Grand Campaign vs Smaller Campaigns

[Southernland]

I usually start the GC before the tutorials, believing that any good game can be learned by osmosis.[;)]  I find I tend to get so much more from the games by playing the "before understanding any damned thing" stage  followed by the "ahhhh now that makes sense at last stage"   Its almost like getting two games for the price of one. 
[font=arial][/font] 
 
Also used to make plastic kitsets without using the instructions, again a brilliant idea as by the time I finished the tenth kitset I generally had parts enough left over to complete an eleventh[&:]

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Rodwell
I only play Grand Campaigns.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I'm like you, I enjoy the large historical grand campaigns to the exclusion of the smaller scenarios that might be included in a wargame title.

So each of you feel a game should only have one scenario - and that it be titled Grand Campaign.

Why should any game have more than one scenario (Grand Campaign) ?

-

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
So each of you feel a game should only have one scenario - and that it be titled Grand Campaign.

Why should any game have more than one scenario (Grand Campaign) ?

Of course not, there are plenty of people that play the smaller scenarios I'm sure. And many who probably never even play the grand campaign for their own reasons. I just have my personal preferences and I prefer the larger campaigns. Choice is always a good thing in any game.

Jim

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

When you buy a game that has a Grand Campaign (GC) and also smaller campaigns, do you typically play the smaller campaigns, the GC or both? Whenever I buy a game with a GC, for some reason, I always find myself attracted to the GC and completely ignore the smaller campaigns or scenarios. I guess my logic is that by playing the GC I am basically, more or less, playing all the smaller campaigns wrapped up into one. So I sort of see the smaller campaigns as redundant or unnecessary unless I am trying to learn the game or something. Even when I am trying to learn the game I usually end up trying to learn via the GC. In fact the ONLY thing I don't like about Close Combat Modern Tactics is that it lacks any kind of campaign.

I almost never finish Grand Campaigns, as I have no real reason to.

I like games that have a reasonable scale and represent some reasonable situation. For example playing a commander with a specified rank that commands a specified unit during certain period of time.
The player character should have realistic knowledge of the situation and realistic abilities to influence the situation.
So, no magical, super-precise knowledge of placement of every friendly unit, no magical instant-communication, etc.

Taking that, let's say that the player plays a platoon commander during an operation.
What would be his chances of surviving the whole grand campaign?
Would he be able to advance in ranks?

So, that's something that would interest me as a campaign.

Lack of campaign was one of the things that I didn't dislike about CCMT - taking in account how grotesquely unrealistic were campaigns from previous CC games - Platoon Tycoon 3 and Godlike Combat 4 and 5, it wasn't a big loss for me.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

The only exception to this "rule" for me is RTS games like Command & Conquer, Age of Empires or other similar RTS games which are purely science fiction. For some reason I rather play stand alone scenarios in "skirmish" mode in games like these. Something about campaigns in purely fiction games just doesn't appeal to me. I don't know why.

I bought games from C&C series only to play campaign and watch cutscenes. I didn't really like the gameplay itself, but the campaign was awesome, especially in C&C:TS[:D].
When I play GCs in normal wargames, I miss a story, that would give any reason to drag on the slaughter.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

I like games that have a reasonable scale and represent some reasonable situation. For example playing a commander with a specified rank that commands a specified unit during certain period of time.
The player character should have realistic knowledge of the situation and realistic abilities to influence the situation.
So, no magical, super-precise knowledge of placement of every friendly unit, no magical instant-communication, etc.

I take it you don't like any of the Close Combat series then? The only sort of "real time" game I can think of that might match the quality of no "magical" knowledge of every friendly unit would probably be a first person shooter where you basically experience the battlefield in the first person perspective. After-all first person is the only way any of us truly experience the world. Otherwise I don't know of any games, especially strategy games, that have fog of war from the commanders perspective pertaining to friendly units. Most all games I know of involve knowing the exact placement of friendly units. Some games, like Close Combat, are basically set up where you are practically viewing the battlefield as though from an observation plane that can't be shot down or something.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I take it you don't like any of the Close Combat series then?

As a fun but stale pop-tactical game that allows to lead some little dudes against other little dudes and watch them kill each other and is easily moddable (i.e. something like Command & Conquer series)?
Yes, I find it quite enjoyable.

As a game that pretends to accurately depict tactical warfare and it's challenges?
Not really.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

The only sort of "real time" game I can think of that might match the quality of no "magical" knowledge of every friendly unit would probably be a first person shooter where you basically experience the battlefield in the first person perspective. After-all first person is the only way any of us truly experience the world.

FPS games are nothing like reality - the main problem is that human functioning is based on synergy - there are many senses, various ways of communication, that allow to perceive the world and communicate in a reasonable manner - in FPS games you're just a floating camera with a microphone.
Human functioning in FPS games is greatly impaired.

I tried various flight simulations, I tried Operation Flashpoint...
Both terrain orientation and command and control are usually horrible and nothing like in real life.

So, trying to emulate the "real" FPP perspective without some sort of Matrix-style virtual reality is futile.

What would be much more effective would be isolating units (so that they wouldn't act like a hive-mind) and layering information.
Any sharing of knowledge would require an act of communication.

There could be three basic layers - main map where the player moves as a commander, with a CC-style map with fog of war reducing the view to his sensory input - pitch black for the places that weren't seen by the player and translucent to simulate memory.
Player could be able to roughly locate sounds, see things in vision cone, etc. - all the sensory input would be presented on this map.

Second layer - a plan - pre-battle recon data, given during briefing or something like that. Sometimes it can be non-existant or grossly inaccurate. Your objectives may be marked on it.

Third layer - data received during the battle - map where units and reported/perceived events are placed. It would be vague and unclear - for example, you send a recon team to check what is there - they go and you lose them from your sight - on that "map", they are marked as an icon that whose destination x meters east.
They don't have radio, so you don't receive any data from them.
If they get attacked, you hear shots and a combat event icon is placed in that direction.

If they return, they'll describe the terrain and it will appear on the third layer map and would enable giving more specific orders.

Of course, some data you get may be inaccurate and lead to mistakes. It would be probably based on skill-checks.

The point is to avoid both the godlike knowledge and the unrealistic limitations of FPP games.

Now, there would be a problem of Command & Control and communication in general - if you are supported by tanks, you can't just magically order them - you have to communicate your intent, which can be a problem if you don't have a radio contact with them.

Different armies and units would give you different levels of flexibility and different types of C&C.

Sometimes one would use radio (which could get broken), sometimes runners, etc.

I like military history and it's interesting to read how different armies are facing different challenges

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Some games, like Close Combat, are basically set up where you are practically viewing the battlefield as though from an observation plane that can't be shot down or something.

I would rather say, that everyone is a part of an ultra-fast, ultra-efficient communication network where everyone has a camera.
Something like a Land Warrior system.
Actually, one could as well add powered armour and XM-29 for everyone, at least weapons would be on similar tech level as communications.