Do you burn out in SPWAW Campaigns?

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 9:10 pm

I've noticed, with myself, that after 3 to 6 battles i burn out on built campaigns. They either get too easy, or my core gets mangled so bad i can't continue, or, i don't know, they just don't seem as fun. I don't think the last item is very objective. It is more Me than the battles themselves.

I've gotten the impression that a lot of other people feel the same way. The Stalingrad Campaign thread was very active up to battle four or so, and then Died.

Do other people finish campaigns, or stop after the first few battles, and if so, why? This would be a helpful discussion topic for people like myself, who are puttering along on their own campaign projects.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 9:21 pm

Hi, I guess it could be called burn out, I get tired of any game against the AI. Watching the same mistakes over and over (I for example can always invent a new mistake bit the AI just sticks to it's favorites) When you know exactly how the battle is going to go before the first turn it loses the ability to keep me interested.
Designed battles or Campaigns at least can hold your interest since the designer can make up for the AI's incompentance (usally by making things really tough) The major (IMO) problem facing designers is if they make thing too rough they lose the players that way (how many times will some one replay a battle never win and then quit)
So I think you should possibly mix in degrees of difficulty. (have a easy mission once in a while) I love playing some of the built in campaigns but in all of them if I hit a scenario that becomes impossible for me I usally stop.
I find my self more and more just starting long WW2 campaigns just to buy different core forces and look at things more then actully playing. I only want to play against another human anymore but combat net is always empty.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]</p>

Bing · Post by **Bing** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 9:31 pm

I'll second a lot of what Mo says. As I progressed towards the end of Heroes of the Motherland, I found myself imposing voluntary limitations upon myself.

Getting too easy, too many repair points available for one thing. So I made sure my core got out there and took the enemy fire, reserving support and aux for critical situaitons. I had to totp using the Katyusha rocket launchers entirely - just three of them were bringing the enemy to a total halt in his advance.

Last battle I opened with the Katys first turn bombardment - plus me 6 X 120mm mortars - and didn't use the rockets for the remainder of the battle.

Has anyone tried the "exchange" type of campaign where a fellow Panther sets up the AI forces on a per-battle basis for you and you do the same for his or her ongoing campaign?

I like campaigns a lot, the kind where I have input as to force composition, gives me a feeling of being involved on a command basis. But we all know the AI is capable of just so much, it really isn't that bad in W@W, I have seen much worse elsewhere as I'm sure many of us has. Needs help from time to time, that's all.

Bing

ubertechie · Post by **ubertechie** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 10:10 pm

I have noticed with the sealion campaign that i deisgned that after the 1st 3 battles i havent had anymore feedback. So i guess what you are saying is possibly true. Personally i like to play things to the death no matter how frustrating the aI can be - the only other option is for more people to play - i would play the sealion campaign against people but then it gets confusing if you have a lot of pbem going on at the same time and the delay can be frustrating.

Dont know hte way around this one short of re-writing the AI which i guess isnt going to happen

Cheers

Ubertechie

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 10:55 pm

Originally posted by Bing:

Has anyone tried the "exchange" type of campaign where a fellow Panther sets up the AI forces on a per-battle basis for you and you do the same for his or her ongoing campaign?

Bing

I'm doing this right now. The pluses are;

1. You can stick to a TO&e force, cause the battles are, to a degree, geared towards your current Core force. So,if you end up with a ton of heavy tanks, you're given battles that a HvyTnk Btn. commander would be given (which isn't a static defense or beach assault <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ).

2. Maps and the storyboard are much more realistic than in computer generated campaigns.

3. If you loose a battle, thats OK, because the next battle can reflect your current situation - so their isn't the pressure to perform against the computer. You're performing against youself, and what you would consider 'good tactics.'

4. Human Interaction. This is possibly the best part. On normal campaigns, it's just you and the computer. The wife could care less if you just completed a realy desperate defense. In fact, she hates it because you were supposed to fix the Gate. But now a fellow SP player is involved in your campaign (and you in his). The in-game Sit Reps are pretty fun to read, because you know he is about to run into your 'surprise.'

The Negatives are;

1. Balance. Because the battles aren't play tested, the balancing is pretty wild. This problem is somewhat offset by the fact there isn't the pressure to go forward in the campaign following a certain path.

2. Sometimes the AI does what it is planned, and sometimes there is a major glich. I think keeping things simple, and the AI on defense, is important. If the AI is russian or french, it isn't as big a deal if it does really stupid things, it is historical.

3. Waiting. This is the real tough part, because you invariably end up waiting when you have an open evening, and get the next battle when you inlaws are over for dinner (not a difficult choice, mind you, but one which is paid for later).

3. Learning Curve. I think the key is to work with someone you are used to, which takes a little time. Hard to get a good fit right off the bat.

I'm in one of these campaigns right now - an alternative history which will pit Patton vs. Rommel in the Iraqi desert. I'm on the US side. It is really good so far, and i'd suggest it for others who like the long WWII campaigns.

brianleeprice · Post by **brianleeprice** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 11:19 pm

The more I play online or pbem games the less inviting I find random battles/campaigns against the AI to be. Still useful for trying out some things, but to make things at all comparable to human vs human requires a person to setup and deploy, set objectives, waypoints, etc for the AI.

Good, responsive, AI battles are very difficult to setup - to do a good job the person setting up the objectives/waypoints/stance etc for the AI has to have a good idea of how the AI will act given various setups. Basically, in order to get the most out of the AI, it requires that the person setting up the AI side of a long campaign be an experienced scenario designer who has a good handle on AI control issues.

In theory the custom scenarios and campaigns should approach the Mega Campaigns in this regards, but with all the changes many of the custom scenarios and campaigns have yet to be reexamined and adjusted to take the changes into account. Also you will probably find that some designers create scenarios and campaigns that appeal to you personally more than others. Everyone does want something a bit different.

While you may or may not like Command and Control on for human vs human battles, for battles vs the computer it is nearly a necessity in order to even the playing field a bit. The same goes for the other realism options. And if the AI ignores a setting or two and possibly 'cheats' on occasion (not that it does normally in most cases), so what? It needs all the help it can get!

Setting things to Hard Battle, giving AI advantage, etc won't make the AI any smarter, but it will make it tougher. I think one of the most fun and interesting long WWII campaigns you can play, especially with someone to setup the AI side and attempt to get infantry and armor to cooperate a wee bit, is GE vs SO beginning 6/41. Especially in the early half of the war the AI does pretty good imitating SO doctrine, especially if it gets a wee bit of guideance.

For human opponents, try stopping by the #spwaw irc channel on StarlinkOrg. Depending on what time zone you are in and your available times to play, you stand a pretty good chance of finding at least one or two people there. (Btw my irc nickname is Omnivore) Look forward to seeing you there: easy to use web gateway addy is in my sig.

Hope this helps,
Brian

Kanon Fodder · Post by **Kanon Fodder** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 1:10 am

Originally posted by ubertechie:
I have noticed with the sealion campaign that i deisgned that after the 1st 3 battles i havent had anymore feedback. So i guess what you are saying is possibly true.

Cheers

Ubertechie

I have held off playing the third installment because I want more "pratice" playing smaller scenarios before I take on the next challenge.

After two "draws" I am hoping for a better result.
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">

chief · Post by **chief** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 6:28 am

UberTech see my earlier comments, had to take a break, more AARs to come --. --- --- -..

--. .- -- ., -.-. .... .. . ..-.

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:10 pm

Originally posted by A_B:

I've gotten the impression that a lot of other people feel the same way. The Stalingrad Campaign thread was very active up to battle four or so, and then Died.

Do other people finish campaigns, or stop after the first few battles, and if so, why? This would be a helpful discussion topic for people like myself, who are puttering along on their own campaign projects.

I try to finish campaigns, though there are a few that I didn't, but taht was because I'd been playing SP too much and needed to play a diffent game for a bit.

And I never get so mauled that I can't, in two battles, get enough points to rebuild my core.

V-man

TheZel66 · Post by **TheZel66** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 10:58 pm

I played MCNA all the way through, and only got frustrated when i continued to get DV's, only to have to retreat back <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

I admit I've lost my interest for MCLV, mainly because I've been addicted to MC-W. <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

hingram · Post by **hingram** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 11:27 pm

I find the invasion scenarios are the most fun to play with the AI. The Allies get hammered.

ruxius · Post by **ruxius** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 12:38 am

I do not have so much time to play all the campaigns..

As regards campaigns I play them just to give a look at something different..and I love them because of finding new maps different form the standard ones randomly generated

But the AI is not so exciting I know..that's way I fought to have MEGACamp where you can fight against a human opponent...

do you know about this ?
it seems the best way to solve the problem..

as for the old campaigns I found a new way to play them I call COOPERATIVE CAMPAIGN...it makes things so enjoyable I am still playing FROM UTAH TO RHINE with a friend of mine and I will start
BALKAN CRISIS and WATCHWORD FOR FREEDOM as soon
as I will end some school work..

After all I am wondering if designers did things keeping in mind that battle after battle the
player core force becomes more experienced...

