Campaign? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

rroberson -> Campaign? (10/15/2013 7:15:44 AM)

I apologize for what seems like a dumb question, but I am very interested in this game and was curious about how robust the campaign mode was.

That is, if I build a scenario to simulate say the entire air war over Iraq from Gulf War 1 can I simulate the entire air war from start to finish or is this a strictly single scenario type of game. Not that that is a bad thing, but if I knock out a sam site does it stay knocked out the next day or magically reset?

I'm very very interested in the game itself and may bite the bullet soon and just get it...but with the incredible database it appears to have (every unit from the cold war to the present) I would love to create and sim actual wars as oppose to just missions.

Hope this makes sense.



invernomuto -> RE: Campaign? (10/15/2013 10:24:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson
That is, if I build a scenario to simulate say the entire air war over Iraq from Gulf War 1 can I simulate the entire air war from start to finish or is this a strictly single scenario type of game. Not that that is a bad thing, but if I knock out a sam site does it stay knocked out the next day or magically reset?


AFAIK, you cannot "link" scenarios in a campaign mode in CMANO.

Bye



Der Zeitgeist -> RE: Campaign? (10/15/2013 10:26:40 AM)

Right now, every scenario stands for itself, without any linkage to other scenarios. Theoretically, a scenario could last as long as you want to, so one could simulate larger campaigns. But right now, that is difficult to implement because platforms can not have multiple missions assigned to them (at least as far as I know).



Tomcat84 -> RE: Campaign? (10/15/2013 12:14:12 PM)

Once some more complex triggers, actions, condition, and route planning tools are implemented for the scenario editor, you could theoretically create a long multi day/week campaign, however right now that is not very feasible yet.

Bear in mind it would be a long job for a scenario editor to put this together too.



rroberson -> RE: Campaign? (10/15/2013 4:29:53 PM)

disappointing...thanks guys. I'll probably still pick it up sooner or later...too much potential not to. Think there are any plans in the near term to allow linked scenarios?



Primarchx -> RE: Campaign? (10/15/2013 8:23:25 PM)

Linked scenarios would be very interesting. However I'm more interested in the creation of advanced logistics, re-enforcement and long-term scenario controls for Command. Given that you have the globe to play on and scenarios can last YEARS, why not put everything in one big package?



Banquet -> RE: Campaign? (10/15/2013 8:54:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

Linked scenarios would be very interesting. However I'm more interested in the creation of advanced logistics, re-enforcement and long-term scenario controls for Command. Given that you have the globe to play on and scenarios can last YEARS, why not put everything in one big package?


+1



Wiz33 -> RE: Campaign? (10/15/2013 10:34:33 PM)

If we get scenario linking. Can we also have scenario branching at the same time?



jomni -> RE: Campaign? (10/16/2013 3:31:32 AM)

If you make one giant scenario that spans several days, the war will be over in just hours... Especially the air war.
Programming the Ai is for multi day ops is hard. Currently, an aircraft can only be assigned one mission type and load out.



Der Zeitgeist -> RE: Campaign? (10/16/2013 6:59:49 PM)

I think for longer scenarios, we could use a kind of "macro level" mission AI. Working on the same principles as the current missions, only on a higher, operational level. It might use broadly defined missions such as "Air Defense", where you can assign larger areas, such as the airspace of a whole country, and then assign, for example, several airbases to that mission. The AI would then subdivide the large mission area into smaller ones and assign the airplanes on the airbases to these smaller mission areas, each using the current CAP mission logic. The AI would need to automatically ready its own planes, of course, and assign them in a similar manner to the current "1/3 rule", so the pool of assigned airplanes doesn't run out too fast.



Stevechase -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 3:45:41 PM)

quote:

if I build a scenario to simulate say the entire air war over Iraq from Gulf War 1 can I simulate the entire air war from start to finish or is this a strictly single scenario type of game. Not that that is a bad thing, but if I knock out a sam site does it stay knocked out the next day or magically reset?


Actually the answer to your question is yes. You could simulate the entire air war and when you knock out the sam site it will not reset the next day. It is totally doable. I think the other posters to your question just saw your mention of campaign and think you are referring to dynamic campaigns or linking scenarios. Which as they mentioned is not possible now. But as far as I know there is no limit to scenario duration so a campaign sized scenario lasting several weeks should be doable would require some good scen design and effort though.

The sim is top notch as is but from what I understand will be improved upon with more features many fold. If you do decide to purchase I think you will be happy with your decision.[;)] good luck



Tomcat84 -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 4:51:26 PM)

Yes you can set the duration very long, but since it is not possible to have the AI reassign units from one mission to the other (yet), that makes it a very tough task for a scenario designer to get the AI opponent to keep working for days. I am interested in such scenarios but until several key tools become available to the scenario editor I will not yet attempt it myself.




