, logistics, maintenance, optempo adjustments, morale, etc) for a true campaign system.

Of course the big drawback is this is a multiplayer system, and in my experience with multiplayer campaigns in other matches, getting enough players together can be like herding ADHD cats.

< Message edited by hellfish6 -- 11/13/2014 7:38:26 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 10
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/13/2014 7:47:35 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Hellfish6 steers the conversation in a practical direction. Should CMANO ever reach the stage where umpired multiplayer is practical then the essential dynamics to create a workable long-term campaign would probably be in place. Provided that a suitable group of players could be assembled and committed, particularly the umpires, who would presumably build and modify the action as it unfolds. Won't hold my breath waiting even if CMANO develops the necessary tools.

-C

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 11
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/13/2014 10:15:22 PM   
apoll

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline 		Mike et al...really interesting discussion. I wish I had the time or skill to really get into scenario design, as I would like to put my money where my mouth is and have a go at creating persistent campaign like mission threads. The idea of a 'master controller' is a good one. A variation of this is to have a 'commander' who worries about the strategic placement of the assets, while a number of 'operational' task group commanders work for him looking after the various task groups. This could work for both human against AI and human against human. The idea would be that the strategic commander has certain tools and access to certain knowledge and capabilities, such as selecting the makeup of various task groups, while those working for him only have control over their respective task groups. The strategic commander would give 'orders' to his subordinates so they understand what the overall objective and plan was, and then would be limited to giving direction once the operation starts. The operational task force commanders then attempt to carry out the plan, fighting their groups etc. The strategic commander could play the role of deciding when strategic reserves were introduced and to whome...things like that. That would be very interesting, nes pas?

Apoll

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 12
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/13/2014 10:50:31 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		Yes and does touch on the original goal of the project. Ok will touch base more on this with the team.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to apoll)
Post #: 13
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/14/2014 1:31:36 AM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: apoll

Mike et al...really interesting discussion. I wish I had the time or skill to really get into scenario design, as I would like to put my money where my mouth is and have a go at creating persistent campaign like mission threads. The idea of a 'master controller' is a good one. A variation of this is to have a 'commander' who worries about the strategic placement of the assets, while a number of 'operational' task group commanders work for him looking after the various task groups. This could work for both human against AI and human against human. The idea would be that the strategic commander has certain tools and access to certain knowledge and capabilities, such as selecting the makeup of various task groups, while those working for him only have control over their respective task groups. The strategic commander would give 'orders' to his subordinates so they understand what the overall objective and plan was, and then would be limited to giving direction once the operation starts. The operational task force commanders then attempt to carry out the plan, fighting their groups etc. The strategic commander could play the role of deciding when strategic reserves were introduced and to whome...things like that. That would be very interesting, nes pas?

Apoll


Yeah, the idea in my head is that each side would have a commander. The commander would assign forces to his sub-commanders - individual ships, facilities, subs and aircraft. The commander would be responsible for the overall conduct of the battle, designation of areas of operation, and the allocation of resources (though I'm sure he could easily be in direct command of some forces/regions). The sub-commanders would fight the battles with the forces they've been allocated in the areas they've been allocated (or in the realms that they have command - sides could theoretically be split into air/sea/subsea commands vice geographic commands). Of course, a tight scenario could involve only one person per side.

Also, a game-mastered campaign system might help hammer out/prototype some of the requirements and processes you'd want to have in a solitaire campaign.


< Message edited by hellfish6 -- 11/14/2014 2:35:10 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to apoll)
Post #: 14
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/14/2014 10:37:57 AM   
apoll

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline 		Great ideas, Hellfish6! Just so... I really hope something like this may be possible in the future...

Apoll

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 15
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/15/2014 1:49:10 AM   
Casinn

 

Posts: 343
Joined: 7/27/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

Yeah, the idea in my head is that each side would have a commander. The commander would assign forces to his sub-commanders - individual ships, facilities, subs and aircraft. The commander would be responsible for the overall conduct of the battle, designation of areas of operation, and the allocation of resources (though I'm sure he could easily be in direct command of some forces/regions). The sub-commanders would fight the battles with the forces they've been allocated in the areas they've been allocated



Think WW2 Online was initially planned to work like that.

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 16
RE: Dynamic, Persistent Campaign - 11/16/2014 3:29:21 AM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Casinn


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

Yeah, the idea in my head is that each side would have a commander. The commander would assign forces to his sub-commanders - individual ships, facilities, subs and aircraft. The commander would be responsible for the overall conduct of the battle, designation of areas of operation, and the allocation of resources (though I'm sure he could easily be in direct command of some forces/regions). The sub-commanders would fight the battles with the forces they've been allocated in the areas they've been allocated



Think WW2 Online was initially planned to work like that.


I think most military campaigns and operations are planned like that.

_____________________________


(in reply to Casinn)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Dynamic, Persistent Campaign Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.484