Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

After reading campaign manual...

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> After reading campaign manual... Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
After reading campaign manual... - 5/5/2019 3:22:59 AM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: offline
While I really like the idea of automating campaign generation (I'm also fan of automate everything as a computational scientist), I'm bit worried about the campaign generator.

First thing is the lack of storytelling part. I mentioned this in one of the previous posts, so I will skip about this in here.

Next point is about the diversity of game play experience during campaign. From my point of view, campaign might be repetitive and eventually become boring with current system. In this case, 'repetitive' means not about maps and units, but about mission type and mission targets. With current system, all missions in campaign will be very similar, frontal attack/defense game against the opponent on the otherside of tactical map.

Of course, tactical map itself and opponent forces will be changed, but the core contents will be the same, 1:1 battle against AI on linear frontline. During the campaign, player will be only allowed to attack the enemy on the other side of the map, or defend from the enemy coming from other side of the map. Campaign might become continuous collection of similar battles over and over again.

So... how about introduce more mission types and more mission goals? In current system, players cannot enjoy something like "evacuation" mission of WEE. Or fight against the chasing opponent from the rear, while retreat/march to other side of the map. Or protect and evacuate civilians and their vehicles as much as possible from city during last phase of sudden retreat / evacuation. Or defense against multiple enemy AIs assaulting from all directions until reinforcement arrives... I guess most of them might be possible to introduce with current system, by tweaking of VP locations or slightly modify VP-oriented AI or etc... But I don't know about the source code of this game, so I maybe totally wrong here. Civilian AIs looks not easy to me, though.

Then it would be possible to categorize missions, something like "offensive mission types", "defensive mission types", and "neutral mission types". Then, introduce assault / retreat factor to the campaign generator, which can be set by user, or randomly generated based on the direction of the waypoint from the campaign map, or campaign difficulty setting. Depending on random numbers, location of tactical battle, campaign progress or campaign score, and morale or other factors, maybe it would be possible for campaign generators to initiate such "unique" offensive or defensive missions in the middle of automated campaign. I wish those will make campaign much more dynamic.

This is just my brainstorming ideas, so please don't be burdened. But there might be very very interesting missions which players can immerse themselves to the game. I think such contents will make this game far richer than before.




ps) How about showing the movement of friendly and enemy army units from operational layer and campaign map? Players cannot control the units from operational layer, as a commander of one of the units shown in campaign map. But just showing would be still very helpful.

Then, introduce operational layer AI, to strategically moving / directing the forces under command. (I guess operational layer AI might not that difficult when compared to tactical layer AIs?) Then, allow campaign generator to create unique missions based on campaign progress shown from operational layer. In this case, many unique missions, like battle under surrounded situation, or battle against rear enemy during retreat... would much much more sense and appeal to players.

In this case, showing the unit movement and campaign status from operational layer to players have additional advantage, increase the immersion and concentration of players, by showing players the reasonable motivation of their situation and their battle.

< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 5/5/2019 3:42:58 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: After reading campaign manual... - 5/5/2019 4:38:34 AM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2389
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
The operational or campaign map sounds a lot like Close Combat's, which some people found less than ideal. Nor did they do anything regarding mission diversity to my knowledge. But they had the units stats and maybe branching campaign? I can't remember.

IMO, none of the Close Combat games (except maybe the old Cross of Iron release) can hold a candle to AB, at least versus the AI.
So the ideas above are great, but my guess is the CC devs had more muscle, and imo over the years did as little with the code as possible.

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 2
RE: After reading campaign manual... - 5/5/2019 5:11:38 AM   
Monkie

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 6/12/2005
Status: offline
We will just have to wait and see how it plays out when it's released. In real wars many times combat takes place over the same terrain with both sides slugging it out back and forth so I don't think this approach is unrealistic for the conflict it's trying to represent. Hopefully the campaign will force the player to play with conservation of forces in mind and this should create a whole new level of planning and execution. The challenge should be doing more and more with less and less and depending on your veteran units to hold the line or lead the attack.

The idea of a strategic AI would most likely have to be quite an undertaking and require starting from scratch to build, perhaps being incorporated into it's own DLC.

I'm happy to see the CG being included and look forward to it.

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 3
RE: After reading campaign manual... - 5/5/2019 10:01:00 AM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline
+1

I think AB is one of the best strategy games I've played, I really like the cold war setting as there are very few games that cover this era...

I'm also looking forward to the campaign generator, also don't underestimate the power of narrative, I'm not saying that the dev shouldn't refine it in the future, if that's possible of course...

Roll on Thursday 😃

(in reply to Monkie)
Post #: 4
RE: After reading campaign manual... - 5/5/2019 5:28:40 PM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rosseau
The operational or campaign map sounds a lot like Close Combat's, which some people found less than ideal. Nor did they do anything regarding mission diversity to my knowledge. But they had the units stats and maybe branching campaign? I can't remember.

My idea is just showing players what is going on from operational layer, not allow players to control battle groups units on the operational map. So, it is not like CC, or W:AB / W:RD. Rather, a bit close to W:EE.

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 5
RE: After reading campaign manual... - 5/5/2019 10:19:45 PM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 397
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
What will be released in a few days from now is just a first iteration of the campaign mode. It is still evolving "work in progress" and we do plan to introduce many new features in future. I am sure there will be many critics and suggestions, but that feedback is exactly what we need to improve it.

