Campaign - The thoughts, rant and proposals for Adjustement

User avatar
Mr0Buggy
Brigadier
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon 27 May 2013 15:57
Contact:

Re: Campaign - The thoughts, rant and proposals for Adjustem

Postby Mr0Buggy » Fri 31 May 2013 07:15

KillaJules wrote:Success should reinforce success.

Reaching point goals should not be necessary for victory, simply getting closer to the point goal than the enemy should be enough to get a victory. Not a total victory, but still a victory. Giving the side with a higher score more initiative after each day of fighting could be hugely beneficial to game play.


+1, See point 5 of OP.

vekaa
Private First-Class
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri 31 May 2013 04:07
Contact:

Re: Campaign - The thoughts, rant and proposals for Adjustem

Postby vekaa » Fri 31 May 2013 07:44

Panzeh wrote:
vekaa wrote:i just hate the fact that they put a time limit in story and battles it kills all strategy aspect of the game this is not a c&c for god sake


Poor baby just wants to roll over an AI, thinks time is not a factor in war.

that is not the point do i wish to roll over AI or not. 1h maybe but 20 min is too short for such a big battles for me at least

vekaa
Private First-Class
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri 31 May 2013 04:07
Contact:

Re: Campaign - The thoughts, rant and proposals for Adjustem

Postby vekaa » Fri 31 May 2013 08:00

Panzeh wrote:
vekaa wrote:i just hate the fact that they put a time limit in story and battles it kills all strategy aspect of the game this is not a c&c for god sake


Poor baby just wants to roll over an AI, thinks time is not a factor in war.

ps i was in real war in Bosnia son and i know that sometimes time is a factor but mostly strategy and superior firepower is wining factor in real war

User avatar
Major Duck
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun 5 Aug 2012 14:55
Contact:

Re: Campaign - The thoughts, rant and proposals for Adjustem

Postby Major Duck » Fri 31 May 2013 09:12

+1 to most points

I only want to point a couple of things out,

I like to play co op its one of the main draws of this game to me why issent it there ?
that would probably make this game go from good to great.
I cant tell you how dissapointed i am because off the missing co op part, it was one off the most selling parts to me and others , that i would not have to grind all those pesky single player maps to get stars and then you did something brilliant you through them away and changed the grinding part to make it a potential far greater game with much more scope then just a single map you just missed that little part that many off us enjoy that off cooperation, there are a hole bunch off us who dos-sent like the russ/pvp style off play but still like to be generals :lol:

one of the biggest advantages off the Scandinavian country's is that they all have local troops armed and stationed everywhere (Hjemmeværn etc.) they might not be the greatest but they are there and right now they are being deploy like regular troops which they are not, never was intended, they are basically there to blow bridges, stop colums of tanks/vehicles with ambushes , observe and generally be a pest / a slow down and tie down large enemy forces down to be pest control , to be ghosts to attack and fade away they where all born/copied out of resistance groups from WW2.

All of the above is one more reason that the placement off troops should be save from map to map.

And please make the missing maps available and let the players decide if they want to play 4 vs 4 or 1 vs 1 on which maps there no more annoying thing then that auto correcting when you want to play 2 vs AI and then the map changes because somebody has decided that that map issent big enough or something but so what we have bought the game lets us decide that why not lets us have that flexibility also lets be able to start with more points, i don't understand your stand on being so square on these points they don't harm anybody if people don't want to play a particular way they wont join the game nobody gets hurt :roll:

The last part are a more general observation/Rant/suggestion/wish/beg

Flexibility has never hurt a game where as rigid rules have!! :shock:

Otherwise great game but with room for improvement :D
Image Happy New Year

Carnagexz
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri 31 May 2013 08:35
Contact:

Re: Campaign - The thoughts, rant and proposals for Adjustem

Postby Carnagexz » Fri 31 May 2013 09:24

Guggy wrote:
sonofliber wrote:okay, but why does the enemy get +1 after that sort of pounding?, what sense does it make? in any case, if you are the attacker you should get +1 initiative in the second battle (to show the commitment of command to try and conquer the sector no matter the losses) but no way it shoud get +1 morale after such losses


I agree 100%, though I'd rather the attacker/victor maintain their initiative after a "win" rather than a continued +1 iniative buildup. That way the second round wont be a total blowout, and the winner of the initial meeting engagement will have more forces fieldable to start with, rather than opening a faucet and tanks pouring out so to speak :P

Having +1, -1 initiative after the initial fight would make every fight after the first a massacre.



