Dynamic Campaigns

[Megalomatrix]

I saw that there are "3 linked campaigns" for this product. I fondly remember dynamic campaigns with random missions from the other Campaign Series games. Will there be any dynamic for this one, or can they be created with the editor without horribly excruciating work?

[Jason Petho]

No, Dynamic Campaigns will not be included.

Due to the very short nature and style of the conflicts, it was decided that Linked Campaign Games are better suited.

Jason Petho

[Megalomatrix]

Thanks for the really quick reply!

I'm sure it's going to be a great game, but I'm really sorry to hear that there won't be dynamic campaigns. To me it goes a bit beyond mere gamer's preference on one point, but separates the linear/story-based overall game feel from the sandbox/non-linear feel. IMHO that tends to divide gamers one way or the other. For me personally, I am interested in the title but on the fence. Even being able to play only 3-4 missions in a dynamic campaign would be enough for "buy country." Not an ultimatum here of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if others feel the same way...

[Jason Petho]

I'm curious as to why the Linked Campaign would not fulfill that?

[Megalomatrix]

Maybe I'm mixing up terms here. Basically it's an issue of replayability/predictability. If linked campaigns only contain the same linear sequence of scripted scenarios, they are probably better designed for one playthrough, but are also much more predictable after one go. Also, all but the best scenarios then tend to get old after one or max two playthroughs.

[Jason Petho]

Ah, I see what you mean.

But no, they linked campaigns are designed as a treed approach. Whether you win or lose a battle will determine which branch you follow. Or, if you lose twice, you're booted from the campaign.

Linked campaigns can be made extremely complicated! In time, I'll be working on some very long and convoluted beasts!

[Warhorse]

There is however, a battle generator!![:D]

[Jafele]

The battle generator is great, but a complete random map generator would be cool. "Combat Mission: Barbarrosa to Berlin" or "Advanced Tactics Gold" are examples of this amazing feature. You can choose the % of water, forests, mountains, etc. Also the size of map, land... Just imagine playing unique unknown maps with this powerful AI. To win this kind of games you need to be a good commander and adapt yourself to surprises. Totally different to predefined scenarios.

I guess it must require a lot of hard work and time, but to dream is free. [:D]

[Jason Petho]

It does include a map editor.

You could also create a randomly generated battle and use/edit that map.

Still plenty of options available.

[Jafele]

I know the battle generator has many options and I love it, but is not exactly what I´m trying to say. In this video (3' 30" ahead) you can see what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxeA2mYMkWs

[Jason Petho]

That's not much different (principally) from the battle generator that's included? It allows you to pick your map type and it will randomly generate one based on those general parameters.

[berto]

Quoting from a DCG-related discussion in the Dev Forum late last year:

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

Middle East (and all other engines): DCGs are broken beyond a quick fix.

...

If it is as bad as I fear I am afraid we'd need to leave DCGs out from the initial ME release, fix them for VN or KR whichever comes first, and be back with a patch?

Omitting DCGs from ME is a defensible decision for this reason: The Middle East wars that we model (except for a possible future Iran-Iraq War) are so short in duration (weeks and even just days), and limited in scope (total forces in the hundreds of thousands), compared to the wars in all of the other games (all of which lasted for years, and involved numbers a million and more).

In your typical East Front DCG, given the literally thousands and thousands of tactical engagements over the course of the Great Patriotic War, it's easy to imagine that your typical DCG conceivably could have happened, more or less. So too with the other games.

Except for, for example, the Six Day War. How do you make a plausible DCG out of that? Where engagements were typically brigade-size or smaller? Given the much smaller pool of real life engagements in that very brief war, it's easy to foresee the DCG system generating engagement sequences that, compared to the actual Dix Day War, are utter fantasy.

Do you kind of see what I'm arguing here?

Here's the thing: there are logical problems, there are code problems, there are graphics problems. Lots of stuff we don't have time right now. And a good chance we are still missing something. Although I am at least personally now much better up to speed with DCGs. There is a lot what I've seen that I really like. But at the moment it is not ready for prime time, in my opinion of course...

Indeed, time is growing short.

As I see it, among the game play modes, the hierarchy of importance is something like this, from most important, because largest number of players and games played, to least important:

[*]single battles, solo human vs. the A/I (like it or not, most surveys suggest this to be much more popular than PBEM; solo players are the silent majority)
[*]single battles, PBEM play (compared to A/I players, high profile, because PBEMers are organized and vocal)
[*]DCGs and LCGs (which is more popular?)
[*]other play modes -- network, model (very little if any activity)

IMO, we need to focus on the single battle experience, or in any case game components and feature that impact all game play modes. Graphics, for instance. Core game play bug fixes. Etc.

