Campaigning (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade



Message

CSO_Talorgan -> Campaigning (12/20/2017 10:57:16 PM)

I wanted to ask what an Armored Brigade campaign might look like.

Looking at the maps I'm guessing that it'll be like Graviteam's system but on steroids; the maps are so much bigger.



Veitikka -> RE: Campaigning (12/23/2017 9:43:54 PM)

I cannot disclose much details right now. There will not be an "operational layer" where you move your units around, and when they meet enemies there will be a tactical fight. A system like that can be fun to play, but it's very hard to try to match the level of realism we have in the tactical level.

Our system will be a branching tree system, where the player is taken from node to node between the battles. The system selects the next node depending on the outcome of the previous scenario. We'll need to do more testing to see how well it works.



Scotters1 -> RE: Campaigning (7/16/2018 4:36:32 PM)

This game looks very interesting, but for some reason I just can't get into a war game without a good dynamic campaign, where each battle effects the overall war. Otherwise it feels like all the effort I just put into the one battle was worthless when the battle is over and the next battle has nothing to do with the previous one. Its the same for me with flight sims too, which is why I can never get into DCS, but I love Falcon BMS, and I like the user made dynamic campaign for CLOD Blitz. I didn't buy the game until that was available. So I am totally supportive of your efforts to make a great wargame, and I am hoping for a great dynamic campaign, but I understand how difficult that is to do. i just think that it is worth the effort in the long run, because many of us wargamers and flight sim guys (and gals) just can't get into games without a dynamic campaign. But not matter what, good luck and God Bless all of your efforts!



ETF -> RE: Campaigning (7/18/2018 10:01:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scotters1

This game looks very interesting, but for some reason I just can't get into a war game without a good dynamic campaign, where each battle effects the overall war. Otherwise it feels like all the effort I just put into the one battle was worthless when the battle is over and the next battle has nothing to do with the previous one. Its the same for me with flight sims too, which is why I can never get into DCS, but I love Falcon BMS, and I like the user made dynamic campaign for CLOD Blitz. I didn't buy the game until that was available. So I am totally supportive of your efforts to make a great wargame, and I am hoping for a great dynamic campaign, but I understand how difficult that is to do. i just think that it is worth the effort in the long run, because many of us wargamers and flight sim guys (and gals) just can't get into games without a dynamic campaign. But not matter what, good luck and God Bless all of your efforts!

Agreed. So hard to find any games that include operational level and Tactical level..........too bad.



CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Campaigning (7/25/2018 6:37:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scotters1

... I just can't get into a war game without a good dynamic campaign, where each battle effects the overall war ...


quote:

ORIGINAL: ETF

Agreed. So hard to find any games that include operational level and tactical level ...


I'm in the same boat. It's best when the tactical game has context.



Panzeh -> RE: Campaigning (7/29/2018 11:25:19 PM)

Operational/strategic layers tend to make a tactical game worse because the scenarios they create are worse and the operational aspects are always worse than an actual operational game.



CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Campaigning (8/4/2018 6:46:50 PM)

If that is so then I'd argue that currently available software is the problem, rather than the concept being wrong.



exsonic01 -> RE: Campaigning (8/5/2018 1:09:28 AM)

I like the concept of operational layer, and I enjoyed such games like Wargane ALB, Wargame RD, Close Combat 4 and later series where players control the movement of regiments / divisions from operational layer and fight in tactical layer.

However, there are really big issues. No matter how many times I fought for specific region of operational map, all tactical battles are placed in exactly same map, same position, and fights for exactly same objectives. In addition, enemy AIs are pushing exactly same route no matter what kind of different groups I have or they have. At the end of day, you will be able to remember every enemy spawn position and push route, and exact same battles will be repeated over and over again. Plus, it is very hard to depict the battle damage and wrecks of region throughout the campaign. For example, in WRD, every time when I play battles in the same region multiple times, miraculously all buildings and roads are repaired, all wrecks are cleared, and all craters are filled, no matter how tough and fierce the previous battle was. Maybe superman cleared the battlefield for the players, maybe... Well, Close combat series depicts the wrecks of tanks and vehicles from previous battle (on RNG base, not all the time), but that is all. Buildings and trees are the same.

