hi guys with steel beasts can i create a dynamic campaign with mission editor and how to do it and if there is a video tutorial...thanks

[caccioro]

 

• hi guys with steel beasts can i create a dynamic campaign with mission editor and how to do it and if there is a video tutorial...thanks

[Ssnake]

It is possible to link scenarios into a "small operation". We do not yet have a video tutorial for that, just what's in the user's manual.

[Apocalypse 31]

Short answer: Yes.

 

Am I going to make a video. Nope.

 

But.....here are my lessons learned after making an in-game operation (using the actual operation system)

 

And this is the checklist that I'd recommend...

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Apocalypse 31

[Gibsonm]

5 hours ago, caccioro said:

 

• hi guys with steel beasts can i create a dynamic campaign with mission editor and how to do it and if there is a video tutorial...thanks

 

It can be a lot of work.

 

Here is a weather matrix for one:

 

 

And there are a few more tabs to that spreadsheet.

[caccioro]

sorry I did not understand well if there a video tutorial?thanks

[Apocalypse 31]

17 minutes ago, caccioro said:

sorry I did not understand well if there a video tutorial?thanks

No. There is not a video tutorial on how to make a dynamic campaign.

[iamfritz]

I was actually just thinking of taking a whole map, filling it with phase lines covering multiple missions across a whole map with numerous enemy-related objectives, and some resupply units to haul up or retreat to and call it a campaign.

[Ssnake]

Who is supposed to play it?

A single player can manage only so many units at a time.

[iamfritz]

Make the base unit a battalion (reinforced maybe) in size. Attack with two companies, keep one in reserve, see how far you can make it (1-2 battles a day) across the map.

I know I have extreme trouble managing anything larger than battalion size.

[iamfritz]

So between my Armored Cav by Tom Clancy and M1 Tank Platoon Microprose Sim manuals, I believe I can lay out a militarily, doctrinally correct Cavalry Squadron assault on a Ruski Regiment with defense laid in depth. I'll spend the next few weeks working on it, and post here my results.

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by iamfritz

[caccioro]

hello guys I read everything if someone can explain me how to create a dynamic campaign with the phases also written or a video tutorial I would be happy.grazie

[Gibsonm]

31 minutes ago, caccioro said:

hello guys I read everything if someone can explain me how to create a dynamic campaign with the phases also written or a video tutorial I would be happy.grazie

 

Its not that straight forward.

 

You need to create several scenarios and link them together - its not really 30 sec YouTube video material.

 

You have to plan it out and then build it.

 

The section in the manual talks to how to join them together but that is after you have built and tested 5 or 6 missions.

[iamfritz]

Goal: Lay out a militarily, doctrinally correct Cavalry Squadron assault on a Russian-style Armor Heavy Regiment with defense laid in depth (in a European Theater).

 

Progress: By the track grease on my fingers what the hell have I gotten myself into.

 

Current Assessment: This is not a single player operation.

 

Revised Goal: Uhhh.... go back to platoon size operations for now.

 

Additional Notes: When the nightmares go away about entire Abrams platoons driving into rivers and HEMMTTs driving past Scout Bradley sections into enemy kill sacks, work may continue.

[TSe419E]

You should try it in the period before M1s.

[Gibsonm]

5 hours ago, iamfritz said:

Additional Notes: When the nightmares go away about entire Abrams platoons driving into rivers and HEMMTTs driving past Scout Bradley sections into enemy kill sacks, work may continue.

 

 

Happy to talk to you about route selection, formations and scripting controls to avoid those issues.

 

Also you can set things up so you can choose to control a small force as part of a larger one, if you want to.

 

[Parachuteprone]

I'd love to just see simply a dynamic battle generator.

pick sides/date/month/map or random option.

Random platoons/ supports based on a reasonable ratio of units..

random tasks/ objectives.

AI chooses paths to complete above.

Player has option to have random start or place their platoons/ squads.

 

If there was something like this my time in game would go way up.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Parachuteprone

[iamfritz]

On 4/9/2023 at 2:20 AM, Gibsonm said:

 

 

Happy to talk to you about route selection, formations and scripting controls to avoid those issues.

 

Also you can set things up so you can choose to control a small force as part of a larger one, if you want to.

 

Thanks for the offer/reply!

I have figured out how to move platoons together as Teams/Companies. I was experimenting with having the Logistics trail behind but somehow they just took off in front, thru woods. It seemed their object collision code went bonkers.

Unfortunately I haven't had much more time to test or evaluate the scenario.

[seizedsolid]

On 4/9/2023 at 11:22 AM, Parachuteprone said:

I'd love to just see simply a dynamic battle generator.

pick sides/date/month/map or random option.

Random platoons/ supports based on a reasonable ratio of units..

random tasks/ objectives.

AI chooses paths to complete above.

Player has option to have random start or place their platoons/ squads.

 

If there was something like this my time in game would go way up.