So here we go:

Logical problems:

...

Code problems:

... We don't know as the code has not been looked at in detail right. [That is correct.] I think we might have gone the wrong way when we thought exact matches should be available... [But maybe you don't realized just how random also the inexact match-making was.]

...

Graphics problems:

...

Tons of complexity there, requiring weeks of study, code revision, and bug fixing to get right.

I could see doing this a few months down the road, among the very last things we do for ME. But there's higher priority stuff before then. IMO.

The good thing and there always is one: DCGs can be real fun! They are worth saving and improving. But perhaps not right now? I will leave that to Jason and Berto to decide.

What if we ship ME with one or two LCGs? Also a broken DCG system, or none at all? Then release an improved DCG system in a later ME patch?

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

Berto, that is the key question. What does the code actually go shopping around for?

Off the top of my head: I don't know!

And, sorry, with everything else we still have to do, I'm not going to spend the time now, or soon, to find out.

If my hypothesis is correct, then a quick fix would be to revert to ways of the old. If I got it wrong however and I have no idea what goes on in the code, then we would be getting rid of the various error messages at least, until we have the time to overhaul the entire DCG system.

What inspired me to go mucking around in the DCG code were (a) crashes and (b) freezes. I didn't do it out of a perceived need to improve the DCG experience. It was out a real need to fix show-stopper bugs.

But won't the OOB & ORG in ME be simpler than in EF etc.? Isn't there much you data guys can do to fix potential DCG problems in ME on the data end?

(BTW, with the new P###### system -- especially as it newly applies to the .scn files -- it will be much easier for me to code CSlint to doublecheck and crosscheck the various data files for inconsistencies and errors.)

Ha! I have to confess I have no idea what really causes this phenomenon. [&:] [:)]

Neither do I!

Which is one reason, for example, why csorgchk.pl is rudimentary, and far from finished. I have not taken the time or trouble yet to figure out the org and DCG system. There is no time soon for that. DCGs are important for EF etc., no doubt. And there is plenty of time to fix them for KW & VN. But a pressing need to fix for ME? I have my doubts about that.

In my estimation, the single biggest need right now, the one thing that will generate the most excitement about a revived Campaign Series -- in its newest incarnation, Middle East -- will be spiffed up graphics (not DCGs). After we put the UID conversion project behind us, and except for easy-to-do odds & ends, the thing I want to focus on in the next two or three months is -- graphics!

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

Go graphics! [&o]

Yes let us put the DCGs aside. Which sort of was my original post here. If a quick fix would be considered, in a later phase, I would start with the hypothesis I presented. At the moment it is so broken the easy way would be to go back.

ORIGINAL: berto

I make this observation also: It's we on the team who are showing the greatest interest in, and enthusiasm for, DCGs. Sorry to say, there's not much player comment, much less reported activity, about DCGs in the public fora. There's no real clamor to fix DCGs. And many of the current problems pre-date JTCS 2.0*, are long-standing problems.

So from a player perspective, and given the history of the series, and its long list of known issues, I don't sense the urgency to fix DCGs. A worthy aim for 2016's mega update? Yes! But in the near term, for ME, I don't think so. I would be more interested in one or two more short LCGs for ME, not a dubious ME DCG experience.

In the end, or at least for now, no, there are no DCGs in Middle East 1.00. Maybe not in later ME updates either. It will be in future games in the new Campaign Series, just not now or maybe forever in Middle East.

Coding and debugging the various DCG issues in ME would require weeks and even months of effort. And by their very nature, play testing DCGs is very time consuming. We don't have all the time in the world. We could have continued to delay and delay and delay. But there comes a time when you say, Enough's enough! Time to move on ...

For better or worse, we did just that.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

I think y'all made the right decision. The time frame for the battles you're covering is simply not suited for dynamic campaigns at anything above a Squad Leader-esque game level. And doing dynamic campaigns right, as opposed to just doing them, well, that takes a lot of time and resources, and you're still going to be dinged by people for generic battles or something else.

Very few of the Middle Eastern wars were strategically, or even operationally, ever in doubt. Other than for a time in 1948 and for the first week of the 1973 war, pretty much everything other than the Iran-Iraq fracas were going to turn out the way they turned out. In some of those wars--1956, 1967 for instance--you'll be hard-pressed to find good, balanced fights anyhow. So, yeah.

[Jafele]

ORIGINAL: berto

IMO, we need to focus on the single battle experience, or in any case game components and feature that impact all game play modes. Graphics, for instance. Core game play bug fixes. Etc.

