Campaigning

[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.

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

[gbem]

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]

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]

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]

+1 to that

[demyansk]

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]

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

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]

+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]

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]

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.

[CSO_Talorgan]

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

The battle location can move seamlessly on the master map, or even on multiple master maps

That sounds good

[Veitikka]

ORIGINAL: CSO_Talorgan

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

The battle location can move seamlessly on the master map, or even on multiple master maps

That sounds good

In the system, that I've already mostly completed by now, there can be only a single master map in a campaign. But the core force, refitting units, units gaining experience etc. will be there. I think I've already said too much...

[Lowlaner2012]

Sounds really good, cant wait till its released [:)]

[Perturabo]

Will it have persistent wrecks/corpses/craters, though?

[Veitikka]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Will it have persistent wrecks/corpses/craters, though?

Map cells with terrain fires or craters/impacts turn into 'destruction' cells in the subsequent battles.

[exsonic01]

Though it was different game forum, I wrote this 2 years ago
fb.asp?m=4336469
I think AB's campaign idea is quite similar with what I've been thought. I'm really curious how campaign will looks like, but at the same time I wish you guys don't feel too much burdened due to high expectation from us.

When I think about this, it is not easy to design a good dynamic campaign. How do you guys think about bandwagon effect?

If the penalty from next mission is too harsh (due to your loss or mistake in previous mission) which make the game absurdly over-difficult, then players will be tired early, and will not finish campaign. There should be some sort of help or support, as well as morale boosting and motivation, for players to finish the campaign, even in worst possible route during dynamic campaign. Or, this can be controlled via difficulty control setting. But I think there should be some kind of way to clear the campaign, even in the worst case scenario of hardest difficulty. At the same time, "best-case scenario" should not be too easy. Even though player was so good at previous game and cleared all objectives in previous game, his or her next game should be challenging enough to feel the fun and challenge from AI. I know it won't be easy, but there might be a good way to set various mission targets for dynamic campaign.

However, at the same time, as a fan of XCOM series, I like bandwagon effect as well as butterfly effect during campaign. Proper compensation / penalty is important, but the amount of 'proper' is hard to define.




In addition, it would be possible to distinguish / differentiate the prize and penalty (so called karma) for the next mission based on previous mission's result, by time constraint, VP / key position occupy constraint, enemy or friendly damage, or even other things like civilian damage, or etc. Too much conditions will make the campaign a bit too complicated, so maybe it would be possible to reduce the factors for "karma" decision, by 2 or 3 per mission. This way, it would help to depict realistic dynamic campaign, balance the compensation and penalty from bandwagon during campaign.

I think "time" can be a good factor. No matter how many casualty player took, or no matter how many enemy units got destroyed by player, if player fails the time limit (like, hold the VP until 5PM, or break the encirclement within 2hr) then next mission would be tough. Plus, we could set up things like "even though player finished the game within time, if his units suffered too much casualty, then next mission will be outnumbered and difficult. This would be a bit helpful to push or slightly adjust the slope of bandwagon curve of campaign.

Regarding key terrain or important VP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD42HP-cn8M&t=159s

This is example from Gettysburg, we all know that key terrain is very important, which is the same even in modern warfare. Depending on previous mission status, it would be good to start next mission in different position. Such as, start from low ground, or behind the river, or start from high ground or concealed position.

[Veitikka]

It is a fact that it's impossible to meet all expectations. The system we will have is very different to what I was planning in the past. It's much more 'dynamic', not a structure of pre-made scenarios, and it's a generator, just like currently we have the battle generator system, so you can generate campaigns with a few mouse clicks, and save them for later use.

The basic idea is that the 'front line' moves back and forth, depending on the battle end results.

[22sec]

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

It is a fact that it's impossible to meet all expectations. The system we will have is very different to what I was planning in the past. It's much more 'dynamic', not a structure of pre-made scenarios, and it's a generator, just like currently we have the battle generator system, so you can generate campaigns with a few mouse clicks, and save them for later use.

The basic idea is that the 'front line' moves back and forth, depending on the battle end results.

This is big news. I have no doubt you’ll pull off the programming required, and while I liked the original campaign concept it was evident that a system like this seems more popular.

[JamesHunt]

ORIGINAL: CCIP-subsim

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.

this

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: JamesHunt

ORIGINAL: CCIP-subsim

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.

this

I think that persistent wrecks and dead bodies would a nice compromise between persistent units and changing units.