Those drawbacks are not only unrealistic, but also quite funny and silly, and make game boring at the later stage. After being bored, players will be tired of same repeating battles, so you will looking for auto battles which is unrealistic and RNG-dependent, or just give up the game before finish the campaign. This happens a lot, not only to me, I saw so many similar stories from other game forums.

There are several ways to solve these issues, but those requires lots of resources. Introduce at least 5 tactical maps per 1 region of operational layer, and decide the place of battle and spawn point based on movement direction of operational map plus a bit of RNG, and diverse the enemy AI. Keep the battle damage of battle field as realistic as possible. But those options are not that perfect. 5 tactical maps per 1 region is too much. If there are 20 regions, total 100+ tactical maps are required, which is too much burden, especially for small (low budget + low manpower) game studio. Also, improving enemy AI is not that simple task. Recording and tracking the location / various degree of battle damages and wrecks of each maps are also not an easy task, this requires too many details to be recorded and tracked through the campaign, which is also burden for coding and disk drive.

Don't get me wrong, operational layer is fun to play, this is another way to enjoy military strategy game, which induces a player feeling of control as a supreme commander. However, there's serious drawback of operational layer in tactical combat games, which is not easy yo solve.

So, how about play operational games, such as Gary Grigsby or TOAW series, for the fun of operational maneuvering and control? And let's focus on battle for the tactical games. This way is more realistic, because players will perform a role of divisional / regimental / battalion commander, and follow the order of higher command. In addition, this method will be less burden for programmers, and would help to increase the quality and the realism of the game. Instead, game can offer more realism and immersion in different way. For example, very well described scenario and very well made mission briefing will make players more immersion, which will give more fun and concentration to the battle.

And I like the idea of "branch style". Not sure about detail, but I also suggested similar idea in Flashpoint Campaign forum long ago... Well, wish to see how the game looks like.



nikolas93TS -> RE: Campaigning (8/5/2018 3:10:24 PM)

I think control over operational level is against the spirit of Armored Brigade. In this game you are the part of the chain of command, so neither a squad leader but neither a Commander of the Front. The player doesn't have to excessively micromanage front troops, but on the same time he has to suffer the consequences of enemy action or his superiors on the operational level, that is the main idea behind the branching campaign in my mind.

We really want do evade campaign linearity as seen in most similar games.



Panzeh -> RE: Campaigning (8/7/2018 12:00:32 PM)

IMO it's less that and more that the designs will generally be at cross-purposes. The goal in an operational game isn't in fact to create interesting tactical scenarios, but to create absolutely lopsided ones.



CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Campaigning (9/2/2018 10:18:35 AM)


quote:

The goal in an operational game isn't in fact to create interesting tactical scenarios, but to create absolutely lopsided ones


Perhaps I'm the only one here who enjoys said lopsided scenarios; especially when you are badly outnumbered.



harlikwin -> RE: Campaigning (10/5/2018 8:19:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

I cannot disclose much details right now. There will not be an "operational layer" where you move your units around, and when they meet enemies there will be a tactical fight. A system like that can be fun to play, but it's very hard to try to match the level of realism we have in the tactical level.

Our system will be a branching tree system, where the player is taken from node to node between the battles. The system selects the next node depending on the outcome of the previous scenario. We'll need to do more testing to see how well it works.



So will it be more like the old SPMBT? Basically you have some "core" units, and the battles you fight depend on the performance in the previous battle?



JamesHunt -> RE: Campaigning (10/5/2018 9:44:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

I cannot disclose much details right now. There will not be an "operational layer" where you move your units around, and when they meet enemies there will be a tactical fight. A system like that can be fun to play, but it's very hard to try to match the level of realism we have in the tactical level.

