The 2 problems with the campaign

User avatar
Dimonay
Lieutenant
Posts: 1366
Joined: Sun 11 Mar 2012 19:59
Contact:

The 2 problems with the campaign

Postby Dimonay » Tue 4 Jun 2013 09:50

Hello everyone. I must admit that I have not played a lot of campaign but I have followed nearly all the discussions both here and on the steam forum

1, If you get a draw you both must kill more and get less units.
There is not a lot of income so after a point it becomes impossible to win except for killing the last CV.
Simply not very fun

2, You don't really get that much for killing the enemy if you don't win.
you loss around 200 points of units and kill around 2950 of 3000, and that does not give you a significant advantage. Yes you can kill all there planes but they are always going to have for example infantry. As you get less points next match it is going to be hard to really take advantage of all the sectors that you took control over last match.

User avatar
Aikmofobi
Lieutenant
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2012 23:04
Location: Northern Sweden
Contact:

Re: The 2 problems with the campaign

Postby Aikmofobi » Tue 4 Jun 2013 09:54

Agreed 100%

Playing the same battle over and over again with less units each time feels more like a chore than a game.
Sticking with skirmish and MP for the moment.

User avatar
Crotou
Colonel
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 20:36
Location: DM's keep
Contact:

Re: The 2 problems with the campaign

Postby Crotou » Tue 4 Jun 2013 10:13

The main problem is indeed the +1 morale both opponents get after a draw.

For your second point, I don't see any problem. The more you kill units, the easier it will be to defeat the enemy battle group next turn.
Image

User avatar
FFR.Tarask
Captain
Posts: 1500
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 14:56
Location: France
Contact:

Re: The 2 problems with the campaign

Postby FFR.Tarask » Tue 4 Jun 2013 10:18

I think, keeping the score from one battle to the other should clear up the problem. We already keep the zones, maybe we should keep the score too, no ?
Image

User avatar
Crotou
Colonel
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 20:36
Location: DM's keep
Contact:

Re: The 2 problems with the campaign

Postby Crotou » Tue 4 Jun 2013 10:51

In case of a draw, the morale bonus or malus could be linked to the Destruction score. Either giving +1 to the winner or -1 to the loser ("winner" and "loser" only regarding the Destruction points).

What do you think about it?
Image

User avatar
Dimonay
Lieutenant
Posts: 1366
Joined: Sun 11 Mar 2012 19:59
Contact:

Re: The 2 problems with the campaign

Postby Dimonay » Tue 4 Jun 2013 12:27

Crotou wrote:In case of a draw, the morale bonus or malus could be linked to the Destruction score. Either giving +1 to the winner or -1 to the loser ("winner" and "loser" only regarding the Destruction points).

What do you think about it?

I think that it would be good. Probably the perfect solution, but maybe you should not get both moral increase and a moral decrease for the opponent.

So maybe just a moral decrees :?:

User avatar
Crotou
Colonel
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 20:36
Location: DM's keep
Contact:

Re: The 2 problems with the campaign

Postby Crotou » Tue 4 Jun 2013 12:28

I wrote "or" and not "and". ;)
Image

Firstfelix
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun 15 Apr 2012 14:50
Contact:

Re: The 2 problems with the campaign

Postby Firstfelix » Tue 4 Jun 2013 14:24

I think the most common criticism are:

(1) The time limit.
(2) Morale gain on draw and the failure to distinguish between a winning and losing draw.
(3) Fact that troops deployed are not persistent from game to game.
(4) Fact that points gained are not persistent.
(5) Use of destruction mode rather than conquest.
(6) Insufficient political points.

My thoughts on these are as follows:
(1) One definitely does not want longer games by default. There is nothing enjoyable about waiting out a 40 min (or longer) game that you have no hope of winning just to get the draw. An option to have longer games would be unobjectionable.
(2) This is a real problem. Its counter intuitive that a BG that gets thrashed gets a morale boost. The game ought to distinguish between a failure to meet a victory condition which results in a draw and any effect on morale which should relate to the balance of casualties inflicted over those suffered. Its also disastrous for gameplay as it puts all but the most obdurate off playing campaign. You have to have a high boredom threshold to find playing the same map again and again with diminishing points fun.
(3) If (2) above were not directly fixed then this might solve it.
(4) This would also solve (2) indirectly. Effectively the points gained in the prior round are carried over to the next day. This makes sense in that a BG should only be able to take a certain amount of damage before cracking. To increase the level of damage needed after each day of fighting is a bit daft if you think about it. Troops do not become that tough that fast.
(5) Suggested in another post. I don't like it but it would correct other criticisms of the AI that it hides. If it does not contest the map then the AI loses.
(6) The strategic strikes such as naval bombardment allow quick victories but I find that there are not enough points to both use these strikes and bring in reinforcements. So my game gets bogged down in a defensive stalemate. Maybe I am not good enough. But if the morale issue is not changed then decreasing the cost of strikes or increasing the flow of political points would allow a player to break the high morale deadlock which ensues.

regulator2k
Private
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue 4 Jun 2013 16:06
Contact:

Re: The 2 problems with the campaign

Postby regulator2k » Tue 4 Jun 2013 16:20

Aikmofobi wrote:Agreed 100%

Playing the same battle over and over again with less units each time feels more like a chore than a game.
Sticking with skirmish and MP for the moment.



Also agreed 100%

Tigga
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2446
Joined: Tue 5 Jul 2011 02:46
Contact:

Re: The 2 problems with the campaign

Postby Tigga » Tue 4 Jun 2013 16:39

I think the most common criticism are:

(1) The time limit.
(2) Morale gain on draw and the failure to distinguish between a winning and losing draw.
(3) Fact that troops deployed are not persistent from game to game.
(4) Fact that points gained are not persistent.
(5) Use of destruction mode rather than conquest.
(6) Insufficient political points.



1) Time limit has to stay unless there are a million other changes. It ties in to sooo many things.

2) As soon as you make intermediate destruction scores insignificant you're going to bog down the RTS layer severely. When maximising K:D is a priority the game is going to play a lot slower. Right now most decks get at least one "spammable" unit. This unit tends to comprise a large amount of the forces you put at risk, because you can with little penalty. Increase the risk for attacking and you'll get many many more stalemates with neather side willing to poke their head out.

3) It would be nice, I agree, but will have a big shift in favour of the defender as they'll tend to have more income.

4) As 3)

5) It's pretty rare you achieve a victory through destruction points. It's much more often you push the enemy off the map, Alamo them, then kill all the CVs... or they retreat first to avoid that happening! As such, the game is already often "conquest" where the objevtive is often to advance forward and capture zones such that the battle on the next day gives you all the cards. I'd be interested to see a described conquest proposal rather than "it should be conquest" though.

6) That's the point. Tough decisions are fun.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests