What about campaigns ?

[moet]

Are developpers planning to offer a solo or MP campaign ?

[dsvitak]

Are developpers planning to offer a solo or MP campaign ?

A couple of thoughts here:

1) If you lose 30% of your forces, how would these be made up for the next scenario? Would you be allowed a certain number of rebuild points?
2) Assuming rebuild points are available, at what rate would they be? If at 100%, then just keeping your core army from scenario to scenario is the likely result.
3) If you keep your core army from scenario to scenario, then why have a campaign? You could just play one scenario after another, and keep the two force types the same.
4) A campaign, in my mind, has to have a continuing risk/reward. If you play well, then you get additional forces for your next battle. If this is against the AI, the last thing I need or want is additional forces, when I am winning 90% of my games anyway.
5) A multi-player campaign is worse, if the loser has less resources than the winner for the next fight. Something like 10-10, to 11-9 in unit counts would be 50% to 50% to 55% to 45%. The last thing the loser needs is a further reduction in force with which to fight the next battle.
6) Providing the loser of a multi-player campaign battle with ADDITIONAL units for the next scenario is worse. Why punish the victor?

Here are some thoughts on what I would like to see in a multiplayer campaign:
--Have a largish map of the area, divided into combat areas, linked with lines or roads.
--Have several landing areas identified as the starting place for an attacking army, or areas along the border. Provide some choice...and the choice would have the basic terrain type listed.
--After the first fight, if successful, provide the attacking army the option of 2 or more areas to attack, or even force them to fight along a specific road, to get through a natural chokepoint. Choices, choices.
--After the first battle, allow the Commander to order reinforcements...but not for the next fight, the fight AFTER that. No radios or airplanes back then. This would stop the attacking player from min-maxing his perfect army...as he wouldn't know his next battles' losses until well after he has programmed replacements.
--When the next battle is started, the Commander gets his reinforcements, ordered two battles ago...and this will create an interesting tactical situation for him for the current battle. This would also result in no multi-player campaign battle ever having the same forces.
--If you started with a 300 vp army, and you are allowed to replenish only 40% (120 vp) in losses per battle, then anything over that 120 vp would not be available for the next fight. The only way this can work for HARD battles is to program the AI to only be allowed a certain # of vp's more than you to start...to place the rest into reserve.

Writing all this code wouldn't be a lot of fun. After each battle, the game would have to open up the army builder, and then save the file with your projected reinforcements. There would have to be a "call" from the newly opened NEXT scenario to incorporate and place these new units.

This could be done in a way similar to the way the game looks at the correct number of generals. It may tell you to edit the scenario, but call it something like the reinforcement phase, and provide you with the list of units you need to place. It can be done.

[Blathergut]

I think things would have to be kept simple and primarly designed for player-to-player. Gets tricky if you want to start changing each scenario much...am toying with bumping commanders up gradually if they are successful in earlier scenarios. Otherwise, no changes to set scenarios, but points awards for wins and casualties inflicted. This would be easy for both sides to keep track of during a campaign. Plus, if you knew your opponent was up a couple points on you, you might have to be a bit more...mm...enthusuastic...mmmm...reckless??...in the next one.

[ianiow]

Im sure the TT FOG campaign rules will appear before the PC FOG campaign rules so that they can keep things similar. Although the PC game lends itself far better to campaigns than TT. Maybe the PC version should lead the way!

Then again TT have finished the armies list now, and PC have to play catch up with these first.