Campaigns for Modern Conflicts

[Imeror]

Since it was a topic, I enjoyed the lack of ammo on the Yantar.
It is strong and thus useful for giving ponctual help to SF, but it don't have enough ammo to do the work alone. It is a fire support, not a wonder weapon that win the map for the player. A good game mechanic, in my opinion.

Even the Americans that LOVE fire support are not sending Tomahawks each time a SEAL unit is in a firefight

[Tobi72]

Since it was a topic, I enjoyed the lack of ammo on the Yantar.
It is strong and thus useful for giving ponctual help to SF, but it don't have enough ammo to do the work alone. It is a fire support, not a wonder weapon that win the map for the player. A good game mechanic, in my opinion.

Even the Americans that LOVE fire support are not sending Tomahawks each time a SEAL unit is in a firefight

And that was exactly my intention when designing this campaign: to create a coordinated interplay between different types of weapons. In doing so, I even gave the Yantar more firepower than it actually possesses. In each mission, I try to maintain a balanced relationship between the number and strength of the enemies and the victory conditions that must be fulfilled.

[bondjamesbond]

Since it was a topic, I enjoyed the lack of ammo on the Yantar.
It is strong and thus useful for giving ponctual help to SF, but it don't have enough ammo to do the work alone. It is a fire support, not a wonder weapon that win the map for the player. A good game mechanic, in my opinion.

Even the Americans that LOVE fire support are not sending Tomahawks each time a SEAL unit is in a firefight

Everything’s fine in moderation, but if you’re under a never-ending onslaught of clones, you could fill every hold to the brim with rockets and it still wouldn’t help )) Because as soon as one wave of enemies is destroyed, three new ones will take their place – you might as well not even arm them, as they’ll simply trample you ))) But our Toby knows how to strike a balance and keep the game exciting!!!

The American penchant for bombarding every bush with missiles and bombs hasn’t paid off, as experience has shown, so you can’t do without the support of hordes of ground-based clowns and clones )

Even when playing your mod, where NATO air power looms over almost every one of my soldiers, without the backing of a massive ground assault, it’s just a bit of a nuisance.

[bondjamesbond]

Since it was a topic, I enjoyed the lack of ammo on the Yantar.
It is strong and thus useful for giving ponctual help to SF, but it don't have enough ammo to do the work alone. It is a fire support, not a wonder weapon that win the map for the player. A good game mechanic, in my opinion.

Even the Americans that LOVE fire support are not sending Tomahawks each time a SEAL unit is in a firefight

And that was exactly my intention when designing this campaign: to create a coordinated interplay between different types of weapons. In doing so, I even gave the Yantar more firepower than it actually possesses. In each mission, I try to maintain a balanced relationship between the number and strength of the enemies and the victory conditions that must be fulfilled.

You’ve certainly managed it!

[Tobi72]

Since it was a topic, I enjoyed the lack of ammo on the Yantar.
It is strong and thus useful for giving ponctual help to SF, but it don't have enough ammo to do the work alone. It is a fire support, not a wonder weapon that win the map for the player. A good game mechanic, in my opinion.

Even the Americans that LOVE fire support are not sending Tomahawks each time a SEAL unit is in a firefight

And that was exactly my intention when designing this campaign: to create a coordinated interplay between different types of weapons. In doing so, I even gave the Yantar more firepower than it actually possesses. In each mission, I try to maintain a balanced relationship between the number and strength of the enemies and the victory conditions that must be fulfilled.

You’ve certainly managed it!

Well, I'm trying my best. You don't always have to win the first time you start a mission; if you lose, you try a different tactic a second time. In the upcoming missions, you can look forward to variety. For example, they involve freeing tanker crews, taking over captured oil tankers, the Yantar's interaction with submarines and their silent attacks on naval targets, secret recovery operations of enemy hydrophones, and so on. All in all, short but intense missions; the first three were just a warm-up.

HDP.png (561.06 KiB) Viewed 2697 times

[bondjamesbond]

And that was exactly my intention when designing this campaign: to create a coordinated interplay between different types of weapons. In doing so, I even gave the Yantar more firepower than it actually possesses. In each mission, I try to maintain a balanced relationship between the number and strength of the enemies and the victory conditions that must be fulfilled.

You’ve certainly managed it!

Well, I'm trying my best. You don't always have to win the first time you start a mission; if you lose, you try a different tactic a second time. In the upcoming missions, you can look forward to variety. For example, they involve freeing tanker crews, taking over captured oil tankers, the Yantar's interaction with submarines and their silent attacks on naval targets, secret recovery operations of enemy hydrophones, and so on. All in all, short but intense missions; the first three were just a warm-up.HDP.png

I have no doubt that we’re in for a thoroughly gripping storyline and a wide variety of challenges!
https://dzen.ru/a/XCyQzmIkjACqhxcn
https://fishki.net/1633743-11-izobreten ... ojnam.html

[Tobi72]

CRD.png (718.71 KiB) Viewed 995 times

I have some news for Modern Conflicts fans.

