As I am not sure I will have the time to play much further, I'll give my detailled feedback to the specific questions asked. My other report can be found a few posts before, page 3. Reminder : Colonel level, played up to Kampinoska with beta 1, up to Eben-Emael with beta 2
* How hard did you find the scenarios? Too easy, too hard or just right?
Well balanced overall. I found Kampinoska (beta 1) and maybe the early Norway scenarios (beta2) a tad easy (not counting Poznan, I think it is supposed to be that way). Spoils of War (beta 2) a bit too hard (in a pyrrhic victory way). Piatek, Warsaw, Narvik, Eben Emael were spot on.
* Were your scenario objectives clear enough - we're there any areas that were confusing or needed mroe explanation?
Overall, the missions briefing were excellent and appropriately described what you had to do on the scenario. As many have suggested, having some in game counters to track objectives completed (especially for the trains in Kampinoska) will be a plus.
* How far in to the game did you get? Did you play the '39 campaign, '40 campaign, both of bits of both.
39 fully+ Eben Emael
* When posting any gameplay feedback let us know the difficulty setting you were using.
Colonel
* Did you feel like you had enough presitge, too little or too much?
I had comfortable prestige, and could mostly reinforce with elite during the deployment phase, but I am probably a slightly advanced player for Colonel maybe, and half of my campaign was with beta 1 (with higher prestige).
* Did you enjoy the scenario briefings? Is there anything they could have explained better or done differently to improve the atmosphere?
See above. They were great. What could be good is to have a real map (not the in game map) image associated with the briefings too, to see where the objective are, etc ... and add to the immersive factor.
Maybe having the mission briefing accessible during play could be useful too, now that briefings are more than flavor text, but actual "strategic advices" that help to understand the scenario scripting.
* Did you like the "special scenario objectives" mixed in with the standard victory hex grabbing missions, or do you prefer purely just going after victory hexes?
Yes, absolutely. Special scenario objectives+scripting make the game experience vastly better (both on the gameplay side, and on the historic/immersive side).
Plus, I like the DVs tied to actual objectives, not timers.
* Did the AI perform well in the missions? Were there any scenarios that the AI underperformed
Had only one issue : see my beta 1 Danzig Corridor report, when several enemy units got trapped between my troops and the Vistula and surrendered. More globally, I think it is a bit too easy to take advantage of the AI on scenarios where bridge victory hexes are involved.
* Hero and medal aquisition have been slowed down for the extended campaign. Did the progression feel right?
Felt better as soon as I upgraded to beta 2
* Do you find the experience cap on units annoying?
Annoying no, but it takes a bit of time to become accustomed too, and it is not very intuitive (should I elite reinforce, or should I normal reinforce as I will meet the exp cap quickly anyway ? some "gamey" questions here)
* Capturing enemy equipment is a new feature of DLC 1940 (it has not been implemented in DLC 1939). Can you let us know your thoughts on it.
Great !
Would it be possible to extend the system to allow the purchase of other Axis powers units (or get them as rewards) for the 1941+ campaigns ?
* Do you have a favourite mission and if so what is it you like about it. Similarly are there any missions you didn't enjoy and why.
Favorite mission thus far : Narvik. Norway was one of my favorite scenarios in the basic campaign. I like the diversity of the map, with a lot of things to take into account : air, sea, land, auxilliary units, weather ... challenging without beeing punishing.
Least favorite : Spoils of War. Couldn't be motivated by a non historic scenario, plus it is a bit punishing for an optional one. But, well, it is optional