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 12:41 am

Greetings, I don't have to get DV's every battle to be happy. I don't even need to win every battle. If it is supposed to be a historical campaign the situation might require a DV to be almost impossible. (Soviet core force example battles in June 41 even if I meet all battle requirements i still will find that the core force has been retreated for next battle. And if my June 41 mission was an assault against German armoured troops I would not be too suprise to be hammered by the Luftwaffe and see my green troops head for the rear. The designer could use an impossible battle to set up the next. But if I was faced with more then 3 nightmares in a row I might get to be afraid to resume the game. (the designer could cut an early war Soviet a break by having him engage one of the Axis minor allies)
Designing a series of battles requires more thought then designing several battles. I mean in the series you have to consider the cumlative effect. If you wear down the players core in one battle you should at least rebuild it in a later battle. (units that suffer above a certain percentage are often removed from combat to rebuild, in a campaign the designer has to rebuild the player on the fly.)
Some people like tricks, myself I do not care for tricks. I prefer straight forward missions "Commander the Regt is to make an advance this afternoon. Hill #xxx is an enemy observation point overlooking the route of the advance, therefore you must capture and secure Hill #xxx not later then ^^^^. You will have blah blah and blah as support. Then the objective will be held by a reasonable mix of enemy troop types. Not the 1st Ski Mechanized Airborne Guard Super Heavy Monster Tank/Panzer Supercallifragilisticexpialidocious Division. <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> (a word like that deserves an eek)

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]</p>

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 2:11 am

Burn out? Not Possible

Oh I have to mention I also have Red Barricades, Kampf Gruppe Peiper 1 and 2, plus Pegasus Bridge all for ASL. So I guess its not possible for me to get "Burn out" with Steel Panthers heheh.

Hey did I mention I also play Longest Day, now that will train you to be immune to "burn out" if anything will. Pushing 10k counters around a 5'x5' map will harden ya alright.

I cant wait to be missing in action with Lost Victories heheh.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 3:58 am

Originally posted by A_B:
I've noticed, with myself, that after 3 to 6 battles i burn out on built campaigns. They either get too easy, or my core gets mangled so bad i can't continue, or, i don't know, they just don't seem as fun. I don't think the last item is very objective. It is more Me than the battles themselves.

I've gotten the impression that a lot of other people feel the same way. The Stalingrad Campaign thread was very active up to battle four or so, and then Died.

Do other people finish campaigns, or stop after the first few battles, and if so, why? This would be a helpful discussion topic for people like myself, who are puttering along on their own campaign projects.

Yes, it can get that way. I too have faltered around battle IV of the 'Stalingrad' campaign, primarily because of the difficulty factor coupled with low pointage making the next battle next to hopeless. Not completely the fault of the design as i squandered my reserve of repair "points" upgrading one platoon of tanks Mark III ausf M The extra armor sure came in handly but still did'nt save me from battle IV.

That scenerio was nasty. almost too nasty given the parameters of the campaign which strongly recommended a balanced mix of infantry and tanks. that i did which, coupled with the modest point allowance, translated into two platoons of tanks and two platoons of SS infantry

well scenerio IV pretty much takes out the infantry component. (without giving too much away, think ; open ground + alot of flak guns

ouch. my core ended up looking like swiss cheese and you get very few repair points in between as it is.

Its certainly a fine line. make the battles too easy or give too many repair points and it gets as pointless and boring as generated campaign, but on the same token ,make it too challenging or frustrating and you end up giving up. Battle IV again, is a classic example. that is one type of scenerio i dont want to have to play twice much less mult times, but other than that your only option is to either quit or cheat in order to get to the next new scenerio and see what the designer has in store for you.

I agree with the others, human vs human is the way to get the best out of the game, too bad for some of us scheduling the time to do so can be problamatic. But thats the beauty of the campaigns too....their unique designs and set piece AI tends to provide the best and most varietal challenge so inevitably, i end up coming back for more punishment <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:41 pm

Not so far. Mixing the regular game campaigns with the MCs keeps the game fresh for me so far. (Fingers crossed.) <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Visiting the forums helps to inspire me to play more as well.

Eric Maietta

wulfir · Post by **wulfir** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:31 pm

I try to finish the campaigns I have started. The Big problem is time - never seem to have enough.

Anyway considering the time and effort that is invested in making a campaign I think it’s a crying shame if they are not played. I know it is not very fun to get butchered but I don’t think this should be a reason for giving up. Hang in there! A tough fight brings a satisfying victory.

Btw, if you are not too upset by ‘cheating’ there is always the possibility of boosting your refitting and support points using the editor.

Jeff_Ewing · Post by **Jeff_Ewing** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 9:05 pm

Originally posted by Nikademus:

Yes, it can get that way. I too have faltered around battle IV of the 'Stalingrad' campaign,

That was the coolest! I had to play that about 5 times to get a decent score against those "flak chicks." (Hint: you need a *lot* of smoke-capable arty) So, no, I don't get burned out on designed campaigns. You do sometimes have to figure out what the designer "wants" you to do. Another example from the Stalingrad campaign: I fight an advance and win handily; I get a huge # of repair points, which I bank , since I don't need them. Next scenario, I have 2 AUX Tigers attached. They're the only tanks that survive the scenario. Light goes on over my head: Ah, Melvin *wanted* me to buy a bunch of Tigers with those points! Needless to say, I played that one again.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:21 am

Originally posted by Jeff_Ewing:

That was the coolest! I had to play that about 5 times to get a decent score against those "flak chicks." (Hint: you need a *lot* of smoke-capable arty) So, no, I don't get burned out on designed campaigns. You do sometimes have to figure out what the designer "wants" you to do. Another example from the Stalingrad campaign: I fight an advance and win handily; I get a huge # of repair points, which I bank , since I don't need them. Next scenario, I have 2 AUX Tigers attached. They're the only tanks that survive the scenario. Light goes on over my head: Ah, Melvin *wanted* me to buy a bunch of Tigers with those points! Needless to say, I played that one again.

heh, the trick would be to somehow purchase the artillery with said smoke. IIRC you are only give about 135 support points for that battle, not enough to buy even a section of 81mm morters. Fortunatly the designer does provide a moderate artillery component which did allow me to isloate the flak guns situated farther back.

A tough scenerio with some truely evil inspired quirk (hint: watch out for insideiously placed AT guns) A good variation (I ran into a scenerio like this before back in SP-1 days) but not one i'd want to play 5 times! I dont have a week to spare <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

In the end i just took the draw and moved on to play Battle V with a depleted force. Fortunately i was able to pull a DV out of that one. A great tense little scenerio that was featuring a classic armor heavy Soviet attack across an open plain, made more tense by a sudden well......try it and find out <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Lets just say if you keep your cool....(and dont overcommit) you can still pull the chestnuts out of the fire.

The pre-built bug makes it an even bigger challenge as the few T-34's and KV-1E's benefit from heavily favorable zero angle armor results when forced to take fire on slight or moderate oblicities.

Thing i liked most about this scenerio was it's realistic balance of AFV types. Some of the past controversey around the T-34 and KV when 7.0 hit was along the line of, 'if the T-34 was so great and so overmatched the Mark III and mid Mark IV, how did the Panzerwaffen do so well all the way through to 43?

A good part of the reason was that the T-34 did'nt become the primary battle tank (in terms of sheer numbers and organization content) of the Soviet army until 43. Even with their herculoran efforts you cant just replace 20,000+ tank losses overnight, especially when having to move your primary factories. So it was'nt always or even primarily Mark III/IV vs T-34 and/or KV but more like a mixture of light tanks, left over T-26 and BT, some lend lease and then T-34's and KV's where they might be found.

Continual losses due to botched operations like the Kharkov spring offensive did'nt help either. This forced the Soviets to fill out their ranks with whatever was available, meaning primarily light tanks as well as the hodge podge of lend lease tanks. A typical 1942 brigade might contain 1/3 T-34 and a few KV if they were lucky, the rest were light tanks in most cases or lend lease for some others.

Battle V portrayed this nicely with a slew of light tanks and lend lease Stuarts, followed by a battalion of Lee's, filled out lastly by a few troublesome T-34's and even more troublesome KV-1E's

SP players are just too used to generated battles where Soviet players (wisely) choose T-34s or KV's exclusively while disregarding the neglicable and often useless gaggle of light tanks. Similar to the complaint that that German players always pick Panthers and Tigers or at least long barreled Mark IV's for most battles.

I can say with a little pride that i resisted this urge for this campaign in favor of going for a challenge as well as a more historical mix and chose one platoon of Mark III's and one of Mark IV specials. ok, so i upgraded the Mark III's over the space of the first two battles from J to M. I wanted a challenge, not to commit suicide!
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Good fight and since i only lost one tank to a lucky hit from a T-34 i was able to rebuild my core back to muster.

My only complaint......for some reason in the campaign when you are unable to repair a tank (but have part or the crew intact) that crew does'nt transfer to the next scenerio. Instead, a destroyed graphic of the tank appears.....sans crew, meaning that after the present battle when you are able to repair the tank, you get a completely new crew, losing the experience in the process. grrrrr

<img src="mad.gif" border="0">

Gen.Hoepner · Post by **Gen.Hoepner** » Fri Feb 15, 2002 3:46 am

Guys,you're right:the point is the AI.Even in a designed camp you play alone on your pc,against a pre-designed intelligence.You know what is the real solution?the real SPWAW-not-alone experience?The Double Deuce Tournaments!!!!!Give it a look.....
Double deuce tournament
I've been playing it since this summer,and......well take a look at it and you'll see!!!!