The problem with this is 2 things. 1st is that while on the small maps this is workable, on the large maps its is seriously difficult to not end with a draw. And the problem is that if you manage to draw more than 2x you might as well retreat/surrender because the 3rd time you would start with like less than 1000 points, which would not even be enough to get more than 1 CV up while managing some semblance of defense. The problem with Single Player in general is that AI wins NOT by beating you, NOT by outsmarting you, NOT by using units effectively, but just by EXPLOITING broken mechanics. They run around the map or even run away when they see a substantial force incoming, thus stalling the match to a draw. They cheat horrifically in a sense that hey magically have a ton of points, they seem to pour out units regardless if they haven't had a stable point all game. And the most irritating of all, they know where everything is, and they arty your units precisely even though according to the rules THEY SHOULD NOT KNOW WHATS THERE.

Its not that everyone wants an ezmode where they just faceroll and beat all the AI. Its just its annoying, when you have 3x 1 sided battles with AI where you beat it silly, but managed to "Draw" because that 1 truck managed to run away somewhere. And then you get stuck in the "Draw Spiral of Death" because with each round your ability to fight and hunt the AI is greatly diminished. Even if you were technically winning, since all decs provided have TONS of units and thus just killing them out in 20min games is plain stupid.

And to add insult to injury there is no save game or any chance to modify the rules of single player. God forbid you can't spend 12hours on 1 game a day to beat it.

I played Single Player Campaign since it became availible, I don't much care for MP its great and balanced, but I liked the SP in WG:EE and thought that this one would be atleast somewhat similar. But Eugene failed hard. There is NO intro or sound ques like the 1st game, there is NO ease of use functions like Save/load hell there arent even any options for sp to begin with, and lastly there is NO balance to it at all, it is VERY broken and overall it feels cheap, like some user made mod. I tried to love it, but the way it is right now, SP is too frustrating to enjoy on any level.

Astaran
Specialist
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri 17 May 2013 11:33
Contact:

Re: Campaign - The thoughts, rant and proposals for Adjustem

Postby Astaran » Fri 31 May 2013 10:15

+1 to the OP.

The three most pressing issues for me are:

Manual Savegames, an overhaul for the "succeeding battle mechanic" aka "the never ending draws" and an overhaul of the blatantly and openly cheating AI

schaefsky
Sergeant Major
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue 9 Apr 2013 14:54
Contact:

Re: Campaign - The thoughts, rant and proposals for Adjustem

Postby schaefsky » Fri 31 May 2013 11:11

Astaran wrote:+1 to the OP.

The three most pressing issues for me are:

Manual Savegames, an overhaul for the "succeeding battle mechanic" aka "the never ending draws" and an overhaul of the blatantly and openly cheating AI

+1 again.
About the AI: I don't really care whether the AI cheats. I do care whether this is noticable.
And right now the AI does not even try hiding that it cheats like hell.

Zoring
Warrant Officer
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri 31 May 2013 11:50
Contact:

Re: Campaign - The thoughts, rant and proposals for Adjustem

Postby Zoring » Fri 31 May 2013 12:15

I signed up the forum just to say that I approve the OP here. The perfect solutions for the campaign mode, would transform it from a 6.5/10 to a 9/10 imo. (10/10 would be an expanded AOE to Europe 20/10 would be asia/middle east 30/10 global :D)

I also had an idea regarding battles and battlegroups.
1) Currently every battle plays out the same, however for mission variety I suggest that; Battle type varies depending on whether your army is withdrawing, advancing or defending perhaps with the ability to entrench? making it a siege style scenario?. With mission objectives or spawning perhaps varying for flavour. These are just initial ideas obviously so please expand and criticize! eg. Meeting engagements are closer together, defence plays out with siege rules, withdrawing you have to hold a rearguard action and get units off the map perhaps.

