Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Campaigning

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Coming Soon] >> Armored Brigade >> Campaigning Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Campaigning - 12/20/2017 10:57:16 PM   
CSO_Talorgan


Posts: 684
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
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.
Post #: 1
RE: Campaigning - 12/23/2017 9:43:54 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 395
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to CSO_Talorgan)
Post #: 2
RE: Campaigning - 7/16/2018 4:36:32 PM   
Scotters1

 

Posts: 146
Joined: 4/19/2006
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 3
RE: Campaigning - 7/18/2018 10:01:21 PM   
ETF


Posts: 1575
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Hamilton Area, Canada
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

My Top Matrix Games 1)CMANO PRO(WEGO/RT??) 2)Waterloo 3)End all Wars 4)War In the Pacific/AE

Twitter -Tactical Wargamer
@TacticWargamer

(in reply to Scotters1)
Post #: 4
RE: Campaigning - 7/25/2018 6:37:15 PM   
CSO_Talorgan


Posts: 684
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to ETF)
Post #: 5
RE: Campaigning - 7/29/2018 11:25:19 PM   
Panzeh

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to CSO_Talorgan)
Post #: 6
RE: Campaigning - 8/4/2018 6:46:50 PM   
CSO_Talorgan


Posts: 684
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
If that is so then I'd argue that currently available software is the problem, rather than the concept being wrong.

(in reply to Panzeh)
Post #: 7
RE: Campaigning - 8/5/2018 1:09:28 AM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 270
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to CSO_Talorgan)
Post #: 8
RE: Campaigning - 8/5/2018 3:10:24 PM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 124
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 9
RE: Campaigning - 8/7/2018 12:00:32 PM   
Panzeh

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to CSO_Talorgan)
Post #: 10
RE: Campaigning - 9/2/2018 10:18:35 AM   
CSO_Talorgan


Posts: 684
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Panzeh)
Post #: 11
RE: Campaigning - 10/5/2018 8:19:45 PM   
harlikwin

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Arvada, CO, USA
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 12
RE: Campaigning - 10/5/2018 9:44:33 PM   
JamesHunt

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/7/2016
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 13
RE: Campaigning - 10/6/2018 1:00:51 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 395
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to JamesHunt)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Coming Soon] >> Armored Brigade >> Campaigning Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.112