Campaign Series: Cold War Survey – The Final Results
A huge thank you to everyone who participated in our Campaign Series: Cold War survey! We received 183 responses in total, which is incredibly helpful to us.
Without further ado, here’s what you shared with us:
Profile – Age
Compared to the first day’s results, the survey still shows that many of us have been following the Campaign Series games since their early days with Talonsoft. I’m right there in the most common age group myself, having started with Talonsoft’s West Front.
We’re thrilled to see a younger crowd joining as well! Our next focus area is to ensure the Campaign Series user experience stays modern and enjoyable, with a strong emphasis on graphical user interface improvements in the upcoming Summer update.
Profile – Collection
John Tiller’s Campaign Series remains the most common background among respondents, with the final results showing a slight increase of a couple of percentage points compared to the first day’s results. It’s wonderful to see interest in Middle East and Vietnam as well. We’re thrilled to have the Remastered Editions of Vietnam 2.00 and Middle East 3.00 available now.
With these two Modern Wars titles released, we’re moving full steam ahead toward Cold War as our next focus. Meanwhile, it’s fantastic to see the Subsaharan community mod in progress. There’s been some indication about the first Korean War community scenarios being made available for Vietnam. too.
Hardware – Operating System
It’s fantastic to see that nearly everyone is using a modern operating system. We officially support Windows 10 and 11, as these align with Microsoft’s current support policies. Interestingly, this survey surpasses the Steam Hardware Survey results in terms of players keeping up to date with Windows 11 – great to see! A more homogeneous player setup enables us to streamline and maintain game support more effectively.
Hardware – Display Resolution
This was one of the questions we were particularly eager to explore. In our previous survey, we identified 1366×768 as the lowest common denominator for display resolutions. Moving forward, it will now be HD (1920×1080). 4K displays are becoming more common, too. In the previous survey, they represented one-tenth of the displays within our community, and now they account for two-tenths—despite a slight decrease from the first day’s results. These findings also highlight a growing emphasis on widescreens.
We understand that desktop scaling is becoming increasingly important, and we’re upgrading our UI with this in mind, including system fonts and other enhancements.
Hardware – Number of Displays
Another fascinating question! The game engine still features several modal dialogs, which, when open, prevent interaction with the game map. While I had anticipated more players using multi-monitor setups, the survey results reinforce the importance of removing modality and better supporting dual displays. This will remain a priority as we continue updating the game UI. We’ve even got our first Sneak Peeks related to non-modal dialogs available now!
Hardware – RAM
With modern systems available, CPU power has largely become irrelevant when it comes to the demands of the CS game engine. However, memory size remains a key area of interest, particularly in understanding how many players are working with a limited RAM footprint. Moving forward, 16GB of RAM should be sufficient, though 8GB might still suffice for some time. That said, it’s reassuring to see that almost all of you have setups where RAM will not pose a limitation for future versions of the game.
Game Options – Opponent
On to scenario design!
In my First Day Results post, I mentioned that your feedback was quite similar to our CS: Vietnam survey. However, that’s not entirely accurate: the vs-Computer-Only option has gained about 10% in popularity since then. For CS: Vietnam 1.0, we undertook the herculean effort of integrating Scripted AI with the Lua engine, resulting in a significantly more robust Lua companion compared to what Middle East 2.0 offered at the time.
I’m thrilled to see that Middle East 3.00 is now on the same engine version baseline as Vietnam 2.00. Scripted AI continues to support H2H gameplay as well, and rest assured, we remain dedicated to supporting our H2H players.
Game Options – Matrix PBEM++
In our 2018 survey, approximately 20% of respondents expressed interest in PBEM++, either as their preferred option or as an equal alternative to sending a PBEM game file via email. Since then, both options have gained an additional 5% in vote share. With the new game front end now in place, we can finally begin planning the integration of PBEM++
CS: Cold War – Historical Era
While some changes in the responses compared to the first day’s results are noticeable—such as a slight narrowing of the gap between the least and most popular options—it is evident that the 1980s remain the definitive sweet spot for Cold War games. Naturally, our expansive timeline for the Orders of Battle spans all these eras, but this feedback provides helpful guidance on how to distribute content across each period.
One captivating concept for hypothetical scenarios involves two evenly matched forces battling over the same map, set in different decades. As the timeline advances, the battlefield would transform into an increasingly hostile and challenging environment. The Middle East Teaching Sets, covering 1948 to 1982, already implement this concept on a smaller scale. You can expect to see more of this in Cold War!