CV32 -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 5:47:22 PM)

A feature that many wargamers in this genre have been waiting for a long time. Guess we keep waiting.



mikmykWS -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 7:28:15 PM)

The goal is one scenario that can go for a significant amount of time. Chaining is for when you can't really do that.

Things in place now that should help long duration scenarios:

1) Mission and Event editor functionality that allows you to activate and deactivate missions.
2) Refueling and Replenishment. Needs a little work but pretty much there.
3) Global map so things can move from one area to the next.
4) Import and Export features as well as configuration files allow delta's to be saved.

Things on near future/short list that are not extremely difficult to implement.

1) Event editor action to drop units from mission and add them.
2) Give port facilities ability to replenish

Long term:

1) Repair


Please add to this list. We're an active development group[:)]




Banquet -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 7:37:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

The goal is one scenario that can go for a significant amount of time. Chaining is for when you can't really do that.

Things in place now that should help long duration scenarios:

1) Mission and Event editor functionality that allows you to activate and deactivate missions.
2) Refueling and Replenishment. Needs a little work but pretty much there.
3) Global map so things can move from one area to the next.
4) Import and Export features as well as configuration files allow delta's to be saved.

Things on near future/short list that are not extremely difficult to implement.

1) Event editor action to drop units from mission and add them.
2) Give port facilities ability to replenish

Long term:

1) Repair


Please add to this list. We're an active development group[:)]




This is good :)



Mac Linehan -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 7:46:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

Linked scenarios would be very interesting. However I'm more interested in the creation of advanced logistics, re-enforcement and long-term scenario controls for Command. Given that you have the globe to play on and scenarios can last YEARS, why not put everything in one big package?


+1


+2!

Mac



Mac Linehan -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 7:48:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

The goal is one scenario that can go for a significant amount of time. Chaining is for when you can't really do that.

Things in place now that should help long duration scenarios:

1) Mission and Event editor functionality that allows you to activate and deactivate missions.
2) Refueling and Replenishment. Needs a little work but pretty much there.
3) Global map so things can move from one area to the next.
4) Import and Export features as well as configuration files allow delta's to be saved.

Things on near future/short list that are not extremely difficult to implement.

1) Event editor action to drop units from mission and add them.
2) Give port facilities ability to replenish

Long term:

1) Repair


Please add to this list. We're an active development group[:)]


Mike -

You're an awesome development group!

Mac



Mac Linehan -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 7:51:24 PM)

rroberson -

Great to see you on the Command forums!

Mac




[RS]Wedge -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 8:15:53 PM)

The ultimate would be having a dynamic campaign setup like what Falcon 4.0 has. The computer could command the troops/tanks/support and the player is charge of commanding the ships and aircraft.



Tomcat84 -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 8:47:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

1) Event editor action to drop units from mission and add them.



That one is a big one imho

but also i would like to add

Event editor action to command an RTB, and especially event editor action to command EMCON settings. This will make it more feasible to have (mobile) SAMs applying emcon etc with time or unit entering area triggers.




jdkbph -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 10:53:54 PM)

Mike,

Wouldn't you need to build an AI that "thinks" at the operational level? As far as I can see, the operational level stuff is handled by the scenario designer and the AI works at the tactical level.

Or is it there and I'm just not smart enough to see it? [:)]

JD



mikmykWS -> RE: Campaign? (10/17/2013 11:11:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

Mike,

Wouldn't you need to build an AI that "thinks" at the operational level? As far as I can see, the operational level stuff is handled by the scenario designer and the AI works at the tactical level.


Want yes. Need no. Generally if you give gamer's the tools to work with they can piece together an experience that is probably good and smart enough for most. That's probably a good initial goal. Operational Ai probably after human AI. MPer will probably be the best implementation.

quote:

Or is it there and I'm just not smart enough to see it? [:)]

JD


Huh? Problem?



jdkbph -> RE: Campaign? (10/18/2013 2:25:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Huh? Problem?



No, not at all. I may have confused things by throwing out terms without a word of explanation to level set.

In my mind, and in the context of this game, an operational AI would be one that could automatically handle an evolving situation over an extended period of time without having to be pre-programed for every foreseeable eventuality by a scenario builder on a per scenario basis. One that would continually evaluate a game situation during the course of a scenario and adopt an appropriate response.

