Losing the campaigns while wining the battles

[Mark50]

I know I lost battles in the main campaign on purpose so that I could play more scenarios but with the DLCs you get to keep going pretty much no matter what which is nice.

Also pointless imo. I won decisively, got to Moscow(in the DLC) and then of course struggled and took losses there. As I won that battle and ended up in the same spot as if I had taken the option to retreat instead of going to Moscow I couldn`t help but wonder what this extra scenario helped me with in the campaign. I would have been better of skipping it in the campaign and just play it as a custom scenario if I had the urge to play that mission too. Point being you should get some rewards if you do well in a campaign. And these extra scenarios are not that imo.

I think eventually they will have alternate history DLCs that can fit in with the other historical scenarios. It wouldn't be that hard to have an invasion of Britain DLC for instance.

If someone could confirm officially that there will be some DLCs that allow you to have some sort of impact and get some sort of reward in the overall campaign then I`d leave these ones alone and wait for those packs to come out. Only problem is that by my count(1 DLC per month) that`s not gonna happen anytime soon(less than half a year - 3 eastern and 3 western DLCs).

[Mark50]

The trouble is that I can't see how all those split up DLC:s could have a mechanism do this. If you for example win in Stalingrad, you could be directed to do an offensive in the Caucasus and then end up in Iran or the Suez. But the saved core in the next DLC puts you directly at the battle of Kursk, regardless of your previous achivements.

Then let me take you further than your own imagination was able to. The next DLC wouldn`t put you directly at Kursk. It would have various starting points depending on the choices you`ve made during the previous DLC.
This of course is beyond the point of this thread btw. I`ve already said I don`t believe this is doable given the apparent limited resources available for development as it would involve alot of alternative scenarios and each DLC pack would need to be much larger.

[robc04_1]

Then let me take you further than your own imagination was able to. The next DLC wouldn`t put you directly at Kursk. It would have various starting points depending on the choices you`ve made during the previous DLC.
This of course is beyond the point of this thread btw. I`ve already said I don`t believe this is doable given the apparent limited resources available for development as it would involve alot of alternative scenarios and each DLC pack would need to be much larger.

I agree that this would lead to an overall more satisfying campaign experience, but as you said we know they don't currently have the resources to do this. It would probably triple the number of scenarios needed per DLC. So we can either enjoy what they can give us, ... or not.

[Mark50]

So we can either enjoy what they can give us, ... or not.

The game is still in development and it would be a mistake to adopt such a fatalist attitude now. Truth is they`re not giving anything away. We`re paying for these and since they`re actually trying to sell something, they are clearly open to feedback. I don`t think that quietly refraining from buying the game anymore would do anyone any favors. If you read through the threads here you`ll see that such feedback given after some releases has changed the policy concerning future releases more than once and imo, each time has been for the better. Reason for which it does pay to point things out and argue for and against certain features while something can still be done about it. My point here has been that the current DLC campaign as it now is does not motivate me(I won`t make assumptions about how many other people may share my opinion) to keep on playing it beyond this stage. Hopefully something could be made to make it more involving/rewarding, short of a complete/major overhaul which nobody is actually asking for.

[Longasc]

The only thing I could think about now as "reward" for winning an important battle or Moscow would be to give the player a SE unit. Players already get extra prestige for victory. Anything else would lead to branching scenarios.

Like different scenarios for when Moscow 41 was won, and one where it wasn't. The differences being strength of the enemy and your position or an entirely different scenario.
But that is going quite far. There are already different paths in the some 13 scenarios of a DLC I am not sure how this could be done.

Or whatever else special recognition one could get in the DLCs from winning a battle that was lost in history.

You said you don't want this to be taken "extreme" but I see no alternatives besides some extra prestige, a special unit, or adding a special medal which would have to be added to the game. The only other option I can think of is branching scenarios depending on the outcome and that's rather unlikely to hope for IMO.

[brettz123]

I know I lost battles in the main campaign on purpose so that I could play more scenarios but with the DLCs you get to keep going pretty much no matter what which is nice.

Also pointless imo. I won decisively, got to Moscow(in the DLC) and then of course struggled and took losses there. As I won that battle and ended up in the same spot as if I had taken the option to retreat instead of going to Moscow I couldn`t help but wonder what this extra scenario helped me with in the campaign. I would have been better of skipping it in the campaign and just play it as a custom scenario if I had the urge to play that mission too. Point being you should get some rewards if you do well in a campaign. And these extra scenarios are not that imo.

