Campaign sets unrealistic goals.

Kocrachon
Corporal
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon 3 Jun 2013 03:09
Contact:

Campaign sets unrealistic goals.

Postby Kocrachon » Fri 7 Jun 2013 20:14

When it comes to player vs player combat I do pretty well, but the medium difficulty campaign is crazy difficult with the unrealistic expectations it sets. I am not saying its not doable, but to call the "medium" difficulty with even easy AI, a medium difficulty experience is a joke.

Right now, the required 2-3 days of battles to kill one group of units, while needing to capture and hold 3 areas with in 12 days is stupid. Here are the key issues / fixes

1) More time for the actual battle.
As of right now, 20 minutes with the mandated decks that we have to use is not much time to setup, let alone attack. On top of that, the AI sits in the back and builds up a huge force before attacking, and usually waits until the last 6 minutes to attack. Which means i either need to setup and wait for them and ambush them, or risk walking into a giant turtle wall.

2) The second and third days make it impossible to win. Now, you have less units because of what you lost, you have less resources, and the score requirement is higher. If i couldn't kill the enemy at my peak with less of a score requirement, how am I suppose to win now? I have had to resort to doing nothing but using recon and air to scout out their command vehicles and destroy them. Which basically makes the game no fun because Im no longer fighting war, I am playing hide and seek.

3) Increase perks for doing better.
If you want to keep the "multiple days of battles" then there needs to be perks for the team who scored better.
Now, if it is a 10 point difference, maybe no perk. But maybe if I Score 1000 and the enemy scores only 200 or less, maybe I shouldn't lose any initiative, or maybe reduce the score needed to win the next round. Or something. Its stupid when I have 3 days of killing the enemy with minimal loses but I achieve nothing.

4) Increase the amount of days required.
Self explanatory.

5) Balance the AI.
The AI cheats, its annoying when they are already given the map advantage, but they also know where to artillery and bomb my stuff with out a scout vehicle and seeing it. They also some how created a command vehicle even though they had no points controlled (I saw it come in off map in a white area that I had scouts camping in waiting for my own command vehicle to come in). I know the AI has to cheat to some what compete vs a player, but reduce the cheating in the campaign. Its already stacked against us.

cane
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun 4 Mar 2012 17:54
Contact:

Re: Campaign sets unrealistic goals.

Postby cane » Sat 8 Jun 2013 13:39

Agreed with everything you said.

Currently the campaign is so stupid that there is no point to play it and if you do play it after all you better win every first battle or you will never win the campaign

TankHunter
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue 31 Jul 2012 06:00
Contact:

Re: Campaign sets unrealistic goals.

Postby TankHunter » Sat 8 Jun 2013 18:11

Honestly, you have enough time, unless you get stuck with a British deck on an enormous map. The 20min represents one day, not the entire battle. You also have more than enough time to complete the campaigns as a whole. It all depends on what battles you choose to fight. I've beaten "War In The North" campaign in 11 days, out of 20. You must simply be careful with what support strikes you use, where you deploy your brigades, so on and so forth.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them [. . .] They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind."

cane
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun 4 Mar 2012 17:54
Contact:

Re: Campaign sets unrealistic goals.

Postby cane » Sat 8 Jun 2013 18:36

TankHunter wrote:Honestly, you have enough time, unless you get stuck with a British deck on an enormous map. The 20min represents one day, not the entire battle. You also have more than enough time to complete the campaigns as a whole. It all depends on what battles you choose to fight. I've beaten "War In The North" campaign in 11 days, out of 20. You must simply be careful with what support strikes you use, where you deploy your brigades, so on and so forth.


How many draws did you have?

Tigga
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2441
Joined: Tue 5 Jul 2011 02:46
Contact:

Re: Campaign sets unrealistic goals.

Postby Tigga » Sat 8 Jun 2013 18:42

If anything I find the campaigns have unrealistically high time limits. It's rare I get anywhere near the time limit before the war is won.

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Campaign sets unrealistic goals.

Postby DoktorvonWer » Sat 8 Jun 2013 23:47

I agree with a lot of OP's points.



Days and Political Points
If you even USE naval bombardment or any point-costing strikes as NATO, you are pretty much doomed. Why? You generally get so few PPs that this will stop you bringing in new reinforcements until something stupid like day 9, and by then it's much too late as the enemy player has brought in 3 new Battlegroups without sweating.

I know various scenarios are meant to be weighted to one side, but... They're not just a LITTLE weighted, are they?


Cheating
AI doesn't think like humans, so some degree of 'cheating' is usually necessary in an AI to make it competitive. Not this amount. This amount is ridiculous. Honestly, it may be a necessary tool for AI, but it is overused and too strong in W:ALB. Sort out the AI, and then assess what 'cheats' it might need; it seems like the AI itself was left wanting and just plastered over with cheats. And it's honestly not nice. Even on the campaign map, the Pact's ability to bring in 4+ battlegroups at will AND put out multiple airstrikes and naval bombardments every few turns is just a joke, when you can barely save enough points for a single new battlegroup, let alone any strikes.



Campaign Length
Won't say anything - hoping for new campaigns and more sandbox-orientated campaigns too, either in map-packs/patches or DLC. The current 4 can't be blamed too much about their length; it's a very limited selection right now.



On Battle-Timers and Battle AI:
The timers frustrate me, but are necessary. However, the way the outcome is derived is ridiculous: I can understand the 20 minutes for the purposes of making actually routing/destroying a battlegroup the norm of every victory and the battles not just campfests for points, but with respect to the timer, it's stupid that everything that is not a total victory is counted as a draw - I can utterly pummel an enemy, and if the time runs out it's just a 'draw'.

