Matrix Games Forums

Hi,

This campaign really needs some fixes/winning adjustement. I try to go further only for the (regretted) money I put in it...
I agree that the author has made some researchs, I like the challenge that you have to make very careful choices and strikes, as you rely mostly on unguided short range weapons but the overall fun is not there... The inner difficulty (especially for argentinian side) is aggravated by the bugs and unbalance of the needed score in many scenarios.

1) Ground SAS units almost useless as fighting units, just good to reveal airport assets for shore bombardment.
2) Naval waypoints going through the landscape or stucking near the coastline if you try to approach the coast to get a better line of sight on the defences you want to suppress.
3) Asking the player to achieve major victory of 200 pts to win Death Valley which is impossible to complete if you try to sink the ships surrounded by a swarm of AAA/SAM, unless you find a trick...like I did.
4) IF the purpose was to make the player feel the hell that the heroic argentinian pilots encountered then OK, but let him go to the next scenario no matter of the result.
5) After all these annoying problems, I managed to pass (with many instant reload/game) "cry Havoc" only to see the campaign going back to....."fleet action (number 3)" which I already played instead of going to the next "Call for Fire (13)".....

In my opinion, a campaign can cover historical or hypothetical events which put the player against heavy odds, but it should continue whatever the result is. As the scale of the game is more tactical than operational, no matter our victory or failure is, the show should goes on. Eventually it would be a plus that our result in a scenario gives us advantages or penalties on next scenarios due to the economy or losses of assets, but it's not a arcade level platform in which you have to beat the end level boss to go to next level...

Hi, a lot of this is down to campaign design (IE scoring, difficulty, unit limitations or behaviors assigned by the campaign designer) so I won't comment on that in terms of fixes, however if you feel the scoring is unfair or the difficulty I recommend playing the scenarios as standalones and in order if something comes up that you feel arbitrarily blocked your progress.

1. Probably by design, generally special forces are used as reconnaissance units in command unless specified by the designer or given weapons like C4

2. This is a known issue and is being worked on. The best way to alleviate this is to make sure navigation is set to either "shortest route" or "littoral" in this case since you are maneuvering ships in shallow water, these can be set under the doctrine menu. Another option is to use very short waypoint distances up until the position you want the ship to be in, this usually stops the auto plotter from making crazy paths, if all else fails you can use the editor to force the ship into position. Not ideal but it will solve the problem instantly

In the future there may be ways to allow for a units condition/losses to carry over between scenarios. As for allowing the player to continue even after failing to achieve the victory conditions set by the designer you can choose any scenario from the campaign to play in standalone mode under the scenario tab. There's no shame in it, I do it all the time!