Page 1 of 1
More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:17 pm
by Mad Russian
Given the choice between a longer campaign or two shorter ones which would you prefer?
Not the size of the battles, the length of the campaign. Would you rather, for instance, prefer two campaigns with 5 scenarios in it or one with 10?
Good Hunting.
MR
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:40 pm
by FroBodine
I like long campaigns, so I vote for one campaign with 10 missions! Hoopla!
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:51 pm
by JohnOs
Me I would go with just five (5) scenarios per campaigns. But thats from a person who hasn't built a campaign yet.
I would also go for more campaigns then just one or two with a lot of scenarios to them.
But thats just my 2 cents worth [:)]
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:53 pm
by BlackMoria
I have mixed feelings on that. Shorter campaigns but more of them does have the appeal of greater variety and diversity. A longer campaign has the advantage of player investment and identification with a particular unit, seeing it through most phases of the war to victory (or defeat). Not sure which way I am leaning on this just yet.
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 3:07 pm
by Hexagon
Well, depends, if the long campaign has the option to play both sides or not... if is not i prefer 2 shorter campaigns where you can play in both sides of the hill.
Ummm maybe this is a good point, add allways the 2 versions of the campaign, you can play as WP or NATO is a campaign where you start in a certain point with a side and push to the left or right [8|]
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 3:54 pm
by stormbringer3
I vote for longer, but then I think that there should be some effect on the units involved. For example, if a particular unit is used scenario after scenario to fight without any R&R, there should be some kind of fatigue penalty.
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:04 pm
by VilleYrjola
How about both? Maybe two shorts first and one longer after those with no rush to push it out.
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:07 pm
by Hexagon
Other option is have a big campaign divided in 2 parts, you can play "defensive part" and later "counterattack" or viceversa, you can start campaign in the middle or from the begining.
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:41 pm
by Curious
Two short campaigns sounds better to me than one long campaign. There should be more variety that way. If a real WWIII had happened would a brigade (or whatever level organization) have survived 10 battles anyway?
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:11 pm
by TheWombat_matrixforum
I like one long campaign, if it's paced right and you have a sort of dramatic arc, say from covering force through delaying actions to holding the line, and then transitioning to a counter attack.
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:56 pm
by TigerTC
ORIGINAL: Curious
Two short campaigns sounds better to me than one long campaign. There should be more variety that way. If a real WWIII had happened would a brigade (or whatever level organization) have survived 10 battles anyway?
Pretty unlikely considered the lethality of the "modern" battlefield. I think that's why, in the Soviet campaign, you're facing West German territorial forces. A first echelon Soviet brigade or division would probably only last a day or two before it was combat ineffective, at which point the next echelon would roll in and maintain the attack.
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:55 pm
by tide1530
I would like the shorter.
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:14 pm
by TheWombat_matrixforum
ORIGINAL: BROJD
ORIGINAL: Curious
Two short campaigns sounds better to me than one long campaign. There should be more variety that way. If a real WWIII had happened would a brigade (or whatever level organization) have survived 10 battles anyway?
Pretty unlikely considered the lethality of the "modern" battlefield. I think that's why, in the Soviet campaign, you're facing West German territorial forces. A first echelon Soviet brigade or division would probably only last a day or two before it was combat ineffective, at which point the next echelon would roll in and maintain the attack.
No reason though why a campaign couldn't put you in charge of a battlegroup that might start out as one nation but eventually become a mixed force. Well, once they put that capability in the game, I guess
.
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:39 pm
by budd
more shorter ones for variety.
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:50 pm
by Mad Russian
ORIGINAL: Hexagon
Well, depends, if the long campaign has the option to play both sides or not... if is not i prefer 2 shorter campaigns where you can play in both sides of the hill.
Ummm maybe this is a good point, add allways the 2 versions of the campaign, you can play as WP or NATO is a campaign where you start in a certain point with a side and push to the left or right [8|]
Campaigns can only be played from one side. By their very nature I wouldn't expect you to see the same campaign done from two different sides.
Having said that, you guys feel free to create whatever you like.
Good Hunting.
MR
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:51 pm
by Mad Russian
ORIGINAL: stormbringer3
I vote for longer, but then I think that there should be some effect on the units involved. For example, if a particular unit is used scenario after scenario to fight without any R&R, there should be some kind of fatigue penalty.
At the end of each battle there is a restoration phase. You determine how long they rest. Which determines how much of your fallen out forces are brought back to strength. At the same time the rest of the unit is 'resting'.
Good Hunting.
MR
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:54 pm
by Mad Russian
ORIGINAL: TheWombat
ORIGINAL: BROJD
ORIGINAL: Curious
Two short campaigns sounds better to me than one long campaign. There should be more variety that way. If a real WWIII had happened would a brigade (or whatever level organization) have survived 10 battles anyway?
Pretty unlikely considered the lethality of the "modern" battlefield. I think that's why, in the Soviet campaign, you're facing West German territorial forces. A first echelon Soviet brigade or division would probably only last a day or two before it was combat ineffective, at which point the next echelon would roll in and maintain the attack.
No reason though why a campaign couldn't put you in charge of a battlegroup that might start out as one nation but eventually become a mixed force. Well, once they put that capability in the game, I guess
.
At the moment the reason that couldn't happen is that only one nation's forces can be in the OOB for a side at any one time.
With the difficulty in implementation I wouldn't expect to see multiple nations forces in a battle any time soon.
Good Hunting.
MR
RE: More Content
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:25 pm
by TheWombat_matrixforum
ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
ORIGINAL: TheWombat
ORIGINAL: BROJD
Pretty unlikely considered the lethality of the "modern" battlefield. I think that's why, in the Soviet campaign, you're facing West German territorial forces. A first echelon Soviet brigade or division would probably only last a day or two before it was combat ineffective, at which point the next echelon would roll in and maintain the attack.
No reason though why a campaign couldn't put you in charge of a battlegroup that might start out as one nation but eventually become a mixed force. Well, once they put that capability in the game, I guess
.
At the moment the reason that couldn't happen is that only one nation's forces can be in the OOB for a side at any one time.
With the difficulty in implementation I wouldn't expect to see multiple nations forces in a battle any time soon.
Good Hunting.
MR
Fair enough. Gotta save something for the next full release
.