CS: Cold War – Scenario Size
This question—and the next—echo what we’ve heard before: there’s something for everyone, but with a particular emphasis on medium-sized formations and scenario sizes. The results here closely align with the first day’s findings and, in fact, are quite similar to those from the 2018 Vietnam Survey.
CS: Cold War – Scenario Length
Indeed, no major changes here regarding the First day results, either.
CS: Cold War – “Week in…” Wish List
There were many responses here—thank you all! For the first day’s results, I had ChatGPT provide a summary. This time, it’s Microsoft Copilot offering a summary of your feedback.
Summary of Open-Ended Responses on “Week In…” Settings
Popular Regions and Theaters:
- Germany and Central Europe: Strong interest in settings like the Fulda Gap, North German Plain, Central Germany, Southern Germany, and the Rhine. Many highlight NATO-Warsaw Pact confrontations, counterattacks, river crossings, and large-scale warfare operations.
- Nordic Countries: Suggestions include Denmark, Norway (e.g., Brigade Nord), Finland, and even Gothenburg.
- Afghanistan: Interest in the USSR invasion and other battles in this region.
- Other Forgotten Theaters: Requests for scenarios in the Balkans, Caucasus, Africa, South America, and Asia (e.g., Korean War 1950-1951 or 1980s).
- Urban and Specific Locations: Examples include Berlin, Hamburg, Regensburg, Luneburg, and Cuba.
Scenario Preferences:
- Historical and Hypothetical Scenarios: Interest in real battles (e.g., Falklands, Korea, Panama, Grenada) as well as hypothetical “Week in…” concepts, such as battles set across different decades or regions.
- Focus on Medium-Sized Formations: This echoes earlier trends, highlighting battles involving brigade- or division-sized forces.
- Tactical and Operational Variety: Preferences for delaying actions, breakthroughs, fire brigade missions, seek-and-destroy missions, and airborne/mobile defense or counterattacks.
- Customized Gameplay Elements: Some highlight aspects like battle length, victory conditions, lay of the land, and hidden events.
General Feedback:
- AI Programming and Features: Calls for AI systems with easily programmable movement and objective parameters.
- Campaign vs. Scenarios: Some players prefer campaigns over standalone scenarios.
- Supply and Logistics: Suggestions to focus on supply mechanics, such as units relying on air drops or managing encirclement scenarios.
- Flexibility: Many responses indicate no strong preferences, stating they would enjoy playing in various settings.
The Fulda Gap emerges as a particularly strong favorite, alongside interest in exploring underutilized theaters like Africa, South America, or the Balkans. These insights could serve as a basis for prioritizing content development and ensuring a mix of historical accuracy and creative hypothetical scenarios!
Next, with next three questions, we’re firmly in the territory of when Cold War 1.0 will be considered ready for release:
CS: Cold War – Orders of Battle
To provide some context for this question, developing each nation and its Order of Battle requires significant effort. On average, it takes at least three to four months per nation, given the high level of detail and accuracy we aim to achieve.
Approximately 40% of you are satisfied with what’s already nearing completion: the US, UK, and France against the Soviet Union, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. However, half of you mentioned being willing to wait longer to see West Germany included as well. For those willing to wait, it seems they’ll be happy with what the upcoming updates will gradually provide for Cold War. Based on this feedback, I interpret it as confirmation that we are good to proceed with the current initial plan.
Since we allowed for open-ended responses, there were also enthusiastic suggestions for other nations. Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy received strong mentions, alongside nations outside Europe. Both Koreas, by the way, are now part of Vietnam 2.0.
Edit: After discussions with Matrix Games as well, it is likelywe will include West Germany in Cold War 1.0 as well. That will take a good few months to complete, but it is well worth the wait I am sure. West Germany is a key protagonist here, after all.
CS: Cold War – Maps
The results here were quite similar to First day results, so Jason, as a professional cartographer—get your period maps indeed ready!
CS: Cold War – Scripted AI
The range of possibilities that Lua and Scripted AI offer to Campaign Series scenario designers is quite unique in the world of wargames. It’s great to see that this effort continues to be recognized and appreciated with the Final results as well. While creating fully dynamic Lua events—represented here as the Green sector—requires significant effort from scenario designers, we’re currently experimenting with a Lua skeleton makefile. This tool aims to automate as much of the event and battle AI logic as possible, allowing designers to focus less on foundational tasks and more on crafting intricate battle AI and engaging, event-driven scenario endgames. Happy times ahead!