Well on the Streets of Moscow scenario I found two extra vehicles and my losses were relatively small so I came out 500 prestige up as well as getting two free tanks (which I could have disbanded for even more prestige. So the point is if you do well in the scenario you get some very good bonuses. But that is true of any scenario to be honest.

[brettz123]

The trouble is that I can't see how all those split up DLC:s could have a mechanism do this. If you for example win in Stalingrad, you could be directed to do an offensive in the Caucasus and then end up in Iran or the Suez. But the saved core in the next DLC puts you directly at the battle of Kursk, regardless of your previous achivements.

Then let me take you further than your own imagination was able to. The next DLC wouldn`t put you directly at Kursk. It would have various starting points depending on the choices you`ve made during the previous DLC.
This of course is beyond the point of this thread btw. I`ve already said I don`t believe this is doable given the apparent limited resources available for development as it would involve alot of alternative scenarios and each DLC pack would need to be much larger.

I agree with you on this and I don't think it would take too much for them to put in an extra two or three scenarios depending on how you did in the previous DLC. Of course another cool thing for them to do would be for them to give you an extra CORE slot or something like that too.

[deducter]

The one thing that could be done without having to introduce new codes/game features that will only be possible with an expansion is to elaborate on the text for the DLC campaigns. The victory texts, in particular, are short and bland, just congratulating the player on another "great victory." I'd like it if the Briefing and the Victory/Defeat screens gave a lot more information and more historical background, and comment much more on how this victory have or may have not influenced the overall outcome of the war.

The scenarios themselves are great, but I do agree that the writing could use big improvements.

[Kerensky]

Some great comments already in this thread, thought I'd just chime in briefly.

We already explored fictional campaigns and scenarios in the stock game. Winning Sealion, Moscow, USA are all flights of pure fancy. The DLC campaigns, in their first incarnation, is intended to be historical as much as we can make it be without sacrificing good game play and just plain fun.

Will we see more fictional campaigns in the future? Sure we might. The DLC, for now, are focused very much on recreating historical battles of the Eastern Front. Eastern Front content, especially in Mid and Late War, was something we received a LOT of feedback on during and after release of the base game, and we really wanted to flesh out this critical stage of the war instead of having only 1 1942 scenario (Stalingrad), 1 1943 scenario (Kursk), 1 1944 scenario (Bagration), and 2 1945 scenarios (Balaton/Germany).

What'll happen in the future, we'll just have to see when we get there.

[El_Condoro]

A bit OT but for the late war DLCs will the AI be changed to become better at attacking? ATM if you want a good attack from the AI you have to give it heaps of stuff and can't use artillery, planes and paratroops in a meaningful way. I am wondering if the DLCs will facilitate the AI's improvement.

[Mark50]

I agree with you on this and I don't think it would take too much for them to put in an extra two or three scenarios depending on how you did in the previous DLC. Of course another cool thing for them to do would be for them to give you an extra CORE slot or something like that too.

Awesome idea! Two slots might be too much, but having a crucial battle per campaign year that would result in an extra core slot is indeed something worth fighting for.

Also, about Moscow. You`re right about the captured equipment, but what I would have liked to see in such crucial battles would be some sort of effect on the next one. For example you`d have one of these crucial battles per campaign and if you do very well, in the next mission you`ll either have a bonus of a few more auxiliary units to help you or fewer enemy units to attack you(as a result of you inflicting casualties on the enemy previously and saving some of your allied troops). That way you feel you`ve achieved something. I know this would mean making two slightly different scenarios instead of one, but if this happens only once or twice per campaign it might not be that much development effort(hopefully). And the main course of the campaign would naturally stay the same.

The one thing that could be done without having to introduce new codes/game features that will only be possible with an expansion is to elaborate on the text for the DLC campaigns. The victory texts, in particular, are short and bland, just congratulating the player on another "great victory." I'd like it if the Briefing and the Victory/Defeat screens gave a lot more information and more historical background, and comment much more on how this victory have or may have not influenced the overall outcome of the war.

I think this is another good idea. I would love to see more detailed messages after a battle with the possibility of hints that the previous decisive victory has helped the war indirectly in other areas of the front(which doesn`t force any changes to your own campaign so it`s free to say, but it feels nice ).