+1

[budd]

I'm good with the decision, your right the length of the conflicts doesn't merit DCG inclusion. Now the upcoming games certainly merit DCG's and i'd be disappointed if they weren't included. A vietnam DCG would be cool to play. For ME the battle generator is enough. I'm giving serious thought to taking friday off.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: **budd**

I'm good with the decision, your right the length of the conflicts doesn't merit DCG inclusion. Now the upcoming games certainly merit DCG's and i'd be disappointed if they weren't included. A vietnam DCG would be cool to play. For ME the battle generator is enough.

Or would you prefer a longer, grand Linked Campaign Game in Vietnam, with multiple possible branches that one could follow?

ORIGINAL: **budd**
I'm giving serious thought to taking friday off.

Now that is an excellent idea!

Jason Petho

[Megalomatrix]

I guess I'm still not understanding the argument against dynamic campaigns of some sort...If scripted campaigns can be linked easily, and if there is already a random map generator, what speaks against creating a short campaign framework that is based on procedurally generated content and has some simple scripting to dictate progression and/or mission types? Even a string of totally random engagements would work for me. It's not a huge beef or anything. Partially I'm curious as someone with some background in game design, and partially I am subconsciously entertaining the hope that somewhere a good argument or two could help get this feature in - even at a rudimentary level - at some point

[Megalomatrix]

Oh..yeah...forgot...

When I mentioned dynamic campaigns, I was mostly thinking of some like those in East Front 2/West Front/Rising Sun - I always liked those and played them quite a bit, but it did feel like a string of random skirmishes anyway, with some limitations for theater of war and stuff. No strategic layer or what have you...

EDIT - Sorry...missed the long post from berto. Fair enough.

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: Wartasticus

EDIT - Sorry...missed the long post from berto. Fair enough.

Be assured DCGs are very dear to us.

What we've done is that with the release of MCS2.0x, the effort went mostly towards laying the foundation for future things to come. Consolidation of the separate codebase of EF, WF and RS was a major effort, out of which there was no new features as such. Then the basic modernization of the gaming experience, such as the hot keys, new toolbar, that was quite a task too. Took quite a while to get to the point where we were able to release the free 2.00 UPDATE, and then again some time to ensure the foundation is indeed solid, up to seeing MCS 2.02 come alive.

Then, for CS:ME, the work truly begun on new features. The new 2D views, the new Air Model, the Adaptive AI, just to name a few, again quite an effort. All this (well most of it anyways) was with the game engine itself.

There was still not much time to look at the Front End side of things, the codebase that has the logic among other things for Random Battle Generator, and yes: Dynamic Campaign Games.

DCGs are such a terrific concept, the detail that is available at the heart of a DCG data set truly blew my mind when I set to learn them in detail.

So, as detailed by Berto, when we finally will have the time to upgrade that side of the game experience as well, it will be quite an effort, and yes we want to really make it better.

The top two things I see needing quite an extensive overhaul is first, the "shopping engine" that puts together the battle group at the selected level. The "shopping list" available is quite detailed, so it would be cool the engine can not only do this by using say Coy sized organic elements, but if you selected say Battalion sized DCG it could have a look at the "shopping list" and to complement the generated Battalion from platoon sized units if necessary, all neatly assigned under the one high level Organizational HQ. Anyone who's played DCGs probably knows that it is not perfect how it's currently done.

How cool would it be to really have clean and crisp organizations, that have been put together with a force composition the DCG designer scripted, regardless of the DCG size, be it a Battalion or Corps!

Another thing I'd like to see is a better deployment model, so either instead of placing the friendly formation in a sporadic manner over the map, either launch the Scenario Editor engine somehow so they could be placed to map manually, or alternatively, have them appearing to the map in neat marching columns.

There is the Deployment Phase when starting a new battle, but instead of being forced to fix a non-ideal troop placement, why not have a chance to put them into a clean map instead. Or at least have them there as a column that would be easy to move about.

Yes, very high on our wish list. Unfortunately, with all things considered in our wish list, not the first priority.

But rest assured we want to see a much improved DCG experience sooner rather than later too! It might be a while though...

[Megalomatrix]

Thanks Crossroads for the in-depth feedback. It's good to see that input from the developer's side. I don't think I had appreciated the difficulty in doing the DCG's "right".

One thing I'm curious about from a scenario-design perspective though that came up during the argumentation against DCG's. The size. Personally, I played DCG's in West Front etc. usually at battalion level - too much greater and I felt that most game engines are too top-heavy (too much supply / command, individual scenarios longer than 1 evening, etc.). From Devs side, do you see feasibility in smaller scenarios in DLGs?