For instance, lets say you want to build a "campaign" involving a fight for control of SLOCs lasting two or three weeks. This might be the familiar Red vs Blue cold war thing, where the Blue side needs to move men and materiel from point A to point B, and the Red side wants to deny access and prevent that from happening.

Red can "procure" and apply various forces, air, surface and sub-surface, to accomplish the goal, with the assumption that forces cost something to deploy... either in terms of an abstract weighted points system, or some sort of actual game world inducement to maintain a reserve or a commitment for other purposes.

Blue can adopt either an aggressive take-them-out-where-they-live approach, or a passive take-them-as-they-come approach. Again, this may be influenced by the number and nature of forces committed to the task.

This all seems doable, based on my understanding of how the scenario editor works.

The piece I'm not sure of is the ability of the AI to adapt to a changing balance of forces as successes and loses are incurred by either side during the course of the scenario. Would the AI be smart enough to run away and regroup so that it could come back to fight another day (eg, later in the scenario when reinforcements may be available) if the balance shifted against it? Would it understand that an early success might enable it to shift strategy and go for the jugular?

This is what I meant by an "operational thinking" AI.

I haven't tried to create a scenario like this therefore I have no idea whether or not you've made any sort of provision for it. So I wondered aloud if it might be in there, but I just haven't stumbled across it yet.

JD



mikmykWS -> RE: Campaign? (10/18/2013 3:07:05 AM)

Got it.

The AI doesn't understand win/loss etc. It does literally what its told by the static AI either by routines the player calls on (plotted, mission editor) and a few tactical behaviors (engaged offensive, defensive etc) added. What D's working on now (conditional logic in the event editor) will actually open this up a little more as you could use it to activate or deactivate missions. I think once we get the drop/add units action to the event editor this will round out things nicely as you can now have units do more than one thing and have some conditional logic to dictate that. Halsey it won't be but it should add a lot to what the game can do.

A smarter operational AI is going to be a challenge because air, sea and likely land by then are so entirely different and the scope of our models for each is very deep. So its complex, time consuming and would take considerable effort and testing to get right. The sad thing is even after that we still won't be able to match what Multiplayer's Human AI can do so it makes more sense to make sure the AI scripting tools (scenario editor, event editor) are in place so that human AI's can do their thing well.

Thats my take for now. Maybe D can add some thoughts on this.



jomni -> RE: Campaign? (10/18/2013 3:10:34 AM)

I think we should work on a multiplier mode instead.
A scenario designer create a large setting, the it's up to human players on both sides to fully utilize their forces based on the situation.

On the other hand, maybe if we get more options in the events editor, then designers can cleverly script a dynamic or conditional opponent strategic / operational AI. Varying mission targets and loadouts for units come into mind.



ultradave -> RE: Campaign? (10/18/2013 12:22:56 PM)

One thing that could be done today without any additions is a "campaign" similar to Battlefront's Combat Mission series. Campaigns there are a storyline of linked scenarios but without real physical connections. Older Harpoon had some similar battlesets that followed a story. It does not provide what you are looking for where a long term campaign is linked together however it does provide the feel of gaming a long campaign.

Scenario sets like that could be built, and options could exist to go to a different scenario next depending on result.

Just a thought.



jdkbph -> RE: Campaign? (10/18/2013 2:05:47 PM)

Yes, the Battleset concept is a good approach given the current tool set. This is something scenario designers can implement right now, and it adds significantly to the game experience (IMHO).

As you can probably tell by now, I'm a big advocate of campaign style game play. [:)]

The scenario linking option would probably be the best near term compromise given what Mike stated in his reply above. It would require additional development, but it would provide a huge boost (again, IMHO) in the "campaign" area. I would like to be able to re-cast my enhancement vote for this option.

I don't like the multi-player option at all. Not as a substitute for single player functionality at any rate. I just don't do multi-player... at all... ever.

JD



Stevechase -> RE: Campaign? (10/19/2013 2:08:00 AM)

quote:

I don't like the multi-player option at all. Not as a substitute for single player functionality at any rate. I just don't do multi-player... at all... ever.


Totally agree. I hope the devs will put there time into any other option instead of MP.



Banquet -> RE: Campaign? (10/19/2013 9:35:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stevechase

quote:

I don't like the multi-player option at all. Not as a substitute for single player functionality at any rate. I just don't do multi-player... at all... ever.


Totally agree. I hope the devs will put there time into any other option instead of MP.


ditto for me



smudge56 -> RE: Campaign? (10/19/2013 11:42:11 AM)

Well I'm sure there are some how do like the idea of mp. I for one would like the idea of cooperative play where friends can play together against the ai.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.828125