Making campaigns challanging

[Tazak]

Just something hopefully to get a discussion going, working on a campaign and thinking of a different way to make a campaign more challenging.

For reference - a Campaign max time is set by the designer and time is also 'consumed' between battles by repairing 'soft kill' loses - most campaigns have total scenarios time + x hours for repairs, I think that any scenario not played counts as a AI win

lets say a campaign is 6 missions, the first 5 missions are standard setup and 8 hours long but each scenario must play to nearly the full 8 hours i.e. space reinforcement timings but must be winnable with an hour or two spare(but no more) if played in an aggressive manner, the 6th mission is unbalanced in terms of VP so that total ownership of VPs in the 6th battle should be higher than max VP score (total VP and 70% of enemy VP value) of first 5 scenarios combined, plus ensuring a few VPs are placed close enough to the players if the scenario runs out of time very soon after starting.

Now campaign victory hinges on the 6th battle, but not in winning it - but in reaching it when you make the campaign max time 40-50 hours, this challenges the player to limit their replacements which take time or to play aggressively and win the first 5 scenarios as quick as possible to 'buy time' for the 6th scenario.

If the player doesn't at least make it to the 6th scenario, the AI win should be enough to give a campaign contested if not a loss result for the player (think "a bridge too far" where despite several small successful encounters they couldn't advance fast enough to relive the para's at Arnhem)


Thoughts?

[IronMikeGolf]

I think this is a good compromise to account for the fact that trading time and space when NATO would be decisions made a couple of echelon above the player.

So, taking time to repair fallen out vehicles, reconstitute fallen out troop units, and receive replacements requires time. In the face of an attack, that means retrograding further back than continuing to defend in place. As it is now, as long as you are doing well, there's no problem (with respect to campaign victory) spending time and VPs to start each scenario at or near full strength.

More realistic (maybe for 2.1) would be to place a time constraint on refit. The commander would have to choose what he repairs and replaces.

Another thing to consider along these lines is getting replacements in the timescale of campaigns. US Brigades maintained ORF (Operational Ready Float) vehicles. This was on the order of two AFVs, by type, per battalion. So, in a tank heavy brigade, you are looking at 4 x M1, 2 x M2, and maybe half a dozen M113, half a dozen mortars, etc. No troops.

I think you be looking at 24 hrs or more for replacements beyond ORFs. I base this on experiences at NTC and CMTC.

So, this mechanism gets closer to the expected OPTEMPO, I think. I suspect the tempo of attacks would be high, until NATO could obtain air superiority and begin interdicting WP logistics and units echeloned behind those in contact with NATO. What kind of tempo? Maybe, less than six hours.

I have more thoughts on this topic, but that's enough for this thread. Don't want to stray too far.