Take the following example from yesterday: Copenhaagen, British 1st Infantry Brigade and I think what was a Russians Guards Tank Division, which was reinforcing - both at 6 morale I believe; Victory Points were 3000 either side. 1st Infantry Brig. with 1000 deployment points, Gds Tanks with 1500.

Get off to a good start, but the AI's priority is to sit in its CPs and just wait for a draw, apparently - they just sit there for most of the limited match time. Anyway, by 3 minutes remaining, the score stands:

NATO: 1335/3000
PACT: 295/3000

So the spearhead is pushed blindly forward, and in doing so manages to eliminate 3 CPs and numerous infantry transports and hiding infantry platoons. Final score:

NATO 1990
PACT: 360

This, apparently, is a 'DRAW'. Now, I know that I've not won a total victory - it was not going to be possible in the time provided when effectively outnumbered at the offset with limited deployment points (and, for whatever reason, the PACT AI starting with TWO 3-value zones) - but everything considered, it was definitely a victory, surely? If we were playing multiplayer and this had been the outcome at the end of the timer, would it not have been a 'Major Victory' for NATO?

I essentially took a smaller force up against a Tank Guards Division and hit them hard, incurred heavy losses with minimal losses of my own, and that counts as the same kind of 'draw' as if we had just sat in our deployment zones defending all match. Why should I lose as much morale and initiative in this scenario?
Last edited by DoktorvonWer on Sun 9 Jun 2013 11:03, edited 1 time in total.
Image

MateoTTR
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 10:54
Contact:

Re: Campaign sets unrealistic goals.

Postby MateoTTR » Sun 9 Jun 2013 10:36

Wow I am glad to see I am not the only one to struggle with the second campaign (supposed to be medium difficulty).
I am at day 10 and I could only affort 4 battle groups thus far (I barely used any of the point costing perks).
I could only take Copenhagen with two BGs against 4 for Pact. My 2 BGs won almost all fights in a single day, but fight after fight, their initiative has dropped to 0 and now I have to retreat or try to defend on a huge map with only 500 starting points...
My other 2 BGs are sitting in front of Oslo where the AI has 3 fresh BGs sitting. Stockholm is completely out of reach.

Seriously, taking the 3 cities is possible in 12 days ??
I just don't get it:
* the AI has far more BGs in scandinavia that I can bring in with the few politcal points I have to spend.
* If I use perks, it gets even worse as I cannot call in new BGs in due time to fight
* I won all my battle in the very first day, except the battle where I had to defend with 500 pts and a BG with 0 initiative. What can do better?
* BGs winning fights still lose initiative and become useless after some time.

In the current state, I do not even see how this 12 day campaign is feasible. Can anyone provide a tutorial or a youtube video showing how to do it?

Thanks.

MateoTTR
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 10:54
Contact:

Re: Campaign sets unrealistic goals.

Postby MateoTTR » Sun 9 Jun 2013 10:45

Tigga wrote:If anything I find the campaigns have unrealistically high time limits. It's rare I get anywhere near the time limit before the war is won.


Tigga can you explain how you win the 2nd campaign just withn a few days?
The tactical fights I can win easily, but I must doing something wrong in the way I spend my politcal points, or in the choice I make where to deploy my troops and where to attack.

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Campaign sets unrealistic goals.

Postby DoktorvonWer » Sun 9 Jun 2013 11:01

MateoTTR wrote:I just don't get it:
* the AI has far more BGs in scandinavia that I can bring in with the few politcal points I have to spend.
* If I use perks, it gets even worse as I cannot call in new BGs in due time to fight


I'm always a bit annoyed by this too.

I took Oslo straight off the bat and held it without issue with the Royal Marines, and even with the extra political point income from it, if you use basically any strike/support powers you can barely even get a third battlegroup.

Meanwhile, the Pact have not only half a gazillion battlegroups, but also seem to be able to comfortably call in 2-3 strike powers whenever they feel like it, leaving your already-outnumbered and out-initiatived (after so many battles, regardless of outcome) battlegroups permanently without initiative.
Image

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

Re: Campaign sets unrealistic goals.

Postby schaefsky » Sun 9 Jun 2013 12:14

Has anybody checked whether the AI is actually cheating on the strategic map too?
In my current 3rd campaign, AI has according to the map about 7 political points income left, but is handing out strikes left and right and calls in new BGs like it's nothing.
I control allmost the whole map and struggle to call in 1 new BG if I want to use strikes in the same round. (Not that strikes are actually that usefull against the AI, you can influence initiative, the one rule AI gives a about.)
I think I still win this campaign easily simply because the AI does not understand that it should protect Stockholm and Stavanger better.

The campaign (against AI) feels to me like something with huge potential, where some cruel mind decided to tweak every parameter to make it as much of an annoyance as possible.
The current system does not only kill the fun, worse it also kills every bit of immersion there might be.
20 minutes up, everybody beam home now. DRAW

I am a huge fan of WEE, I wanted to be a huge fan of WALB. The complete the SP mode currently is, combined with MP game mechanics with again great potential ruined by arbitrary choices for "flavor" (minor nations anyone?) has absolutely ruined the game for me.
I am still checking the forum every day for an announcement of changes in SP, even a beta patch like the WhoDaresWins. So far nothing, and apparently one can not change any parameter without breaking everything and let the world end.

I will certainly not pre-order a Eugen (or Focus game for that matter) again, given how unprofessional this game was rushed to release. Beta test SP? No need for that... :roll:
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Sun 9 Jun 2013 16:20, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Language

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests