Campaigning

Armored Brigade is a real-time tactical wargame, focusing on realism and playability
User avatar
CSO_Talorgan
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:53 pm

Campaigning

Post by CSO_Talorgan »

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.
User avatar
Veitikka
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:11 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

RE: Campaigning

Post by 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.
Know thyself!
Scotters1
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:00 pm

RE: Campaigning

Post by 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!
User avatar
ETF
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

RE: Campaigning

Post by ETF »

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.
My Top Matrix Games 1) CMO MP?? 2) WITP/AE 3) SOW 4) Combat Mission 5) Armor Brigade

Twitter
https://twitter.com/TacticWargamer
User avatar
CSO_Talorgan
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:53 pm

RE: Campaigning

Post by CSO_Talorgan »

ORIGINAL: Scotters1

... I just can't get into a war game without a good dynamic campaign, where each battle effects the overall war ...
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
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:00 pm

RE: Campaigning

Post by Panzeh »

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.
User avatar
CSO_Talorgan
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:53 pm

RE: Campaigning

Post by CSO_Talorgan »

If that is so then I'd argue that currently available software is the problem, rather than the concept being wrong.
exsonic01
Posts: 1133
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:45 pm
Location: Somewhere deep in appalachian valley in PA

RE: Campaigning

Post by exsonic01 »

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.
User avatar
nikolas93TS
Posts: 645
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:32 pm
Contact:

RE: Campaigning

Post by nikolas93TS »

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.
Armored Brigade Database Specialist
Panzeh
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:00 pm

RE: Campaigning

Post by 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.
User avatar
CSO_Talorgan
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:53 pm

RE: Campaigning

Post by CSO_Talorgan »

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
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Arvada, CO, USA

RE: Campaigning

Post by harlikwin »

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
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 6:22 am

RE: Campaigning

Post by JamesHunt »

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.
User avatar
Veitikka
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:11 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

RE: Campaigning

Post by Veitikka »

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.
Know thyself!
User avatar
Perturabo
Posts: 2461
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:32 pm
Contact:

RE: Campaigning

Post by Perturabo »

nevermind
User avatar
Perturabo
Posts: 2461
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:32 pm
Contact:

RE: Campaigning

Post by Perturabo »

nevermind
User avatar
22sec
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Jackson, MS
Contact:

RE: Campaigning

Post by 22sec »

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.
Flashpoint Campaigns Contributor
https://twitter.com/22sec2
User avatar
Hexagon
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:36 am

RE: Campaigning

Post by Hexagon »

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
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: Campaigning

Post by Werezak »

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
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:43 am

RE: Campaigning

Post by Scutarii »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Armored Brigade”