I am currently working on a new campaign centered around the China–Taiwan conflict. You can probably imagine the general background: the campaign deals with a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan in the year 2027.

At the moment, the campaign has reached 11 completed missions out of a planned total of perhaps 13 or 14. The scenarios themselves have already made good progress, but all briefings, in-game messages, and related texts still need to be written. I also have to add a few more elements, such as buildings, depots, and other scenario details.

So there is still quite a bit of work ahead, but the project is moving forward steadily.

Best regards,
Tobi

RD.png (843.94 KiB) Viewed 995 times

TCG.png (699.62 KiB) Viewed 995 times

[Tobi72]

KK.png (423.69 KiB) Viewed 990 times

The campaign starts, of course, with smaller missions and smaller maps. Later on, the maps become larger and, in some cases, noticeably more challenging.

In fact, drawing and designing the maps sometimes took more time and effort than creating the mission itself. But I think this extra work was worth it, because the scenarios should feel varied and visually convincing, not just like a quick sequence of battles on generic terrain.

GK.png (579.91 KiB) Viewed 990 times

Some of the later missions, however, have a fairly high turn limit. I know this might put off some players at first, but I am trying to make the missions as varied as possible, so that they hopefully remain interesting from start to finish.

The goal is not to make the scenarios feel long just for the sake of it, but to give the player enough time for different phases of battle: landings, counterattacks, naval and air operations, securing objectives, and sometimes even unexpected surprises.

HRZ.png (607.14 KiB) Viewed 982 times

[bondjamesbond]

CRD.pngI have some news for Modern Conflicts fans.

I am currently working on a new campaign centered around the China–Taiwan conflict. You can probably imagine the general background: the campaign deals with a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan in the year 2027.

At the moment, the campaign has reached 11 completed missions out of a planned total of perhaps 13 or 14. The scenarios themselves have already made good progress, but all briefings, in-game messages, and related texts still need to be written. I also have to add a few more elements, such as buildings, depots, and other scenario details.

So there is still quite a bit of work ahead, but the project is moving forward steadily.

Best regards,
TobiRD.pngTCG.png

Wow, that's great news! I'm really looking forward to it! Siberia and Taiwan will be ours ))))

[bondjamesbond]

KK.pngThe campaign starts, of course, with smaller missions and smaller maps. Later on, the maps become larger and, in some cases, noticeably more challenging.

In fact, drawing and designing the maps sometimes took more time and effort than creating the mission itself. But I think this extra work was worth it, because the scenarios should feel varied and visually convincing, not just like a quick sequence of battles on generic terrain.GK.png


Some of the later missions, however, have a fairly high turn limit. I know this might put off some players at first, but I am trying to make the missions as varied as possible, so that they hopefully remain interesting from start to finish.

The goal is not to make the scenarios feel long just for the sake of it, but to give the player enough time for different phases of battle: landings, counterattacks, naval and air operations, securing objectives, and sometimes even unexpected surprises.HRZ.png

More moves mean more opportunities to capture all the points—even if they’re minor, they still grant extra prestige and bonuses in the form of trophies.

Hey, author, do you think the PRC will use a swarm of drones and other AI units—like cyber dogs and the like—in this Reunification operation? Cheers, Terminator )))
https://union.4bb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=971&p=31


“And the machines rose from the ashes of the nuclear fire…”
The Chinese army has practised an assault on a fortified area using only robots and drones, with no operators present in the combat zone. Every element—from reconnaissance units to heavy firing positions—is controlled by a single AI command centre.
Small reconnaissance drones carried out 3D mapping of the terrain and identified the ‘enemy’s’ firing positions. Ground-based robot dogs, armed with automatic rifles, and tracked platforms equipped with anti-tank guided missiles advanced to their positions. They selected their own routes, using obstacle-avoidance algorithms. Kamikaze drones worked in conjunction with ground forces, neutralising targets that the robotic dogs could not reach with direct fire.
Only after the AI confirmed that all active threats had been ‘cleared’ did live forces enter the location to secure the territory.
The system uses a closed data transmission network and swarm intelligence. If one robot fails, the others instantly redistribute its task amongst themselves.

[Tobi72]

Hi Bond, no—for this campaign, I am using exclusively the units found in the *Modern Conflicts* database. The only exceptions are the destructible buildings and structures I designed, such as refineries, tank farms, etc.

