sIg3b wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:56 pm
2. No rewards for overachieving in a mission. No victory levels. No optional side missions. No reward for finishing fast. Little to no reward for minimal losses in a mission. Little to no punishment for high losses.
Well, depending on what difficulty setting you play, fast finishing is the only way to not get overwhelmed by enemy reinforcements.
I havent played for a long time, because i think skirmishes vs the AI are really bad, the AI performs way to weak. But thats only my opinion. But if i remember correctly, you get more HQ points for better (?) victories and the veterancy system. i would prefer a real core army feature more, but its a reward that will pay out in later missions on highest difficulty if you can keep your units alive.
sIg3b wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:56 pm
The game is not bad per se: I like the individual units and the skirmish games, though a few more maps would be nice. AI in skirmishes is actually decent, because the campaign designer doesn´t interfere.
For me its completly the opposite.
The PVE campaign was my only reason to buy and play the game. Some Story, progressing through your HQ points and later building up a verteran army. the battles felt "meaningful" to me.
I tried skirmishes and that PS mode, both felt not really challenging, meaningful or fun. Im not on a crusade here, if you dislike the campaign, and enjoy skirmishes, just forget the pve campaign

Im pretty sure more skirmish maps will be added in the future. But i would suggest that you tryout battlesector pve campaign on
- company captain
- reinforcements high
- enhanced enemy units enabled
- enemy ai difficulty high
rest of the setting unchanged
and you will experience a nice challenge, a decent AI behavior and in most missions there is only a small room to "overachive".
But thats only my opinion. I think Battlesector is a great game, but without "real" new pve content i wont buy any more DLCs. Because i wouldnt play it, im not into that Ps mod,e skirmishes or pvp.