Strategic Dynamic Campaign?

[Nats]

I would like to know more about this, I love games with large dynamic campaigns in them. We don't get enough of these.

[Soundwolf776]

Reposting my answer from discord:
"Not much to say about it, until the mechanics are playtested.

The current high-level concept is roughly the same: a CENTAG-focused operational campaign, with each campaign chapter covering 1-2 days of fighting. Probably a switching point of view - a chapter for US, FRG, DDR, and Soviets each.

Turn-based IGOUGO system. Battalions are likely to be a basic operational unit under player command. Map divided into sectors, each corresponding to a tactical map.

In terms of the total amount of forces, it'll gradually increase from a few brigades involved in the introductory chapter and up to 1-2 divisions worth of troops in later chapters.

Mechanically, it'll be its own thing. There is no 'proven formula' for an operational-level RTT campaign yet, which is highlighted by Eugen reinventing the wheel with each of their games. Gotta design that particular bicycle from the ground up.

I'll stress that it is an initial concept, though. Even high-level stuff may change, based on prototyping."

[ALBH]

Sorry if I don´t understand it correctly, but just to clarify: will each campaign be "open world"? I mean, no levels whatsoever, just a map, sectors and a timeframe in which the player make decisions, move troops and plays battles (take for instance wargame airland battle o wargame red dragon)? Look forward to your reply. Thanks

[Nats]

I dont think they know themselves yet lol from the sound of it. It sounds scripted though to me, not very dynamic, if you have chapters and are switching sides for each chapter.

A dynamic campaign, for me, is one where you play one side from the start until the very end of the war and the path you take diverges dependant on the players actions. It doesn't have chapters as the player is creating the story themselves.

It might be semi-dynamic in that you are lead along the overall path in the war but have some flexibility and impact on the individual battles and their order. This is similar to Eugen and some of the Close Combat games.

[Soundwolf776]

Originally posted by ALBH:

I mean, no levels whatsoever, just a map, sectors and a timeframe in which the player make decisions, move troops and plays battles (take for instance wargame airland battle o wargame red dragon)?

Yes, the core concept is similar to WALB/WRD campaigns (though details of implementation will differ quite a bit). No scripted missions. Move forces on the strategic map, fight out out the battles on the tactical maps.

Originally posted by Nats:

It sounds scripted though to me, not very dynamic, if you have chapters and are switching sides for each chapter. A dynamic campaign, for me, is one where you play one side from the start until the very end of the war and the path you take diverges dependant on the players actions. It doesn't have chapters as the player is creating the story themselves.

Each chapter is a single division-to-corps-sized operation, not the entire war.
The campaign is dynamic enough for my purposes:
1.) Provides extra replayability, which will come from non-scripted missions and ample options at the strategic level.
2.) Adds a layer of strategic considerations to each tactical fight. A player will have to consider the long-lasting implications of casualties taken and resources expended, in addition to achieving current objectives.

What you're describing is essentially Total War: 1989; such a project would require an order of magnitude more resources and time. I prefer to start with something more manageable and work from there.

[p-s-xx]

How will maps in tactical mode be matched to maps in strategic mode? Will it be randomly generated maps, or pre-drawn, like in Steel Division 2? Many players don't like this, as it loses the connection between strategic and tactical modes, and it does not feel real.
I think the best way is to have a lot of pre-drawn maps "connected" with edges to each other, like Graviteam MF.)))

[Soundwolf776]

Pre-drawn, that's for sure.
The idea is to have unique tactical maps for key strategic sectors, while peripheral ones will share layouts from a set pool of maps. Of course, the pool will be reasonably large to avoid repeating SD2 mistakes.

[Nats]

Yeah the Close Combat 3 game has this where maps are linked and you play over a set of maps as you progress and it is very immersive.

[DDR]

there'll be missions specials like rescue prisoners or steal tanks and others veichles of enemies?

[Nats]

Originally posted by little-big-horn:

there'll be missions specials like rescue prisoners or steal tanks and others veichles of enemies?

Thats small scale tactical commando stuff not platoon level. How often do you steal enemy vehicles or rescue prisoners in a war ? Strange question. This isn't Where Eagles Dare you know.

[DDR]

because in a war never happened this? about prisoners or steal technology enemy? or project secret weapon? in cold war happened this often... that this game is small tactical commando scale is another thing...

[Nats]

Originally posted by little-big-horn:

because in a war never happened this? about prisoners or steal technology enemy? or project secret weapon? in cold war happened this often... that this game is small tactical commando scale is another thing...

Ah yes well if you were meaning espionage then of course that happens in war on a large scale. But I would imagine regiments is in the middle ground - not covering small commando like raids but not covering the large grand strategy of the entire war either. So I would imagine any strategic elements will be quite simplified to lead you quickly to the next real time battle.