TL.png (569.8 KiB) Viewed 936 times

[bondjamesbond]

Hi Bond, no—for this campaign, I am using exclusively the units found in the *Modern Conflicts* database. The only exceptions are the destructible buildings and structures I designed, such as refineries, tank farms, etc.TL.png

https://www.old-games.ru/game/screenshots/174.html
https://www.gog.com/en/game/peoples_general

Hi! So, it looks like we’re in for the usual old-school battle next time! But judging by your screenshot, those are some great locations, my friend!

Tell me, if, for example, all oil fields and depots were destroyed, would the enemy suffer from a shortage of fuel? You could have the most modern army in the world, but without fuel, it would simply be a pile of immobile scrap metal.

[Tobi72]

I started developing this campaign sometime late last year and finished the initial version—up to Mission 11—early this year, so I can't say with 100% certainty. However, since I’ll be playing through the entire campaign again—including the briefings and in-game messages—I can easily add such an event if it turns out to be missing. I recall that winning some of the missions was quite difficult, so I’ll have to tweak and tone down a few things anyway.

[Tobi72]

I’ve noticed that interest in some of my projects hasn't been all that high, so I’m going to stop working on them to free up some more time. Even so, it will still take a while before I can release this campaign; I need to finish Yamato 41 first, and then I can devote myself to this campaign properly.

[Tobi72]

I would like to briefly explain why I will be much more cautious in the future when it comes to creating completely new or special units specifically for individual campaigns.

Creating new units still requires a considerable amount of time and effort on my part. This does not only include the actual graphics, but also adjustments, testing, balancing, implementation into the campaign, and often several rounds of corrections. If such units are ultimately used only for a single campaign, and the overall interest or number of downloads remains very low, then honestly, there is not much incentive for me to invest that kind of effort on a regular basis.

Experience has unfortunately shown that projects with a lot of additional work, such as War of the Machines or my SPQR mod, received only rather limited interest in the end. Of course, that is perfectly fine — every player has their own preferences, and nobody is obliged to play these projects. But for me as a creator, it means that I have to use my available time a little more carefully and focus it where it makes the most sense.

Buildings, structures, and smaller graphical additions, on the other hand, can usually be created much more quickly and easily. That is why I can still include this kind of content in campaigns far more comfortably, without the workload becoming disproportionate.

This does not mean that I will never create new units again. If an idea fits especially well, or if a unit can be used in several projects in the long run, then it is still possible. However, I will probably avoid special one-off units made only for a single campaign, or create them only in exceptional cases.

[bondjamesbond]

I’ve heard you and I understand! I wish you every success in your creative endeavours, and may your muse never leave you! As for popularity and relevance, we shouldn’t forget that the game is already 15 years old; if it weren’t for the modders, it would have been forgotten long ago. As it is, the community may not be huge, but it’s still there.

[Tobi72]

I’ve heard you and I understand! I wish you every success in your creative endeavours, and may your muse never leave you! As for popularity and relevance, we shouldn’t forget that the game is already 15 years old; if it weren’t for the modders, it would have been forgotten long ago. As it is, the community may not be huge, but it’s still there.

Yes, I completely agree with you. One has to wonder what would have become of this game if it had not included a scenario and campaign editor. It is truly remarkable how long the game has remained alive and relevant thanks to that feature.

Over the years, many talented and dedicated people have invested a great deal of thought, time, and effort into improving the game, creating new content, designing campaigns, and expanding what is possible. What makes this even more admirable is that they did not keep these creations to themselves, but shared them with the community and made them available to other players.

In my opinion, this is one of the main reasons why the game still has such a loyal following today. Without the work of modders, campaign creators, and scenario designers, it probably would not have had the same long life. Their contributions have kept the game fresh, interesting, and worth returning to even after so many years.

[bondjamesbond]

I’ve heard you and I understand! I wish you every success in your creative endeavours, and may your muse never leave you! As for popularity and relevance, we shouldn’t forget that the game is already 15 years old; if it weren’t for the modders, it would have been forgotten long ago. As it is, the community may not be huge, but it’s still there.

Yes, I completely agree with you. One has to wonder what would have become of this game if it had not included a scenario and campaign editor. It is truly remarkable how long the game has remained alive and relevant thanks to that feature.

Over the years, many talented and dedicated people have invested a great deal of thought, time, and effort into improving the game, creating new content, designing campaigns, and expanding what is possible. What makes this even more admirable is that they did not keep these creations to themselves, but shared them with the community and made them available to other players.

In my opinion, this is one of the main reasons why the game still has such a loyal following today. Without the work of modders, campaign creators, and scenario designers, it probably would not have had the same long life. Their contributions have kept the game fresh, interesting, and worth returning to even after so many years.

Without a map and resource editor, and without the ability to create your own mods and any additional content, any game is dead on arrival! People will play it for a while and then forget about it, but we’re lucky to have all met here, and that’s why our favourite game will remain alive and relevant for another couple of decades!

