Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Yep, I agree about backstory. Backstory can be tied with difficalty level and choise of path in multipath campain.

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

I'd like to see more rational scenario lengths, take into account that 30-60 minutes (10 to 20 turns) is fairly short in the context of fighting.

For example in real life at Normandy:

0630: (Turn 0; US forces land on Utah Beach)
0945: (Turn 60; Utah Beach Cleared of all Enemy Forces)
1330: (Turn 140; Troops on Utah link up with units of 101st ABN, about 3 miles/4.8 km/96 hexes inland)

So please don't ask us to clear a defended beach and then advance 1 mile (1.6) km against opposition in merely 32 turns (96 minutes, or 1 hr, 30~ minutes) to make the scenario harder on us.

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Mark has a point here, however the AI is stupid, however coded or deployed by the scenario builder. I´d say that 32 turns is enough for almost anything game-wise, but please don´t do those 15 turn rushes.. I just hate to waste my core driving for some objective 2-3km away in strong enemy opposition. That´s just a stupid way of trying to trick the scenario to be harder, when it really isn´t. Many old SP2 campaigns suffered from this IMO.

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Mark has a point here, however the AI is stupid, however coded or deployed by the scenario builder.

The AI CAN be very very tough. Espeically when the scenario designer places them into mutally supporting defenses; with anti-tank guns defended by infantry in houses/trees/foxholes nearby.

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

The reason why most scenarios meant to be played against the computer involve the player being the attacker is probably because the AI does better on defense. Defense has more to do with positioning your units before the battle than actually moving them around during it, so the key factor is where the scenario designer places the defending units. It really is the scenario designer's fault if he isn't able to make good use of the AI.

Another problem I've noticed is that the player side is usually the one with high-quality equipment (like a Israel vs. Egypt or US vs. insurgent type of battle, with the player Israel or US). This makes it very hard for the designer to make a decent challenge, as 3rd-world troops are just soo crappy.

But it surprises me that it's soo difficult for people to make the AI a serious opponent on the defence. Probably the only major mistakes the AI makes on defence is 1) hopeless "banzai charge" counterattacks against objectives taken by the player (which can be corrected by giving the AI a high Reaction Turn to immobilize it) and 2) poor use of smoke (which can be corrected, to a degree, by preplanning artillery smoke bombardments for the AI). But other than that, it IS possible to make the computer a decent opponent. Does anyone remember the old SP2 NATO campaign? Or has anyone played McGalin's Ethiopia WinSPMBT campaign?

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

I see there is a fairly large # of votes in this poll. Just wanted to bump it to bring it back on the radar screen in case anyone might have missed it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

I have - and I love it! I also adapted it by changing the nation + tried some other things. Very well done campaign! Can be quite challenging with low replacement points to maintain an effective fighting force until the end... I took that campaign as a model for my own campaign creation experiments but so far those don't come even close to the Ethiopia campaign...

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

I have put all the current data from this questionnaire into a pdf document for anyone who might be interested.

You can DL it from here: Campaign Questionnaire

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Note playing larger battles in campaigns is better than scenarios because you just have to scan forces once for several battles. Just check support units each battle.
Also please purchase Fwd Obs including vehicles before any other units

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Actually, exactly that campaign suffers from the make-the-player-rush-into-the-ambush syndrome, unless you scout the maps first and reload ... e.g.:
The storming of the hospital .. you would need at least 9 turns to get over the bridge/ridge .. unless you know there are no mines, snipers or hidden ambushes outside the village. In that case you simply drive up (to) the ridge in 2 turns, dismount, jump over and start fighting. Or:
The taking of the little river valley village - in 12 turns. Only way to do that is to drive up to the edge of the depression the village is situated in and start firing away at every building with all vehicles, and advance the inf from there in tight formation. Realistically, you would send in scouts in/around first, what would take 10 turns alone, unless you want to drive along in front of some hidden RPG squads at 20-30 km/h ... not a particularly save way of living IMHO ..

So whats needed to make a campaign interesting (to me)?:

1) Scenario length ~32 turn for force sizes > comp. and at least medium sized maps. If it gets difficult to make the scen hard enough, maybe A) rework the map, B) be more creative with the opposing forces or C) be more creative using reinforcements. Speaking of those brings me to ..

2) No teleporting AI units, please. I really really hate it to have AI units pop up right next or behind (!) my units because of missplaced reinforcements, especially if I managed to flank the enemies main position at high speed (and with lots of lu .. calculated risks ..), or -even worse- if I am forced to deploy/fight near the map edge by the map (designer). Had that happen in the Ethiopia campaign several times .. enemy units popped up where they couldn't have because I would have spotted them 20 hexes "earlier" - if there hadn't been the map edge ..