Campaign questionnaire
 

Gentlemen,

This is a questionnaire concerning the various parameters of a campaign.

You may select one or more selections.

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Gents,

This is a very useful suff, please vote as many of you as you can to help the designers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

Artur.

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

I assume this is for WinSPWW2, judging from the list of preferred campaing nations?

Narwan

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Yes Artur,

This is exactly the point of this questionnaire. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

I will leave it to the main WinSPMBT forum for a couple of weeks (in order to attract maximum attention),
and after that I will make it a sticky thread in the campaign sub-forum.

This way everyone may be able to see what is the orientation of the audience.

cheers,
Pyros

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Remco,

As always you are right,
it is WW2 orientated http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

But you should conclude this...not from the list of preferred campaign nations, but from their order in that list ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

cheers,
Pyros

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Gentlemen,

lets start to propose new questions for the follow-up (supplementary) campaign questionnaire.

My first quick thoughts include questions like the following:

1. What is your favoured type of unit (tank, inf, artillery etc...)
2. What is the optimum level of AI artillery control (may/average/few mortars/off map arty/ heavy/ light etc...)
3. Road network in relation with map terrain (dense paved on rough,...etc)
4.Type of missions (all the possible combinations, "break the envelopment"...etc)
5. Los fields (big, low,...)
6. Behaviour of AI (rather static, mobile, multi-directional attack)
7. Reinforcement location (border of map, designated with text, close to the VP hexes, close to the front-lines...etc)
8. Ammo level of AI Artillery units
9. Diaspora of VP objectives
10. Preferred transportation units (Aux/Fixed units, support points, none, etc...)
11 Optimum number of AI Fortifications (type per mission, location, type of fortification...etc...)
12. Optimum number of earthworks, minefields, obstacles (per type mission, locations... etc)

to be continued....


So gentlemen you may start to propose additional questions...

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Personally, I find the "backstory" of the campaign important to my enjoyment of it. A good backstory draws me in and makes me want to fight it out, to find out what happens at the next stage.

A blaise campaign story, on the other hand, just doesn't keep my interest ...

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Combine this backstory with a multipath option and you will have a great campaign.

Btw, I am sure that all designers will make very useful conclusions from this questionnaire.

Thanks all of you for your participation! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif (so far)

cheers,
Pyros

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

Yes, we will! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Campaign questionnaire
 

I totally agree with Pepper. The storyline keeps campaigns alive. Add some difficulty and you have a real thriller, trying to keep your beloved core alive and take those v-hexes.

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 ..