Dynamic Campaigns

[berto]

Something few if any people realize: JT designed and coded the game engine, and editors. Somebody else, a Talonsoft programmer, designed and coded the game/editor/random battles/campaigns frontend launcher. Their designs and coding styles differ markedly, they are two quite different beasts. (Rather, four beasts apart from the one.)

The JT EXEs vs. the TS EXEs -- they don't mesh together perfectly. Redesigning and revamping the frontend launcher is one of our major to-do tasks going forward.

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: Wartasticus

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?

Smaller than Battalions, you mean? Or rather, Battalion sized DCGs that have a better organization structure? Yes, my sweet spot is between Battalion and Brigade too. I agree with the top-heavy observation, it tends to happen with the current version. Then again, the current version pretty much still is the 1.0 version that came with the original CS titles in the TS days.

I do feel some (most?) of the size argumantation has to do with the fact the organizations created could be better, and they could be deployed better. That's why I listed these two things as top priorities to fix when we finally have time to revisit the code and data files.

There's a ton of potential there. The DCG concept itself is terrific imho. Just need to get it all out, in a manner intended. [:)]

[Crossroads]

Another note: Linked Campaigns are way cool too! I love the scripting tree and how you travel the various paths depending on your success. Third note: Generated battles are fun too!

So I am not saying one is better than another, or that there would be prejudice by the dev team against one concept. We love them all [:D]

Just need to prioritize how we revisit the front end side of things.

[berto]

Ah, yes, another major to-do task going forward: improving the random battle generator.

[Megalomatrix]

Crossroads wrote-

"Smaller than Battalions, you mean? Or rather, Battalion sized DCGs that have a better organization structure? Yes, my sweet spot is between Battalion and Brigade too. I agree with the top-heavy observation, it tends to happen with the current version. Then again, the current version pretty much still is the 1.0 version that came with the original CS titles in the TS days."

I mostly played West Front (Gold?). I have the campaign series from Matrix. For DCGs, I stuck with the lowest size, which I believe was battalion. With the way command worked there in particular, you had to watch those slower-moving units and often keep them close to the line. So, even at battalion, you could end up feeling a bit like Eisenhower . I sometimes played regiment+ for an epic evening, but kept to smaller sizes for campaigns...Otherwise lost interest in playing more than 2-3 battles because of time needed.

As for deployment, I think my biggest grief was something probably fairly realistic - it usually took 5ish turns to close with the enemy, even on smaller maps. It could be tough getting through those turns, even with formation move. I'm not sure I would change that due to realism, but that was my biggest beef that touched on deployment.

[budd]

ORIGINAL: 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

How about both[:D] I like both campaign styles, i'll buy the game either way.
You guys are looking to join my exclusive list of developers i'm a fanboy of.
Currently just CO2, Flashpoint campaigns and Decisive Campaigns, there all day one buys for me. What they have in common is a good product, good support and good communication. It's looking like i'll have to make another spot for you guys, thanks for keeping us in the loop. Of course i'd like the Vietnam game by Christmas[;)]

[Jason Petho]

That's a huge compliment, budd. Thank you.

Vietnam will be ready by Christmas... just not this Christmas [;)]

[budd]

I call'um like i see'um sir. Guess i should of been more specific about that Christmas thing though....as they say..my bad.[:)]

[harley9699]

ORIGINAL: 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?

-snip-

Whichever way you decide to go with the Campaign(s), we've been needing a Great Vietnam game for, well, ever.

[TheGrayMouser]

Wow, take a short nap and all of a sudden there's a new Campaign game out on the streets! Sad no DCG but I think I understand after seeing some of the above posts, although to not have one because of the short wars in no excuse, look at the 4 week Polish DCG in East Front

Looks like helos will be a lot of fun with multiple elevations etc limited ammo ( curious to know how the AI handles em), any other major play changes?

I wish I had more time to play this damn thing but I will get around to it at some point. looking forward to a future iteration featuring hypo Nato Warsaw (or beyond) style wars
(or even Warhammer 40k which I think would have been a much better engine that the panzer general style one, oh well)

[berto]

ORIGINAL: The Gray Mouser

Looks like helos will be a lot of fun with multiple elevations etc limited ammo ( curious to know how the AI handles em), any other major play changes?

Unfortunately, we won't have a proper helo A/I until after the Vietnam game is out, at which point we will retrofit the helo-aware A/I to Middle East. Until then, you would do best to play scenarios with helos (in Middle East, only about 1/5 of them) taking the helo side.