German Campaign

[daly]

Hi everyone!
If anybody knows when we get German Campaign in the game.

Thank you in advance.

[SteveMcClaire]

There are no plans for a German campaign as an official add-on to The Bloody First. It is highly likely that the next game will include, if not focus on, a German campaign. We also plan to release a content creator update for TBF and I expect we will see some player-made Axis campaigns after that is out.

[Watson]

Sounds good Steve give TBF time to mature with Matrix Games good history of patching..I play all the CC games and love them the only one I passed on was Panthers in the Fog..And a good 3d German CC would be great..As is I'm enjoying TBF..Got UOC II and it's buggy but getting a stream of patches,,I'll just be patient with both

[STIENER]

thanks for the heads up on a german campaign for the next game Steve....that would be great! will matrix be going away from the linear campaign style that TBF has now? [ I hope so ] some of us much prefer a non linear GC and also having both sides ..german and allied fully functional for multiplayer.

[kweniston]

Disappointing we need a new game for that, when the maps/units are already there. Make it an expansion, not a new game, please, so modders can work on one game.

And yes, a non-linear, less dumbed down option to influence the moves in a GC is what I'm waiting for. Stratmap, please. We've had that since 1996, but in 2019 Matrix thinks it's too complicated. Make it optional then.

[SteveMcClaire]

More game play at the operational level is certainly a possibility.

[LeeChard]

ORIGINAL: kweniston

Disappointing we need a new game for that, when the maps/units are already there. Make it an expansion, not a new game, please, so modders can work on one game.

And yes, a non-linear, less dumbed down option to influence the moves in a GC is what I'm waiting for. Stratmap, please. We've had that since 1996, but in 2019 Matrix thinks it's too complicated. Make it optional then.

It would be difficult to design a campaign from the German side. They are represented by several different divisions over the time of the game.
I can't remember how it was handled in the Russian front CC game.

[ineffable]

An initial look at the operation and campaign files leads me to believe a fictional German campaign could be created using the original maps and new scenarios. Basically switching national sides in the data files, much as was done in some classic CC mods.

[CSO_Talorgan]

ORIGINAL: kweniston

a non-linear, less dumbed down option to influence the moves in a GC is what I'm waiting for. Stratmap, please. We've had that since 1996, but in 2019 Matrix thinks it's too complicated. Make it optional then.

+1

[bergie]

+1

A stratmap need not be "strategic" in scope. By that I mean the units being maneuvered need not be at the division or regiment level. I imagine a hex stratmap with each hex being 1-2km across. The units being maneuvered would be battalion/company size, with engagements still taking place with forces at the the company/platoon level as they are today.

Strategically, the player operates at the division CO level, maneuvering infantry battalions, Combat Command task forces, recon companies, HQ companies, etc. Supply lines could come into play as divisional or regimental reserves, replacements, etc are only available if a unit can trace an unbroken line back to HQ. All battalions in a regiment or CC would share the same force pool, so the division CO must make decisions about how to allocate shared resources for each turn. Field artillery could be handled similarly: an artillery company is maneuvered behind the front lines and can fire at a range of several hexes, with each arty company having a fixed number of fire missions per turn. During an engagement, the player can call in a fire mission from the supporting arty company, if there are any available (other engagements may have used them all up!).

Downsides: (1)Increased complexity and game learning curve, but the player could have the option at setup time to designate division and regiment COs as being AI and let the computer maneuver and allocate materiel; the player would then take orders from the brass and fight the company-level engagements as they do today. (2) Hex maps being only 1-2km would require an enormous number of tactical maps to be created. This would only be feasible if this could be substantially done by a computer using online map databases to generate most of the topography; human artists would just review and touch up. (3) Undoubtedly lots of things I did not think of.

[Protonic2020]

It´s also about a gaming company having this as their jobs, not just a hobby. Right?
I say that if for a game like this or any other games on Matrix\Slitherine it financially is not economically viable to put in too much effort and time into just one game i for one could pay for an ongoing support for one game, a monthly fee IF i felt that the game was worth it.

To make this Close Combat series into something that would work well and be as deep and complicated as well as functional and polished like the Avalon Hill board game series from a long time ago. Now that would take a LOT of work put into it, to fully reflect the boardgames Squad Leader, Cross of Iron, Crescendo of Doom and G.I Anvil to Victory, for example. To want that and expect such a production is perhaps over the top considering how complicated it got when they all were combined and not just stand alone mini games.
But i say do that instead of spreading out the game making skills over a multitude of games. Better with one perfect game, some, then 100 OK ones. Do like they did for World of Warcraft and such online games (monthly subscriptions) to make one perfect game instead, or some.

[CSO_Talorgan]

ORIGINAL: bergie

+1

A stratmap need not be "strategic" in scope. By that I mean the units being maneuvered need not be at the division or regiment level. I imagine a hex stratmap with each hex being 1-2km across. The units being maneuvered would be battalion/company size, with engagements still taking place with forces at the the company/platoon level as they are today.

Strategically, the player operates at the division CO level, maneuvering infantry battalions, Combat Command task forces, recon companies, HQ companies, etc. Supply lines could come into play as divisional or regimental reserves, replacements, etc are only available if a unit can trace an unbroken line back to HQ. All battalions in a regiment or CC would share the same force pool, so the division CO must make decisions about how to allocate shared resources for each turn. Field artillery could be handled similarly: an artillery company is maneuvered behind the front lines and can fire at a range of several hexes, with each arty company having a fixed number of fire missions per turn. During an engagement, the player can call in a fire mission from the supporting arty company, if there are any available (other engagements may have used them all up!).

Downsides: (1)Increased complexity and game learning curve, but the player could have the option at setup time to designate division and regiment COs as being AI and let the computer maneuver and allocate materiel; the player would then take orders from the brass and fight the company-level engagements as they do today. (2) Hex maps being only 1-2km would require an enormous number of tactical maps to be created. This would only be feasible if this could be substantially done by a computer using online map databases to generate most of the topography; human artists would just review and touch up. (3) Undoubtedly lots of things I did not think of.

+1 again