Our system will be a branching tree system, where the player is taken from node to node between the battles. The system selects the next node depending on the outcome of the previous scenario. We'll need to do more testing to see how well it works.


Glad you´re taking this route. Years ago I would have also opted for full dynamic campaigns but after playing basically most notable wargames out there I`ve learned that these dynamic campaigns often end in doing endless similar and very "generic" battles without providing authentic battles at all.

This branching system with core units and several mission paths depending on your performance like we´ve succesfully seen in games like Combat Mission is for me the best middle way between the two worlds. You get intense and realistic hand made missions which allow for more flexibility when it comes to enemy AI handling and you still have this sense of consequences, urge for force preservation, and progression you enjoy seeing in dynamic campaigns.



Veitikka -> RE: Campaigning (10/6/2018 1:00:51 PM)

So far there hasn't been plans to have the same "core" units that follow you and gain experience as the campaign progresses.

The plan is that each scenario node in the campaign structure can be anything. For example, you could play the first battle as the West Germans and the next battle as the US Army. Or the first battle as a Soviet forward detachment, and the next one as the follow-on force. The scenario end result (draw, tactical/major/total victory/defeat) will determine the next node in the structure. All these scenarios are pre-made, and can have the player (not AI) formation positions locked, so the player cannot move them in the setup phase. I think this is the best way to make realistic campaigns in AB.



Perturabo -> RE: Campaigning (11/9/2018 2:20:56 PM)

nevermind



Perturabo -> RE: Campaigning (11/9/2018 2:22:34 PM)

nevermind



22sec -> RE: Campaigning (11/9/2018 2:46:09 PM)

My understanding is if the campaign is well designed and thought out would fight in the critical battles in a given campaign if a central front war, depending on outcomes of the battles you fight, the campaign couldngonfavoeably for your side or may end in your ultimate defeat.

For instance, a campaign could be fought with the initial battles in the Fulda Gap with the 11th Cav, then the next battle, depending on the outcome would involve the 3rd Armored Divison, and so on and so on.

I really am excited for the possibilities. I think the core unit system is tired and limits the scope of a campaign. I think this system, can capture the feel of some core units but provide a new rewarding experience.



Hexagon -> RE: Campaigning (11/9/2018 5:30:51 PM)

Well, for me campaign is all about manage units and keep them alive to next battle with improvements in experience and morale... or not, defeats could hit your troops morale.

If you dont plan create the usual core force campaign maybe you can add as extra to the linked scens system campaigns more suited to be operations all over same map with "autosave" after certain hours of combat, when a battle ends you are in a resupply-reinforcement moment that could be made using the actual buy units moment and when you do it you go to the battle scen, you see the terrain as you leave it in previous battle and decide the deployment.

Pure linked scen campaign with no relation between them in the end are a little boring because to play this i prefer have the scens individual and play them when i want and not in a predefined order.

Lets see what you can do with campaign.



Werezak -> RE: Campaigning (11/10/2018 8:52:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzeh

IMO it's less that and more that the designs will generally be at cross-purposes. The goal in an operational game isn't in fact to create interesting tactical scenarios, but to create absolutely lopsided ones.


I think this elegantly sums up all of my feelings about tactical games that have an operational campaign layer. It sounds like a great idea at first, but it only occasionally ends up generating interesting tactical situations.

There are much better ways to have a good dynamic campaign. For example, you could still keep the idea of having an operational campaign map, but abstract enough details so that the tactical layer is free to generate interesting tactical battles each time instead of being forced to generate a lopsided battle. e.g. don't track exact details in the campaign but generate them with each battle, instead using the map just as a way to track campaign progress, successes, failures, dynamically.



Scutarii -> RE: Campaigning (11/11/2018 9:28:35 AM)

Maybe predefined path with a narrative that is the link between the battles and based in results you can open or a retreat path or counterattack path as NATO player and as WP player from keep attack moving deeper in Germany to a Stalemate where NATO counter you but using 2nd line units because best units were burned.



