Campaign questionnaire

[Double_Deuce]

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

Yes, we will!

[pdoktar]

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.

[serg3d]

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

[MarkSheppard]

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.

[pdoktar]

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.

[MarkSheppard]

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.

[Mustang]

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?