Yes, I think that's exactly right, these are hard to make. They take a hell of a lot of time. And it's a point I tried to make earlier. Battlefront has created a thing where the content must come from the user base, while providing a system to do it that is difficult to use. Even the few campaigns that are included in a release are just ones that the players made. So the result is there is little out there. It all comes full circle back to the obvious need to make a new system. The current one doesn't work in the sense that it fails to produce the amount of diverse, quality campaigns that the players need in order to enjoy the excellent base system.

If the only real way to enjoy this game is multiplayer there's a serious problem. MP is great, I've done loads of PBEMs myself and loved it. But that's not always possible or even preferable. So why isn't this gap more clearly seen and dealt with? I'm starting to sound like a broken record, making the same points again and again. But isn't the most obvious answer to have a system in place that does it all for the player? If CM had a campaign generator I don't make any of these posts. There is no longer an issue and instead I'd be posting AARs about that awesome campaign I am playing, the one that is sized just right and all parameters have been tailored by me to conform to what I find interesting. How can I complain about playing campaigns that are perfectly suited to me?

Earlier I outlined a simple system along the lines of what's in CC5. For me that would work great. But what if they simply made a campaign version of the Quick Mission builder? Let's say you could set:

-- Force Size: Choose anything from platoon all the way through to regiment
-- Map Size: Perhaps this is simply tied to force size, but I'd also like to have the ability to set it. Imagine company sized on huge map. Maneuver!! (Yes, I know the AI couldn't deal with it. That's another matter)
-- Length. How many scenarios get generated
-- Terrain. What sort of maps will you be playing on
-- Weather
-- Forces. This is where the awesome CM ToEs would be so much fun to play with. I would create one with a rifle company. Company HQ, the 3 rifle platoons, attach a heavy weapons section and a few vehicles. Heaven.
-- Support: Set whether you campaign could feature assets like off map arty and naval support.
-- Rarity. Determines how likely you are to see special or heavy weapons on the enemy side
-- Experience. Determines quality of opposing forces. 'Mixed' would be a choice aside from the standard crack through recruit sort of stuff
-- Reinforcement. Determines rate/frequency/quality perhaps
-- Supply Determines rate of resupply

I could go on and on. All settings would also have a random setting. Set them all and click Generate Campaign. Voila! No more content complaint threads from me.

All of this entirely discounts how much work it would be, or how difficult to produce. Of that I have no idea really, and I'll recklessly speculate that BFC have painted themselves in to a corner with how CM is coded (is it why CMC failed?). And I also realize that the AI probably couldn't handle it in a satisfactory manner unless that was also redone. And a prodecdural map thing too while I'm at it lol. But even so, this is the sort of thing I think Combat Mission desperately needs.

Well, i asked over at BF forum about plans for new engine:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133485-plans-for-new-engine/?tab=comments#comment-1767954

Good news is there are plans but obviously it will take years before we get something new. But hey, that's still better than nothing

Good stuff. Without a timeline it's not much use, but like you said, better than nothing.

Ya know, I've never done early access or crowdfunding, but a new Combat Mission engine (with associated revamped campaign system) is one I wouldn't hesitate to contribute to. I'll gladly toss in $120 for this Definitely willing to put my money where my mouth is.

To show that I am not all doom and gloom. a few campaign recommendations for CMBN. These are well-known,but not everyone will know Please note these may require some or all of the additional content beyond the base game.

-- The Outlaws

A great smaller-sized campaign, featuring Ami paras (Company B 1st Battalion, 506th PIR). The first few missions feature different troops, depicting the scattered nature of the drops. Eventually, they all form up in to one company and receive support from an independent tank battalion, resulting in what I feel is the sweet spot for Combat Mission -- reinforced company sized battles. The opening missions though might feature no more than a squad or two, but as they all trickle in the company moves out to secure their D-Day objectives.

The briefings, though lacking in tactical detail, are nonetheless interesting, featuring excerpts from an interview with the company commander. You read his recollection of events, then go and recreate them on the battlefield. Good stuff.

-- Devil's Descent

Another small campaign featuring American parachute infantry (Company C, 1st Battalion 506th). Like The Outlaws, the first mission depicts the nature of the scattered drops, with small-team reinforcements appearing as it plays out, adding their weight to the attack as they march to the sound of the guns. Not a long campaign, but quite well done. Some decisions will need to be made by the player on how to proceed, and ammunition can be at a premium, placing greater emphasis on fire discipline. There is some branching of the mission structure, so repeated runs promise some potential variety. I love company sized campaigns, you get to know each team, each leader. Highly tactical, without becoming cumbersome and allowing a good deal of freedom of maneuver.