Vikingjohn -> RE: Campaigning (12/3/2018 6:16:33 PM)

Without campaign core units why bother ? Without Core units then its just a bunch of random match's .

I haven't bought this yet but am thinking about it since it looks like a good OS . I am retired and on fixed income so cant afford to waste money on things that I will not like. I Still play SPMBT and like the campaign generator system it use's , having a core that can gain experience is what makes long campaigns worth playing.

This game looks like it would be a good replacement for SPMBT if it gets a good campaign system



gbem -> RE: Campaigning (12/3/2018 6:21:25 PM)

nubbin77 has made a great campaign here using specific rules hes made.... perhaps his ideas could be incorporated into an actual dynamic campaign mode?



Veitikka -> RE: Campaigning (12/3/2018 7:28:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vikingjohn

Without campaign core units why bother ? Without Core units then its just a bunch of random match's .

I haven't bought this yet but am thinking about it since it looks like a good OS . I am retired and on fixed income so cant afford to waste money on things that I will not like. I Still play SPMBT and like the campaign generator system it use's , having a core that can gain experience is what makes long campaigns worth playing.


From what I remember from Steel Panthers' generated campaigns, these are literally a 'bunch of random matches'.

In our planned campaign system the next scenario in the campaign tree structure is selected based on the outcome of the previous scenario. The battle location can move seamlessly on the master map, or even on multiple master maps. The campaign designer can craft every scenario as he sees the best, so there's nothing random there, other than the dynamic AI opponent, that guarantees the campaign plays differently every time.



mekanopsis -> RE: Campaigning (12/3/2018 10:53:00 PM)

quote:

I wanted to ask what an Armored Brigade campaign might look like.


I really do like the idea of something like a hex and counter operational level boardgame design as a generator of AB tactical battles. I believe this should be a different game, a meta-game if you will, and not necessarily integrated into AB. To do this seriously requires reams of historical research for each theatre (compare the "1985: Under an Iron Sky" or SPI's "The Third World War" game designs.) A half-serious "gamey" "dynamic campaign mode" for me would not be interesting.



gbem -> RE: Campaigning (12/3/2018 11:42:40 PM)

+1 to that



demyansk -> RE: Campaigning (12/4/2018 12:31:15 AM)

I like the idea of units continuing into further scenarios like in Spwaw and Panzer Corps. However, that might be in the next version via 2021.????



Vikingjohn -> RE: Campaigning (12/4/2018 2:22:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vikingjohn

Without campaign core units why bother ? Without Core units then its just a bunch of random match's .

I haven't bought this yet but am thinking about it since it looks like a good OS . I am retired and on fixed income so cant afford to waste money on things that I will not like. I Still play SPMBT and like the campaign generator system it use's , having a core that can gain experience is what makes long campaigns worth playing.


From what I remember from Steel Panthers' generated campaigns, these are literally a 'bunch of random matches'.

In our planned campaign system the next scenario in the campaign tree structure is selected based on the outcome of the previous scenario. The battle location can move seamlessly on the master map, or even on multiple master maps. The campaign designer can craft every scenario as he sees the best, so there's nothing random there, other than the dynamic AI opponent, that guarantees the campaign plays differently every time.


This is how the cmpaigns work in SPMBT that are created by others through the editor, But they Also have a random Campaign generator. In BOTH you have core units that go from battle to battle and either gain or loose expeirance. You repair and replace loose's between battle's if you have enough points (earned in battle) Also for each battle you points you can use to get attached units that are not part of your core but are only used for that fight. (ie Aircraft, Arty , attached infantry or tanks, ect. )

In the random Generator , as you say its just random battle on random maps , but still in a war (modern) one unit does not fight 24/7 without a break for resupply and repairs. (ie. your core is a mech battalion and after a heavy fight your place in the front would be taken by the breigades reserve battalion while yours refits ) So the battle location is not as important as the campaign core, because the war would still move forward while some units are being refitted to the rear.


