Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: thewood1

"Message Log option to hide messages that break fog of war"

Just noticed this one. Can't you do this already through game and message log options? Is there some aspect that those options don't cover?

ORIGINAL: Reg


I feel that the campaign engine would definitely benefit from the introduction of a decision function where if the scenario result is a success then progress to scenario X otherwise progress to scenario Y.

This should be a relatively simple to implement (ha ha, how many times have you heard that [:)]) and would allow the campaign flow to reflect actual player results. The down side would be additional work on the part of campaign designer as they would have to create scenarios for every eventuality (which may or may not be played) but they could make it as simple or as complex as they like. Alternate paths would enhance re-playability. [:)] If you wanted the current method of preventing progression on mission failure just loop back to the same scenario.

These scenarios would will still rely on pre-designed OOBs and will not reflect casualties from previous games which I believe is not such a bad thing. They had a campaign system in Steel Panthers World at War (SP-WaW) which was based around a core force which carried through from scenario to scenario with casualties carried forward, replacements (influenced by previous game results) and supplementary one scenario only forces. However in practice this turned out like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Once you had bad luck in one scenario and took heavy casualties, you entered the next scenario under strength and likely to lose even worse than last time. This just kept snowballing until defeat was inevitable. Play balance by the designer was difficult to achieve as the opposite was also true, a quick win and light casualties results in a pro player bias for the next game.

Just my thoughts,

ORIGINAL: Reg


While it is true that the number of potential scenarios increases exponentially with the number of stages, this is the worst case situation.

Not every scenario needs to have two separate outcome scenarios and creative story lines can loop back to previous scenarios or merge back into the main branch further down track.

A very simple option would be to run straight through the main story line with only one or two bonus scenarios which merge back into main story path afterwards. You would be amazed at the difference even this minor addition would make.

Though it wouldn't need to be used to it's fullest extent, I think the existence of this sort of editor capability would add another useful tool to the scenario designers tool box.

ORIGINAL: Reg

I feel that the campaign engine would definitely benefit from the introduction of a decision function where if the scenario result is a success then progress to scenario X otherwise progress to scenario Y.
...

ORIGINAL: thewood1

But if you have the intel, wouldn't you set the mission up with that plan in place? Part of the real world planning process is that level of detail when tasking you aircraft, I would think. I'm not saying the feature isn't useful, but isn't it the planner's (player's) responsibility to have that plan in place at that level of detail?

And just like in real life, if new intel becomes available, you have interceded or change the plan. As long as I am understanding what you are asking for.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

But isn't that real life. The recon is usually coordinated through an air staff. At that point the air staff would alter the mission on the ground and assign specific targets or retask those flights in the air. The pilots aren't typically in direct comms with a recon asset.

Now where I can see the issue is if during the strike ingress the contents of the hangers were revealed, pilots might retask themselves, but I would think even then, it might require a call back to air staff. And I think using the term "valuable" is problematic. Its the air staff that set the value. So again, I think it comes back to planning. And the tools are already there in the mission editor for that. And tedious might be the word, I am sure just like in real life.

So the short of it to me is that the mission planning is where that tasking happens. If the flight is in the air, the the mission gets adjusted by air staff. The only place I can see this being an issue is during the very short time the flight is in combat and discovering some intel during the attack.

I think we have probably 90% of the tools to handle this like a real life mission plan and execution. Just my guess.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I say this with respect for you opinion, but maybe this isn't the game for you. Others are pushing for more realistic flight planning. Its one of the things that attracts people to the game. Also, I tend to agree on some forms of simplification, but this is such a simple thing to fix with a change in how you play the game, I am hoping the devs don't spend a lot of time on it.

edit...one thing I forgot to write: I have played this game a lot and have maybe once or twice in all the time had to retask aircraft (or ships) based on detailed intel like that at an airbase. I have done it when going after surface groups when I discover an HVU I hadn't known about prior to launch. But I don't think I have ever manually had to switch targets. At airbases, unless my orders counter this, I focus on access ways and taxi ways. Once you hit those, you can ignore the hangers or go after them as a hobby.