 

 

Honestly yes, how the heck does this game not have a generator like that? I understand sometimes it'll make very odd battles, but then again I'm sure there's been some odd contacts too.

 

 

 

[vyrago]

Yeah, this is why I still play M1 Tank Platoon 2.  The "dynamic" campaigns and crew progression, all from a game made 24 years ago.  I create a lot of steel beasts missions, just for myself so I dont bother with proper map markings and briefings but Ive started to "generate" things using some random tables and a dice roller app.  So i'll generate day/night, weather good/bad, hasty/deliberate attack or hasty/deliberate defense then a slightly random enemy force.  It eats up a good hour or so to make a decent mission, but it feels a little unique I guess.  

[Apocalypse 31]

51 minutes ago, vyrago said:

Ive started to "generate" things using some random tables and a dice roller app.  So i'll generate day/night, weather good/bad, hasty/deliberate attack or hasty/deliberate defense then a slightly random enemy force.  It eats up a good hour or so to make a decent mission, but it feels a little unique I guess.  

Same. Have been using one for years.

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Apocalypse 31

[Parachuteprone]

I've done the same. Works fine for picking forces.

It kinda falls apart when placing the opposing forces.

You can set branching routes but you still know the possible axis of advance.

Nothing that you are totally unprepared for. No surprises or need to do much in the way of recon.

Place a squad on the 3 or so possible routes you designed for the enemy and there they are.

 

Problem is it would be a lot of work to do something like this. Plus the devs didn't really design the software as a game, they designed it for training, with a game master/ instructor.

 

Guess we can't have everything.

 

 

[Parachuteprone]

Never made anything quite as detailed as "The Apocalypse battle simulator" though

 

[vyrago]

@Apocalypse 31  any chance you could share your generator or explain it?  Seems far more in-depth than what i've built.  

[Mirzayev]

22 hours ago, Parachuteprone said:

Nothing that you are totally unprepared for. No surprises or need to do much in the way of recon.

 

I'd argue that if you are making a scenario where the enemy reacts in a manner that the player is totally unprepared for then you are making a bad scenario. 

 

A good scenario with replayability should have more than one enemy course of action that the player can determine from reading the briefing. Usually these courses of action are not completely new plans with zero similarities: most COAs will share many similar features. The challenge to give to the player is enough information to know where to look to try to determine which course of action the enemy is using so they can modify their plan appropriately during the execution phase. I'd also offer that all information that the player needs should be contained within the scenario. Having to look up threat task organizations in an external document is lazy scenario design, IMO, but one that is very common in many commercial "military realism" oriented games. There are multiple echelons above a Platoon, Company, Battalion, etc. that would realistically be feeding information to their subordinate unit (IE the player) to allow them to make an actionable plan with a reasonable chance of success. This information will never be 100% correct, but it certainly won't be 100% wrong. 

 

You can also add other variations to existing enemy COAs. Maybe there is a 10% chance that the enemy will commit their reserve to your AO, and so now you have to fight two tank companies as opposed to one? Maybe there is a 35% chance that the enemy will commit rotary wing aviation to disrupt your planned offense? Maybe there is a 75% chance that the enemy will conduct non-observed "terrain denial" fires on locations where the player is likely to put observation posts? You can definitely get creative with adding in additional "things" that can bleed over from the area of interest into the player's area of operations. They don't have to be game changers, but they should be something that forces the player to consider them in their plan or face the consequences. 

[Major duck]

On 5/31/2023 at 10:07 PM, Mirzayev said:

 

I'd argue that if you are making a scenario where the enemy reacts in a manner that the player is totally unprepared for then you are making a bad scenario. 

 

A good scenario with replayability should have more than one enemy course of action that the player can determine from reading the briefing. Usually these courses of action are not completely new plans with zero similarities: most COAs will share many similar features. The challenge to give to the player is enough information to know where to look to try to determine which course of action the enemy is using so they can modify their plan appropriately during the execution phase. I'd also offer that all information that the player needs should be contained within the scenario. Having to look up threat task organizations in an external document is lazy scenario design, IMO, but one that is very common in many commercial "military realism" oriented games. There are multiple echelons above a Platoon, Company, Battalion, etc. that would realistically be feeding information to their subordinate unit (IE the player) to allow them to make an actionable plan with a reasonable chance of success. This information will never be 100% correct, but it certainly won't be 100% wrong. 

 

You can also add other variations to existing enemy COAs. Maybe there is a 10% chance that the enemy will commit their reserve to your AO, and so now you have to fight two tank companies as opposed to one? Maybe there is a 35% chance that the enemy will commit rotary wing aviation to disrupt your planned offense? Maybe there is a 75% chance that the enemy will conduct non-observed "terrain denial" fires on locations where the player is likely to put observation posts? You can definitely get creative with adding in additional "things" that can bleed over from the area of interest into the player's area of operations. They don't have to be game changers, but they should be something that forces the player to consider them in their plan or face the consequences. 

To add to Mirza's argument watch this
 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Major duck