CS: Cold War – NBC
Many of my favorite Cold War books, like Chieftains, conclude with the ominous image of a mushroom cloud in the sky. Others bring hostilities to a halt before reaching that point. It wouldn’t be prudent to design a Cold War game without addressing this critical question.
Based on your responses, approximately two-thirds of you prefer to include NBC weapon systems in the game. Some of you want to avoid them entirely, while others are firmly in favor of their inclusion.
Certain Cold War-era weapon systems, particularly those introduced later, are not yet supported by the game engine—scatterable minefields, for example. Implementing these systems could pave the way for additional battlefield-affecting mechanics. At this stage, we’re considering a middle-ground approach, focusing first on scatterable mine munitions, with the possibility of expanding further if time permits.
Ultimately, this is just a game, right? That said, I believe there should be a scenario tag in the Scenario Browser to indicate whether NBC weapons are included in a scenario. This would allow players who wish to opt out of these mechanics to do so easily.
CS: Cold War – Floor Is Yours!
Thank you so much for taking the time to complete this survey and for all your insight and suggestions! Below is an updated ChatGPT-generated summary of all the open-text responses to this question. No Microsoft Copilot this time, your responses exceeded the character limitation!
Summary of Open-Ended Responses – CS: Cold War
Core Features & Gameplay
- 2D Graphics: Players strongly desire 2D counter graphics at launch alongside 3D, with a zoomed-in 2D level for clarity.
- AI Development: Many players emphasize strong AI, both for single-player (SP) play and AI vs AI matches. They want better enemy decision-making and more challenging AI opponents.
- Scenario & Campaign Building: Requests for an easier scenario builder, linked campaigns, and random scenario generation to enhance replayability.
- More Political & Strategic Elements: Suggestions include more political events based on game situations, intelligence from captured enemy units, and options for Black Ops-style missions.
- Supply System Adjustments: Some find the current supply model unrealistic and suggest tweaks like allowing units to be cut off.
Theater & Factions Requests
- West & East German Forces: Bundeswehr and NVA are highly requested for initial release.
- Expanded Geographic Scope:
- Cold War beyond Europe: Korea, China, Africa, South America, Central America, and the Middle East.
- Arctic & Scandinavian Conflicts, Mediterranean, Balkans, and Iran-Iraq War scenarios.
- Berlin Scenario: A large-scale battle in Berlin is frequently mentioned.
- Additional OOBs & Nations: Calls for more nation-specific Orders of Battle (OOBs), including Canada, Nordic countries, Netherlands, Belgium, and Southern European nations.
Game Modes & Features
- Scenario Customization: Ability to set up scenarios where unit types are determined by percentage values (e.g., 20% armor, 20% air power, 60% infantry).
- More Air Combat Depth: Players request detailed air units and missions.
- Nuclear & Chemical Warfare: Many expect chemical weapons in the base game, while nuclear capabilities could come later.
Technical & Quality-of-Life Improvements
- 3D Graphics Enhancements: Appreciation for any 3D improvements but not at the expense of core gameplay.
- Better Sound Design: Players emphasize realistic weapon and ambient sounds for immersion.
- User-Friendly Map & Scenario Editors: Making map editors more intuitive is a repeated request.
- In-depth Tutorial: Many players want a detailed tutorial to avoid reading a 300-page manual.
- Steam Release: A Steam version would be welcomed, even at a premium price.
General Sentiment
- Many express strong excitement for the game and appreciation for the development team.
- Some players hope for a faster release schedule, while others ask for a long-term roadmap including Cold War proxy wars and post-1991 conflicts.
- There are ongoing calls for East Front III and a Korean War-focused game.
Overall, the feedback emphasizes AI, scenario-building flexibility, 2D and 3D options, diverse Cold War theaters, and improved usability. The player base is eager and highly engaged, with a mix of realism-focused and casual strategy fans.
Again, a huge THANK YOU to everyone who participated in this survey!
With best regards,
– Campaign Series Legion
From the security question, we can confidently deduce that everyone participating in the survey was able to write “Cold War” correctly—with proper capitalization and no hyphens. Excellent!
With the reimaged Campaign Series: Vietnam 2.00 and Middle East 3.00 updates now released, it’s time to look ahead once more.