-- Kampfgruppe Engel

Unable to find a download link, but it is now included with the game or one of the modules or battle pack, not certain which. This campaign impressed me. Not only was it highly challenging, the missions were quite unique, and the maps are excellent. You are in command of a firefighting brigade in essence, leading a company of landsers with some serious German hardware in the Falaise Gap in August 1944. The campaign opens with a probe against an American recon unit screening a town. Excellent map, with a perfect mix of open ground and broken sightlines that makes it oh so tactical. The second mission features an attack on the town that those recon troops were screening. Other missions include unique requirements, including recovering an abandoned King Tiger behind enemy lines, a mission to cross the river Dives (very difficult), a night mission where you try to sneak though enemy-infested territory, and another mission where you are fighting two separate forces each on their own mission.

I felt the designer made a little too much use of the exit mechanic, which I'm not a big fan of, but the quality of the campaign more than offset this complaint. If you like facing long odds and being outnumbered you'll find this one right up your alley. You are given some of the most fearsome armor in the German inventory to counter the enemy's superior numbers. The campaign carries over repair states and in some cases ammunition states from mission to mission. By the end, my armor was scarred and in tatters. Still alive, but with worn out tracks, shot-out optics, disabled radios and machine guns, damaged barrels and more.

I play Combat Mission on Iron difficulty, but this one I played on Veteran simply to shorten artillery on-call times as I feared I might not make it otherwise Probably the most inventive campaign I've played in CM. The final mission was simply unwinnable for me (it branches and I got the mission called Deliverance). I could have played it 99 more times and still not have beaten it. Got a Major Victory for the campaign overall despite the loss (I lost one other battle as well). Highly recommended!

-- Road to Montebourg

This one is also included in the game. Designed by Paper Tiger who does many of the 'official' campaigns. Not an easy campaign (fought as Americans). He makes use of AI plans, so a second run promises at least a little variety. It's difficult. Not too hard, but it will test your tactical mettle for sure. The opening mission is an attack by only infantry across a large expanse of open ground. At first glance I feared I wouldn't make it, but it's a showcase for suppression in CM. This campaign is the one where I learned to effectively fight in bocage.

The mission called 'Turnbull's Stand' was one of the most memorable and satisfying that I've played in Combat Mission. You are defending with a platoon of paratroopers against nearly a battalion of Germans supported by armor. You make your stand in Neuville au Plain, barring the way to St Mere Eglise along the N13. At times it felt all would be lost, but my plucky paras won the day, and the Germans eventually turned tail. I could picture my troops rising from their holes, Garands held high, whooping it up as the enemy fled. An amazing victory and one of the shining moments of my CM career

One other note about RtM. Paper Tiger makes use of a feature that links mission difficulty to previous results. Essentially, the worse you do, the easier the missions become, and the inverse is true as well. Since i only played through once it wasn't immediately obvious to me. Still, not sure that I like this system. While 'punished' is probably too strong a word, you are essentially not rewarded for your success, quite the opposite. I think I'd rather see a well played mission gain the player a bit of an edge in subsequent missions. I understand his reasoning, and this allows folks of all skill levels to get through the campaign (and it's a long one). while maintaining the challenge level for the better players. Good idea on paper, but not my favorite in practice.

--Task Force Raff

This is the training campaign included in the game. The opening mission is the one from the demo. It's a small campaign, and relatively easy, as a training campaign should be. It's definitely the right one to start with for a new player, and will teach you how to effectively makes use of combined arms without ever feeling overly difficult. Mistakes will still be punished, but it would be hard to lose your momentum entirely. It features a little of everything. Artillery spotting and using the on-call system. armor, infantry, bocage. The perfect primer for Battle for Normandy.

I was reading a thread at the BFC boards and Paper Tiger said that the Road to Montebourg campaign took him....


Eight Hundred Hours to make!!!! 800.

Is it any wonder then? Good grief.

I added my two cents to the "Roadmap" thread over there. I am landser. Don't know how to single out a post, so a link to the thread. My post is on page 6 (depends on your page post settings of course)

http://community.battlefront.com/to...?page=6&tab=comments#comment-1768913

When I clicked that link it took me to my second post, the first is slightly above.

Very nice posts DBond. I'am glad that many CM gamers see limitations in various areas of current engine and the game in general. Really hope BF will come up with something new. Maybe they'll try crowdfunding. It could work.

Yes, obviously there are others who share my feelings about this. And surely BFC are aware of this and perhaps even want to implement these things, but cannot for whatever reason. It may be technically impossible with the current engine. But I thought what better place to bring it up that this roadmap thread. Even if it's not possible for CMx2 games I wanted to make the point before a new engine is designed without this being considered. They don't need me to tell them, but I wanted my voice to be heard, and if it never comes to be at least I won't regret not speaking up about it ya know?