And a huge thank you and all our respect to everyone who has put their talented hands and wise minds to work to keep bringing us joy to this day! It’s sad that some of them are no longer with us!

[Imeror]

A lot has been said here since my last visit.


First of all, I'm very happy to have a new campaign in Asia. The last Modern Conflicts update added the region and several countries. Using these assets, Akkula created a first "official" campaign for the Chinese, along with a few individual naval scenarios; then Tomas made a large map of Korea around which I created a large scenario; and since then, we haven't done anything focused on Asia (if I'm not mistaken).
I had planned to include an Asian theater in my story, but it's planned for so far in the future... anyway, I'm glad we're finally focusing a bit more on the region.
Between Tobi working on a Chinese attack on Taiwan on one hand, and me with the Russians in the Baltic states on the other, it's World War III season in Modern Conflicts


I unfortunately also understand this opinion about adding new units. The very small player base makes it increasingly difficult to justify the effort put into creating a large number of new units.
However, Akkula was generous before leaving: we still have plenty of resources to work with People may not know it, but Taiwan units were already in the game files

To illustrate this reduction in the player base, for example: in one month, my latest Ukrainian chapter was downloaded... 35 times !
Two years ago, when I had no experience and players didn't know me at all, my first map pack was downloaded twice as many times in its first month.

The game is getting old, Akkula is no longer updating the mod, I see that some Russian sites where our content was sometimes shared have been shut down...
We could do like Akkula and nikivdd and promote our content on the Steam forum. There are always plenty of curious people who visit it, after all. That might stem the bleeding a little. After all, there's always an audience for a light, old-school wargame.

Anyway, I'm having a lot of fun using the editor (except for creating maps, I agree there too. I love doing the missions, but reproducing a map is often a real pain), so even with a smaller number of players, I plan to keep going. As long as I'm having fun creating scenarios and there's at least one player left to enjoy them, there's no reason to stop sharing them

[Tobi72]

A lot has been said here since my last visit.


First of all, I'm very happy to have a new campaign in Asia. The last Modern Conflicts update added the region and several countries. Using these assets, Akkula created a first "official" campaign for the Chinese, along with a few individual naval scenarios; then Tomas made a large map of Korea around which I created a large scenario; and since then, we haven't done anything focused on Asia (if I'm not mistaken).
I had planned to include an Asian theater in my story, but it's planned for so far in the future... anyway, I'm glad we're finally focusing a bit more on the region.
Between Tobi working on a Chinese attack on Taiwan on one hand, and me with the Russians in the Baltic states on the other, it's World War III season in Modern Conflicts


I unfortunately also understand this opinion about adding new units. The very small player base makes it increasingly difficult to justify the effort put into creating a large number of new units.
However, Akkula was generous before leaving: we still have plenty of resources to work with People may not know it, but Taiwan units were already in the game files

To illustrate this reduction in the player base, for example: in one month, my latest Ukrainian chapter was downloaded... 35 times !
Two years ago, when I had no experience and players didn't know me at all, my first map pack was downloaded twice as many times in its first month.

The game is getting old, Akkula is no longer updating the mod, I see that some Russian sites where our content was sometimes shared have been shut down...
We could do like Akkula and nikivdd and promote our content on the Steam forum. There are always plenty of curious people who visit it, after all. That might stem the bleeding a little. After all, there's always an audience for a light, old-school wargame.

Anyway, I'm having a lot of fun using the editor (except for creating maps, I agree there too. I love doing the missions, but reproducing a map is often a real pain), so even with a smaller number of players, I plan to keep going. As long as I'm having fun creating scenarios and there's at least one player left to enjoy them, there's no reason to stop sharing them

Yes, that is true — everything comes to an end at some point.
I think that if Taiwan and Units had not been included among the new nations, I probably would not have considered creating this campaign in the first place.


However, I also see that other games, even older ones, are still supported by their developers, including new content and new units. Age of Empires: Definitive Edition and Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition are good examples of how an old game can be kept interesting and alive for many years.

Of course, I do not know the background behind the decisions regarding Panzer Corps I. I do not know why the game was never expanded further into the Pacific, or why there was never a proper transition into the Cold War era with improved graphics, new rules, new units, and so on. Perhaps the development team was already planning Panzer Corps 2 at that point and simply had no resources left for PC1.

Unfortunately, Panzer Corps 2 does not have the same charm for me as its predecessor. Something feels missing, although I cannot really say exactly what it is. I started the Spanish campaign but stopped halfway through, and since then I have not played it again.

The editor also does not feel as intuitive and self-explanatory as the one in PC1. All of this, along with a few other things, are factors that keep me from really using the game.

So for me, Panzer Corps I remains the game I return to. And as long as possible, I will continue using it to create something enjoyable — both for myself and, hopefully, for the few remaining players who still appreciate it.