Finishing a campaign

[forgorin]

Do others have this same problem? Mainly, just not finishing a campaign before having this great urge to run off and start another?
I was really getting into the main German campaign. Just when I get the first tiger tank, BANG! It hits me (not the tank!). Wouldn’t it be great fun to play as the British? YA...... And off we go! I now have 5 campaigns going, and have yet to actually finish one!

[Wild Bill]

So many choices, so little time!

WB

[FNG]

I find that it gets too easy because of the Experience curve.... if you start any nation early enough, you end up with uber-soldiers within a relatively short time.

[KG Erwin]

After five years of playing, I have only completed ONE long campaign. However, it gave me some ideas on how the game could be improved, so it was worthwhile.

I have restarted literally hundreds of long campaigns: another small OOB tweak always came to mind, so I fiddled with the database and started over.

[Goblin]

Its been years since I have even come close. First there is the uber fun purchasing and planning out your force, and then there is the first battle with the AI, where you go 'Jeez, this is boring'. Then you start thinking about another type of campaign, and you are doing it all again.



Goblin

[Jh316]

I've managed to complete one, as the US Army on the Western front. Right now I'm in December of 42 as the Germans in the West (oh god these tigers are fun. The british sending wave after wave of grants after me scared the hell out of me with those 75s that pierced anything at basically any range, and my 5cms bounced off them. Now my first battle with Tigers, I put my most experienced crews in them and 2 tigers killed 6 grants on the first turn), and I've struggled through Finland as the Soviets several times The finns give me nightmares.

Speaking of grants, why are their 75's so accurate? I would think that the turret-mounted 37 would be much easier to aim than a cannon that's in the hull. But the 37 has an ACC of 11 and the 75 of 13.

[forgorin]

Just glad to hear that I am not the only who cant finish anything!

[PimpYourAFV]

I have a strong tendency to get most of my dudes killed off before getting too far. I usually play the french, british or anzac as they are my favorites. I think I'm their favorite too cause I always ensure a good battle is had by all. On the flipside, I also stop playing a campaign if I'm not taking at least 50% of the casualties the enemy is taking cause that means a good battle is not being had so I must have a very strong challenge to stay involved.

[Wild Bill]

I can't speak for others, but I try to anticipate that game feature in later scenarios of the campaigns. I do this by making the enemy (ai) unit tuugher as you go. I increase their experience and morale to compensate for the improvements in your own troops.

You should, however, get some benefits from "veteran" units. That is only fair. They become tougher, better prepared and more knowledgeable of the enemy and the dangers of war.

Also for that reason I do not generally create lengthy campaigns. Two reasons: -

1) Unit improvement
2) Player boredom with the same theater and same enemy.

Most campaigns I have done with an occasional exception are 4-6 battles in length.

Campaigns like The Hurtgen, Deadly Diversion, Rommel World War II, Part Tow, Watchword Freedom and others, are of this gender.

I also try to create unique and unusual battles that keep the interest of the player.

WB
Wild BIll

[Alby]

I think the smaller number of battle campaigns are the best....
much more than that and as Bill said, boredom with same thing may set in.
the shorter ones are easier to edit too...
Long Long Road is proving to be a Long Long edit....
[;)]
Watchword Freedom one of all time Favorites.
no matter how many times I play I always seem to hit the same mines!!!
[:D]
keep up the great work Bill!

[Riun T]

hey Alby, since your on today I had a question for ya.
Why can't we have an option to have the first weapon slot turn to bayonet when we set units to defend,now I know its been said that changing stance while playing the AI has no effect but I've noticed that when I advance troops to an area thats good for defending the trailing forces,or to use as a stageing or regrouping point, that they digin and find cover much faster, and how else do we get to tell computer forces to foxhole up when we don't want to do it on the deploy??
just mostly wanted to know if that was ever asked for before?? RT

[Alby]

changing the weapon in slot one to a different weapon during gameplay would require some type of code change...which, who knows if it is even possible with this game code.
Changing a unit to Defend stance does have an effect, they should dig in easier, also good idea to set range to 1 or 0 to remain hidden..
the other units in the formatrion should not change stance, unless you have selected, "change all units in formation" as opposed to "change only this unit" in the AO units info screen.