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 6
RE: After reading campaign manual... - 5/5/2019 10:29:27 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1053
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

Next point is about the diversity of game play experience during campaign. From my point of view, campaign might be repetitive and eventually become boring with current system. In this case, 'repetitive' means not about maps and units, but about mission type and mission targets. With current system, all missions in campaign will be very similar, frontal attack/defense game against the opponent on the otherside of tactical map.

Of course, tactical map itself and opponent forces will be changed, but the core contents will be the same, 1:1 battle against AI on linear frontline. During the campaign, player will be only allowed to attack the enemy on the other side of the map, or defend from the enemy coming from other side of the map. Campaign might become continuous collection of similar battles over and over again.

So... how about introduce more mission types and more mission goals? In current system, players cannot enjoy something like "evacuation" mission of WEE. Or fight against the chasing opponent from the rear, while retreat/march to other side of the map. Or protect and evacuate civilians and their vehicles as much as possible from city during last phase of sudden retreat / evacuation. Or defense against multiple enemy AIs assaulting from all directions until reinforcement arrives... I guess most of them might be possible to introduce with current system, by tweaking of VP locations or slightly modify VP-oriented AI or etc... But I don't know about the source code of this game, so I maybe totally wrong here. Civilian AIs looks not easy to me, though.

Then it would be possible to categorize missions, something like "offensive mission types", "defensive mission types", and "neutral mission types". Then, introduce assault / retreat factor to the campaign generator, which can be set by user, or randomly generated based on the direction of the waypoint from the campaign map, or campaign difficulty setting. Depending on random numbers, location of tactical battle, campaign progress or campaign score, and morale or other factors, maybe it would be possible for campaign generators to initiate such "unique" offensive or defensive missions in the middle of automated campaign. I wish those will make campaign much more dynamic.

This is just my brainstorming ideas, so please don't be burdened. But there might be very very interesting missions which players can immerse themselves to the game. I think such contents will make this game far richer than before.


The current Campaign Generator system is mostly about what happens before a battle and after a battle. What you are suggesting are new battle types, and even if more mission types can be added in the future, that was not the emphasis this time. The main idea was to provide a context and continuum to the battles, using the existing battle system.

quote:



ps) How about showing the movement of friendly and enemy army units from operational layer and campaign map? Players cannot control the units from operational layer, as a commander of one of the units shown in campaign map. But just showing would be still very helpful.


There have been different ideas about showing formations, support, artillery, or whatever on the campaign map, but we haven't been able to settle with anything yet.

quote:



Then, introduce operational layer AI, to strategically moving / directing the forces under command. (I guess operational layer AI might not that difficult when compared to tactical layer AIs?) Then, allow campaign generator to create unique missions based on campaign progress shown from operational layer. In this case, many unique missions, like battle under surrounded situation, or battle against rear enemy during retreat... would much much more sense and appeal to players.

In this case, showing the unit movement and campaign status from operational layer to players have additional advantage, increase the immersion and concentration of players, by showing players the reasonable motivation of their situation and their battle.


A simple operational level game is probably easier to implement than the complex tactical level game that we have, but still, it would be like making another game. In this project we must carefully weigh what's the best use of our time and resources.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 7
RE: After reading campaign manual... - 5/19/2019 1:55:48 PM   
CSO_Talorgan


Posts: 717
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rosseau

and imo over the years did as little with the code as possible


Quite


(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 8
RE: After reading campaign manual... - 5/19/2019 6:57:02 PM   
Javolenus

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline
With you on lack of campaign story/drama & need for more varied objectives. John Tiller's Squad Battles features an editor with many types of possible objective. Also--might be interesting to include (if possible) asymmetrical warfare theatres (e.g. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan).

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 9
RE: After reading campaign manual... - 5/19/2019 7:28:19 PM   
CSO_Talorgan


Posts: 717
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Javolenus

might be interesting to include (if possible) asymmetrical warfare


I'm with you on this.

(in reply to Javolenus)
Post #: 10
RE: After reading campaign manual... - 5/19/2019 8:27:33 PM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka
The current Campaign Generator system is mostly about what happens before a battle and after a battle. What you are suggesting are new battle types, and even if more mission types can be added in the future, that was not the emphasis this time. The main idea was to provide a context and continuum to the battles, using the existing battle system.


quote:


There have been different ideas about showing formations, support, artillery, or whatever on the campaign map, but we haven't been able to settle with anything yet.


quote:


A simple operational level game is probably easier to implement than the complex tactical level game that we have, but still, it would be like making another game. In this project we must carefully weigh what's the best use of our time and resources.


I understand your point. Me and other players will wait for someday, if we can see some interesting campaign features in the future. I also wrote about this issue in other post:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4632878

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 11
RE: After reading campaign manual... - 5/20/2019 12:31:05 AM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2497
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
I'm against any operational mini-game stuff but the game really needs CC4-style battlegroups to give campaign designers some control on what is happening. I feel battlegroups was one thing that CC4 did right.

_____________________________

People shouldn't ask themselves why schools get shoot up.
They should ask themselves why people who finish schools burned out due to mobbing aren't receiving high enough compensations to not seek vengeance.

(in reply to CSO_Talorgan)
Post #: 12
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> After reading campaign manual... 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

0.133