An ideal random Campain in my opianion would work like this.

1. You chose your core size , map size, number of battles to be fought ( in SPMBT its up to 200), enemy ( also could be random in SPMBT you can pick 3 enemys and its random which one you fight in battle)

2. You get Points for each battle depending on type ( an Assult would get more support from higher HQ then defending ) these points would repersent attached units from higher HQ's and could be used to buy Air, Art , or more ground units.

3. You earn points by desroying enemy units and holding objectives ( these can just be random placed box's on map )

4. Points are used to repair units and get replacements ,,, Keep in mind any units you loose would loose any experiance they gained when replaced.
Any points not needed for repairs and replacements , could be used to expand core ,, ( So you could start the capaign as a company leader and earn enough points to become a battlaion or even the brigade leader)

5. If the unit your are with is destroyed , you are considered wounded and would need to start over with fresh core . (ie you would loose your command and would probly be used to command a fresh or reconstructed company)


So really all you need is the ability to take core units from one battle to the next keeping their experiance gains , the ability to repair and replace and add core units between battles ,, and a way to pick battle location , the rest is already there ......set up would use same battle generator , only diffrence is your core units would already be picked and you would only need to buy support units if you have support points. AI would still buy its units same as in battale generator based on players points and set up would be the same on the map.

The winSPMBT they upgrade every year with new campaigns and features I originally bought this game back around 2005 or so but owned Steel panthers back in 96 when it first came out also , been a war gamer since before there was home computers I was playing board games from SSI and Avalone hills before there was even a Atari , Squad leader series was my all time favorite board game.



actrade -> RE: Campaigning (12/5/2018 12:20:44 PM)

+1 for some for of campaign that incorporates units being carried over to the next battle. I understand the need to put out a campaign system ASAP and think that's a good idea to tide those of us really need a campaign system. Longer-term, here's hoping that a new campaign system is developed that is dynamic (first wish), or at least tree-branching with carryout units and/or points to buy/upgrade units. That way, you are rewarded for keeping units alive in the prior scenario. Cheers!



22sec -> RE: Campaigning (12/5/2018 4:19:14 PM)

I just question the realism, especially in AB’s Cold War gone hot setting, of a campaign system that uses a core unit. The lethality of the modern battlefield, and the lack of replacements I think should realistically limit a core unit to maybe two or three battles before that core unit is combat ineffective. NATO would have been rushing reinforcements to the front in the form of new units from their country of origin. There would not have been a system to replace losses in significant numbers to units already committed to the front. Also, the Soviets had no intention of filling units who had suffered losses with replacements.

I think the system that Veitikka is planning on implementing is refreshing, and will still lend itself to an attachment to units that those who clamor for the core unit system seem to clamor for. Of course I think it will take a talented designer to pull it off, but done correctly can be a fascinating experience.



CCIP-subsim -> RE: Campaigning (12/6/2018 11:23:22 PM)

I think it's completely fair to say that persistent units that improve in the course of a campaign are inherently a "gamey" approach, and that battles generated by a campaign system will always be less tactically interesting than hand-crafted scenarios...

...BUT!
I also wouldn't underestimate the appeal of narrative. We have a tendency to latch on to even vague characters and a sense of meaningful, world-based story progress even on the flimsiest of premises. Argue for realism and tactical finesse though we might, it's been shown over and over again that players will overlook boring situations and "gamey" mechanics if the overall experience feels like making meaningful choices and progress.

That said, it's not the only way to immerse the player in a (real or imagined) story, so I look forward to what the branching approach will bring to AB.

And yeah, as enjoyable as it is to have "core units" that improve, get promoted and rewarded on the scale that AB plays would be admittedly unrealistic. It's just way outside this scope, all the more so in a "Cold War gone hot" scenario where actions would necessarily be brief and violent.
Maybe a better approach than that would be to have something like a "reserve pool" that gets depleted/replenished each scenario, which would allow a player to have some choice in deployable units, if within limited parameters.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.09375