Also, suggested above, I think that having medals for the player is a good idea too. The units already get awards. Why not their commanding officer(the player) too? You could get various awards and collect them throughout the campaign. I`m pretty sure most people here like the idea of collecting as is evident from the captured units thread. For example if you do well in a crucial battle you get a medal and maybe a more important one if you end successfully a full year or if you destroy a certain number of enemy units or if you achieve a certain number of decisive victories. That way the medals you get would differ from player to player. The player could be awarded these medals in between missions before or after the briefings and you could have a medal case to show them.

[El_Condoro]

Also, suggested above, I think that having medals for the player is a good idea too. The units already get awards. Why not their commanding officer(the player) too? You could get various awards and collect them throughout the campaign. I`m pretty sure most people here like the idea of collecting as is evident from the captured units thread. For example if you do well in a crucial battle you get a medal and maybe a more important one if you end successfully a full year or if you destroy a certain number of enemy units or if you achieve a certain number of decisive victories. That way the medals you get would differ from player to player. The player could be awarded these medals in between missions before or after the briefings and you could have a medal case to show them.

In games like Total War and others there can be 50 such medals, ribbons and awards for things like: Won first scenario, to Played 25 scenarios, to Killed more than 10 tanks in a single scenario, to Stockpiled more than 10000 prestige points in a campaign. This sort of thing could extend to MP games, too. A bit of fun and a sense of achievement that would vary from player to player.

[Kerensky]

A bit OT but for the late war DLCs will the AI be changed to become better at attacking? ATM if you want a good attack from the AI you have to give it heaps of stuff and can't use artillery, planes and paratroops in a meaningful way. I am wondering if the DLCs will facilitate the AI's improvement.

I used to think a better AI would make a better game, but I'm not sure anymore. Some of our players already are having a hard enough time with the game, and we've had to scale back on some of the more ambitious ideas to make scenarios more challenging because of complaints about difficulty.

Is it possible to create an AI that is better, but does not make the game harder? What's the different between a crafty/intelligent AI and one that is just a giant pain because they use sneaky, underhanded, and downright vile tactics? Sacrificing 10 units to annihilate 1 or 2 player units. That's a tactic that can be very smart in a multiplayer game if the 2 units are high value enough, but it makes our AI a bit of a bastard to play against.

So while we all look forward to some basic AI improvements (using paratroopers and bridge engineers, using artillery more efficiently) I wouldn't count on AI improvements that make the AI harder. That's what the 8 difficulty setting are for.

[Mark50]

In games like Total War and others there can be 50 such medals, ribbons and awards for things like: Won first scenario, to Played 25 scenarios, to Killed more than 10 tanks in a single scenario, to Stockpiled more than 10000 prestige points in a campaign. This sort of thing could extend to MP games, too. A bit of fun and a sense of achievement that would vary from player to player.

To add to that. I think I remember a PG2 briefing where the officer corrects himself and instead of general he says field marshal or something to that effect. Point being that the player could also be "promoted" a few times during a long campaign. This can be something as simple as putting it into the briefing only. Again, it gives a sense of achievement.

[El_Condoro]

So while we all look forward to some basic AI improvements (using paratroopers and bridge engineers, using artillery more efficiently) I wouldn't count on AI improvements that make the AI harder. That's what the 8 difficulty setting are for.

That's all I'm after - some smarts but not crafty bastard smarts!

[brettz123]

I agree with you on this and I don't think it would take too much for them to put in an extra two or three scenarios depending on how you did in the previous DLC. Of course another cool thing for them to do would be for them to give you an extra CORE slot or something like that too.

Awesome idea! Two slots might be too much, but having a crucial battle per campaign year that would result in an extra core slot is indeed something worth fighting for.

Also, about Moscow. You`re right about the captured equipment, but what I would have liked to see in such crucial battles would be some sort of effect on the next one. For example you`d have one of these crucial battles per campaign and if you do very well, in the next mission you`ll either have a bonus of a few more auxiliary units to help you or fewer enemy units to attack you(as a result of you inflicting casualties on the enemy previously and saving some of your allied troops). That way you feel you`ve achieved something. I know this would mean making two slightly different scenarios instead of one, but if this happens only once or twice per campaign it might not be that much development effort(hopefully). And the main course of the campaign would naturally stay the same.

Yeah I agree. This would be a nice idea to have some kind of difference in a final scenario or even the starting battle of the next DLC. It is little things like this that could really tie the campaigns together. I do however have a lot of hope for future releases as it seems the guys working on the DLC are putting out an interesting product AND learning from it as they go.