Cross Link Scenarios: Adjustable difficulty

[narwan]

Pyros said:
In order to keep workload to a logical size, I propose we keep 3 levels of adjustable difficulty and we split them among the different margins of battle outcome. If you are aware of the cross link availability of the campaign edit you will notice that depending of the battle outcome we may redirect a max of 5 directions of adjustable difficulty (decisive victory, marginal victory, draw, marginal loss, decisive loss)

That's what I thought indeed. So since the tree allows for just three different results (loss to draw, draw to medium and medium to decisive victory) I suggest we stick to some fixed terminology to represent these three to avoid mix ups and misunderstandings. I also suggest to change the 'ranged' results in the tree (loss to draw, draw to medium, medium to decisive) to fixed results (something like no-win result, partial victory, total victory). That way it is immediately clear what happens IF a certain result is obtained, WHEN a certain result is obtained (the range) isn't really necessairy to depict in the tree itself. A simple table next to it defining the 'no-win, partial and total results' will probably make things easier to read and understand, and is more functional. Right now it's somewhat confusing since it's not obvious to what path a draw or medium victory leads (both are in two ranges)?

The no-win, partial and total victory terms have the advantage that they aren't used elsewhere (marginal and decisive are as you mentioned above) nor commonly used in normal discourse so if and when we'll use these terms to refer to the tree it'll be clear someone is referring to the tree's outcomes and not something else.

Just trying to simplify some things here under the assumption that if they confuse me, they may confuse others too!

Remco