2) The other option we need is to be able to choose which Division to engage with, setting perhaps a OOB for the day (101st, 2nd Armoured, 3rd Pz.G) you don't know the enemies OOB unless you recon them, adds an extra strategic layer.

3) Related to above, the ability for a battered army group to withdraw whilst being protected by another unit in theatre, you would then fight a rearguard action using your selected group, until a time limit counts down and your other army group retreats, the enemy starts with an initiative bonus or similar.
Want to know how to make 116 redundant units usable? Click to read my thread on Recon Refitting!
Image

fabius
Master Sergeant
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu 1 Nov 2012 23:52
Contact:

Re: Campaign - The thoughts, rant and proposals for Adjustem

Postby fabius » Fri 31 May 2013 13:21

Zoring wrote:I signed up the forum just to say that I approve the OP here. The perfect solutions for the campaign mode, would transform it from a 6.5/10 to a 9/10 imo. (10/10 would be an expanded AOE to Europe 20/10 would be asia/middle east 30/10 global :D)

I also had an idea regarding battles and battlegroups.
1) Currently every battle plays out the same, however for mission variety I suggest that; Battle type varies depending on whether your army is withdrawing, advancing or defending perhaps with the ability to entrench? making it a siege style scenario?. With mission objectives or spawning perhaps varying for flavour. These are just initial ideas obviously so please expand and criticize! eg. Meeting engagements are closer together, defence plays out with siege rules, withdrawing you have to hold a rearguard action and get units off the map perhaps.

2) The other option we need is to be able to choose which Division to engage with, setting perhaps a OOB for the day (101st, 2nd Armoured, 3rd Pz.G) you don't know the enemies OOB unless you recon them, adds an extra strategic layer.

3) Related to above, the ability for a battered army group to withdraw whilst being protected by another unit in theatre, you would then fight a rearguard action using your selected group, until a time limit counts down and your other army group retreats, the enemy starts with an initiative bonus or similar.


I think that after I play a few more times the time limit, no pause, saving issue, will grind my grade down to around 6.5 too. Hears hoping they fix and improve for 10,20 & 30 :D

Completely agree about making the battles different when attacking defending or meeting engagement.

And you idea for choosing the OOB for multiple battlegroups should be the benefit of being the attacker.

User avatar
Sparika
Warrant Officer
Posts: 402
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 15:06
Location: Rennes - France
Contact:

Re: Campaign - The thoughts, rant and proposals for Adjustem

Postby Sparika » Fri 31 May 2013 14:42

Mr0Buggy wrote:2. The Blank Slate of Following Battles.


I made a proposition in another post about the number of starting points but I may aswell post it here. This could achieve what you are proposing in a simpler way (not rembering exact positions, units states etc)
DP stands for Deployments Points and COST is the total cost of your units remaining in previous battle.
DP = 500 + 250*Initiative + COST

COST is easily computed (within the current state of the game) being "Previous DP + POINTS GAINED - ENNEMY SCORE". All these values are displ

This should, IMO, allows several things
From a gameplay perspective it stays difficult to win in one battle (as wanted by eugen, stated by FLX), player still have to fight several days for the same sector, thus using the persistance thing. But this should keep the interest for a battle growing, waiting a few days with a few skirmish before conducting an attack and other things like that. (The battle is not slowly decreasing in intensity having less and less points as it is right now). Initiative is still an important factor (winning the first day, gaining more and more units to the front).

From a story perspective, first days of an engagment are recon, patrol and skirmish, you try to gain safe ground to prepare an attack, or delay the ennemy attack to gain time. Then after a few days, your BG has regrouped, maybe is losing initiative, it's time to attack.

This is the kind of battle I would like to fight. ;) (hope eugen or marshall read this, finger crossed! )
Image
"You're not Stalin, and zone Bravo on Hell's Highway is not your motherland." - TheFluff
Spoiler : For her Majesty! :
Image

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests