[Threadfin]

Of all the things I criticize about Combat Mission, the one I care about the most is the campaign system. And not just how it works mechanically, but the way it falls on the community to create this content.

Single missions and the QMB don't do it for me, outside of PBEM where this works fine. As a Combat Mission campaign player I am tethered to the supply chain. All veteran CM players know of the handful of sites hosting these campaign downloads, and while I am grateful for this service, the fact is there is little available. CMBN and CMSF have a decent number available, but other titles have so little it's disheartening.

A big part of the problem is the editor. It takes a hell of a lot of work to make a campaign. Paper Tiger took 800 hours! to make Road to Montebourg. Admittedly that's probably the longest CM campaign there is, but still, when a campaign author as skilled and experienced as he is must devote the equivalent of 33 entire days to create it the problem seems clear. Imagine how daunting it is for a new campaign designer.

So we are left with little to play. Have a look at any other title, say Final Blitzkreig or Red Thunder. I might not even need both hands to count what's out there. And beyond that, if I then filter this low number by the types of campaigns I like, it's even less. I don't care for urban battles, night fighting, battalion+ force size or exit mechanics. What does that leave? If I want to play parachute infantry at company size how many campaigns are available? Four? Less?

And then there's the nature of the campaigns themselves, the episodic formula we've been using since Operations were killed and Combat Mission: Campaigns went belly-up. That was fifteen years ago! It's a series of narrative-related single battles strung together. There's little continuity from one battle to the next, with exceptions. In the main, crucial operational factors such as ammo conservation, lines of communication, veterancy, key terrain and logistics are either glossed over or ignored entirely. Some campaigns buck this trend, like the excellent Kampfgruppe Engel for CMBN which uses a core force and features ammo and damage-state carry over. But these mechanics are rarely used, and even then the next mission is an entirely new battlefield with new objectives. Fighting so hard to take that important hill or town in one battle, means nothing in the next. We've moved on.

I could write pages about the CM campaign system, what I feel are it's strengths and weaknesses and what I think it needs to improve. It's clear though that nothing is in the works to change it in any meaningful way. Battlefront are content with what it is, as is their right, but it's also within my remit to point out it's failings and provide suggestions, however futile. The core tactical game is so excellent (WEGO, spotting, C2 and ballistics are fantastic) that I think it's a shame to have such a rudimentary campaign system to use it with. And as BFC have said, there's no plan to improve it or change it in any meaningful way. Combat Mission desperately, in my view, needs an operational layer and a dynamic campaign. To continue to make new narrow modules for existing old titles without giving the campaign system any attention is a massive miss and lies at the core of my apathy. It could be so much better.

Which brings me to one last point, and one that Skybird hit upon when talking about unpacking the campaigns, and that is the "AI" system. None of my ideas would be workable until or unless the AI was completely redone. As it is, Combat Mission doesn't really have an AI. It's script and trigger-based. The TacAI works well enough, but in a general sense the enemy AI is incapable of thinking on it's feet. To react or exploit or conduct a tactical withdrawal. To use reserves to plug a gap or mass it's forces to exploit success. Any sensation of a competent opponent is purely by happenstance and a result of the designer's ability to create this illusion through careful planning when creating the scenario. As a result, AI on the defensive can put up a good fight, but if it's attacking the result is adequate at best and a complete mess at it's worst. And again, it's all down to how well the author can manipulate the AI scripts and triggers and to the extent the player "falls" in to the envisioned conduct of the battle.

In my view, Battlefront need to stop creating modules and concentrate on giving the players the proper structure to take full advantage of the excellent core systems in Combat Mission. An operational dynamic campaign generator is what this series needs. Aside from not having any desire to actually make my own campaigns with tools unsuited for ease of use, the fact remains that even if I did, I would already know everything about the campaign I am about to play -- the enemy OoB, key terrain and positions and well, everything. If I build a scenario with four AT guns, after I knock them out I know there are none left. I need to proceed as if there are four more possibly still hidden or Combat Mission loses the uncertainty that makes it so compelling.

Until Battlefront address this issue and remove the tether players are chained to and give us a way to easily generate endless, tailored campaign play the series will continue to suffer from a severe lack of content. Give me the tools to produce the experience I want and end the current reliance on generous but scarce and overworked authors to produce the content I want to play.