As I am back in to Combat Mission for the moment I thought I'd bring this thread back out of hiding. There's lots of good info in here, and some campaign recommendations for folks that are just getting in to it.

I made a few posts recently over on the BFC board about the state of campaign play in Combat Mission. I make about one post per year on the matter. Never gains traction, but I feel like I need to speak up. Not so often that it's annoying, but often enough that Steve knows I'm still paying attention

There's a wishlist sort of thread going on there about CMx3. Folks are talking about things like exhaust fumes and I just shake my head. Wargamers eh? How about stuff to actually play!?

Anyway, I bought CMBB (again) and CMAK (first time) on GOG for $12 total. That's a hell of a good deal for what you get. CMBB alone has 18 Operations and at least 50 Battles included, with plenty more to download on the inter-web. I was concerned about technical issues, but the games run in widescreen, and they run well with none of the issues you might expect when attempting to run games from so long ago on modern machines.

I had to buy CMBB again because I built my new PC with no optical drive, so the fact that I had kept the disk all these years failed to pay off in the expected manner

But honestly I would have probably had trouble getting that one to work properly, and the GOG one works great, and at that price point it's a no-brainer.

Check that. CMBB comes with about 150 Battles! That's a lot of content and there's plenty more for download. Some are small or tiny scenarios that are hard as hell! These are fun as it's all so manageable and not cumbersome like so many Combat Mission scenarios and campaigns are. As I keep saying, company sized is about perfect for me. Battalion sized is the upper limit.

I imagine many players make liberal use of the split squad mechanic, and a battalion's worth of troops, all broken down in to fire teams, results in a massive number of units to control. Over the past year I completed three grand campaigns in Grigsby's War in the East, so it's not like I can't deal with a huge number of units and lots of micro. But in Combat Mission at least, I have the option to fight with smaller forces.

Give me an infantry company, a couple of tank platoons and some heavy weapons teams and there's the sweet spot for me in Combat Mission.

I was Re playing Fortress Italy the last few days and found that Platoon and down are my sweet spots. Last one was just 3 Sq's + a HQ detachment ran sweet, lost a few guys taking a Mg nest. The smaller units seem easy to work with and u seem to care if u take losses where in larger games its just cannon fodder.

The way I see it is that a platoon is not much different than a company, which is not much different than a battalion. It's all triangular, and regardless of which sized force I am commanding I operate in the same manner, usually two-up. The difference is in the number of units that comprise each part of the formation, and the amount of micro I have to employ. And crucially, the amount of time the scenario takes to complete. Not only do you have more units to check, and to move and to issue orders to, the larger the scenario, the more replays I need to watch every turn.

I just completed the opening mission from the Blunting the Spear campaign for Red Thunder. It's a fairly big one, about a battalion, with an hour and forty minutes on the clock. It took me 4 or 5 nights to finish this battle. I could finish other entire campaigns in the same amount of time. I don't mind large scenarios with a high proportion of combat units. What bogs me down are tail units, logistical units, dis-embarking and re-embarking, trucks, kubelwagens, towed guns, ammo acquisition and that sort of thing. And I would run six replays every turn, one for each axis of the attack movement.

And like I mentioned, I imagine many players make liberal use of the split-squad mechanic. A single standard infantry company, all broken down, can comprise as many as 85 teams, and that's not including any attachments like mortars, tank hunters or machine guns. Of course I never break down every squad, but the potential is there. In action it is somewhat more manageable than all of that. Now, if that company becomes a battalion....

On the other hand, these large scenarios bring in to play some facets of combat operations that I don't use in smaller ones. For example in the Blunting the Spear mission I conducted the battle in two main phases. The first phase was clearing the terrain on the near side of the river. Everything was combed-out by foot-slogging infantry. When it was time for phase two, crossing the river, I needed to coordinate a big re-embarkation operation. Transport (tracks) and grunts for the infantry companies needed to move to common locations to load up, then each platoon needed to be routed to the jump-off point for the crossing. It was a fairly large commitment of time and attention. Further, tank 'escort' and overwatch needed to be arranged to cover the crossing, smoke called in by the F/O which takes several minutes to arrive (and which dissipates quickly!) and a few arty stonks on suspected or known enemy positions. Everything needs to be coordinated. But ya know, it's really fun when you're in the right mindset. And if it all comes off it's rewarding. While company sized campaings are my sweet spot, I don't mind a good battalion sized bust-up now and again.