Also units that are'nt moved for a period of time tend to dig in if they have good experience...
someone may correct me if I am wrong on that???


I hope I understood your question correctly.

[FlashfyreSP]

"Cover" is acquired by a unit anytime it remains stationary and passes certain Experience checks. It can occur multiple times for each unit during a game.

It cannot be directed to a specific unit; units find cover on their own.

[Titanwarrior89]

I have finished two guadalcanal campaigns and lost both. I played the Mega thru. Will play it again.

On another note it took me 7 months too play the war thru from 7 dec 41 to aug 45 (war in the pacific). I highly recommend the game. The main reason I play spwaw is the pacific theater.[:D]

[robot]

Due to many upgrades of this game I have started long campaigns over at least 10 times. Have never made it past the end of 1942 in any of them. I will continue to try and reach the end of the war with all the major powers involved. Just hope the good lord does not have any other plans for me before I reach the end. Have to say tho it has always been aball for me to play even tho i never get any further.

[Riun T]

In the years that I've played this game I have gotten a wonderful experience in the differant changes and evilusion of the versions starting with 5.0. I played a complete camp. of the germans to start,and then an american to practice what I learned with the germans. did the same sequince for the progression to ver.7.0 and added a british and canadian camp. to convert to ver.8.0, then 8.2, then 8.4 where I sit with 11 full campaigns of various nationalities to date working on a russian long right now, its been swell to have played,witnessed,helped instatute, and praise this excellent,instructional,powerful,and educational game and to have met soo many TOP SHELF types of people.[:)] RT

[PimpYourAFV]

ORIGINAL: Wild Bill

I can't speak for others, but I try to anticipate that game feature in later scenarios of the campaigns. I do this by making the enemy (ai) unit tuugher as you go. I increase their experience and morale to compensate for the improvements in your own troops.

You should, however, get some benefits from "veteran" units. That is only fair. They become tougher, better prepared and more knowledgeable of the enemy and the dangers of war.

Also for that reason I do not generally create lengthy campaigns. Two reasons: -

1) Unit improvement
2) Player boredom with the same theater and same enemy.

Most campaigns I have done with an occasional exception are 4-6 battles in length.

Campaigns like The Hurtgen, Deadly Diversion, Rommel World War II, Part Tow, Watchword Freedom and others, are of this gender.

I also try to create unique and unusual battles that keep the interest of the player.

WB
Wild BIll

I disagree you on all points here Wild Bill, except that your battles are interesting and unique which is for sure. For me longer campaigns are far better as long as they maintain good mission quality because players like to evolve their core with both unit upgrades and improved stats. I don't think it's good to ramp up all the enemy units' quality to match the player's estimated skill improvements because that is not historical and seems like a bit cheesy to be honest. It must be smarter to make the enemy units' skills as historical as possible each battle, regardless of whether they be weaker or stronger than the player's units. This makes the battle more realistic. For added difficulty, just add in more enemies with unpredictable scripts.

As for boredom, I don't fighting the same enemy has to be boring. It depends on the designer's creativity to keep things fresh. No problem if there is great mission variety, no predictable patterns, and some surprises here and there which is a Wild Bill trademark. And you can also add in different nationalities to fight in the same campaign, even while keeping it historical, because there are many members to each alliance. Mixing enemy nationalities between battles is one thing I've never seen except in the computer managed WWII campaign which unfortunately follows a very predictable pattern in mission generation.

[forgorin]

First off what is a "top shelf types of people"?
Second, I do prefer a longer campaign to a shorter one as you can see your units change, and the start to take on a personality of their own. Like throwing down their arms (they look funny without them!) and refusing to get slaughtered for my enjoyment. Bastards.[:@]