Slitherine

What would people think of these? To be more specific, I plan to make some scenarios for a campaign that are not designed to let the player achieve a DV.

It could always be that there are some geniuses which beat everything in five turns with a Pak36 and half a Stuka , but those aside, would people it find overly annoying if they have not much of a chance to get a DV in *every* scn of a campaign?

MV would be possible, and those "unwinnables" would have to be set up so that they are make it still possible to progress with the campaign overall.

Thoughts?

I like it

Most definitely yes. I am working on several scenario's where it should be (quasi) impossible to get a DV for Red Fury. The Viipuri winterwar scenario for example and I hope to make the 1941 scenario's real teeth grinders.

Well, thanks for the swift replies

I've always thought that should be implanted.
But not people will like. They are some who want to play this game like a chess and feel frustrated if they can't win a DV.
They can accuse your campaign of being bad balanced.

Well, that is the difference between the mods and the official releases - at the end the modders can do whatever they want

I think that some scenarios should be almost impossible to win and allow the players to continue the campaign even in case of defeat. The good example here could be the Viipuri scenario from the Nikivdd's "Red Fury" campaign. I hope he will make it even harder

I don't even mind to play a scenario in which even a MV is hard to obtain. As long you give chances for the campaign to go on in a different branch.

Well, I am going to be a dictator then and add those

Re VP's point, you're right of course, but once I am at the stage to have something ready I am going to warn players that DVs aren't always possible, and add also some warning to the particalur briefings. So it's going to be an offer to players, in the end you can hardly please everyone.

It would be really kinda strange to have those Japanese winning everything from 43 on.... *hides*

The only problem with not scoring DVs, is that MV or a loss are awardeded mostly with less prestige, so the task of a player who fares worst in the successive scenarios, is becoming progresively more difficult. Gaining more prestige is always my principal motivation for scoring the DV. So if you want to make some scenarios unwinnable, something has to be done with the amount of the prestige awarded in case of MV or a loss.

Yeah, but that should be no prob to adjust with a bit of testing

VPaulus wrote:I've always thought that should be implanted.
But not people will like. They are some who want to play this game like a chess and feel frustrated if they can't win a DV.
They can accuse your campaign of being bad balanced.

I see the impossible DV concept like this:

When you achieve a MV, this is what happened (more or less) historically.
When you achieve a DV, this is actually what was planned (and thus far more difficult or impossible to achieve).

I'll give two examples:

One example is the "Staraja Russa " mission to stop the German advance, sever the spearhead from the rest of the advancing forces.
MV: To get more or less halfway the advance that was achieved
DV: To get your forces actually that was planned by HQ, cutting of the German spearhead completely (this never happened due to a german counterattack)

Second example is the "escape the Kiev pocket" mission in 1941.
MV: Make sure Marshall Semyon Budyonny, Marshall Semen Timoshenko and Commissar Nikita Khrushchev escape (this happened in reality)
DV: Make sure Marshall Semyon Budyonny, Marshall Semen Timoshenko, Commissar Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Kirponos escape (this never happened because Kirponos died in the attempt)

As in the DLC's sometimes it is better to settle for a MV than face (total) destruction in an attempt to get that DV

There are already enough unwinnable scenarios for me, no need to make more!

MartyWard wrote:There are already enough unwinnable scenarios for me, no need to make more!

Well at least, in this way, there will be more people which will feel like you.

I must say, I disagree with the concept. But it can be possible, that we speak about the same, but look it with different "glasses".
1., I don't think it is a good idea to put something in a scenario, which is definitely not accessible. I had since playing the PC one scenario of this: the 3rd scn of the Slovak campaign (with the many bunkers with guns...). The Lake Balaton was also impossible to make a DV with Rommel and with the short campaign, but I can imagine, if you try it 50x (I mean the whole campaing )and have extra luck, you can make it.

2., I prefer the scenarios, where you have to try again and again, maybe even 10 times, memorise the positions and possible moves of the enemy, and have luck (also with the weather) to make the DV. I encountered this situation at least 60%, while playing/testing the Italian Campaign 2.0 and hell yes: it was very hard and I was many times very angry. But, when I made the DV, I was very happy. No more frustration.
But if you setup the scn so, that it is absolutely gives no chance to make a DV, that will give frustration.

I think, it depends entirely on difficulty and scenario design.
I would suggest that you play/test the given scns on the hardest difficulties (Rommel, Mannstein) and if you encounter such situations ("have to try again and again..."), you are on the right path. But if you don't want a certain campaign-path/event acessible, than don't put it in the campaign. A campaign-path, where only 5% of the players will be able to go, has anyway no purpose.

bebro wrote:What would people think of these? To be more specific, I plan to make some scenarios for a campaign that are not designed to let the player achieve a DV.

It could always be that there are some geniuses which beat everything in five turns with a Pak36 and half a Stuka , but those aside, would people it find overly annoying if they have not much of a chance to get a DV in *every* scn of a campaign?

MV would be possible, and those "unwinnables" would have to be set up so that they are make it still possible to progress with the campaign overall.

Thoughts?

Uhu wrote:I must say, I disagree with the concept. But it can be possible, that we speak about the same, but look it with different "glasses".
1., I don't think it is a good idea to put something in a scenario, which is definitely not accessible. I had since playing the PC one scenario of this: the 3rd scn of the Slovak campaign (with the many bunkers with guns...). The Lake Balaton was also impossible to make a DV with Rommel and with the short campaign, but I can imagine, if you try it 50x (I mean the whole campaing )and have extra luck, you can make it.

2., I prefer the scenarios, where you have to try again and again, maybe even 10 times, memorise the positions and possible moves of the enemy, and have luck (also with the weather) to make the DV. I encountered this situation at least 60%, while playing/testing the Italian Campaign 2.0 and hell yes: it was very hard and I was many times very angry. But, when I made the DV, I was very happy. No more frustration.
But if you setup the scn so, that it is absolutely gives no chance to make a DV, that will give frustration.

I think, it depends entirely on difficulty and scenario design.
I would suggest that you play/test the given scns on the hardest difficulties (Rommel, Mannstein) and if you encounter such situations ("have to try again and again..."), you are on the right path. But if you don't want a certain campaign-path/event acessible, than don't put it in the campaign. A campaign-path, where only 5% of the players will be able to go, has anyway no purpose.

It is sometimes better to go for a MV then a DV but like Uhu - who never yields - veterans should battle (and curse) their way to reach a DV.

Uhu wrote:I must say, I disagree with the concept. But it can be possible, that we speak about the same, but look it with different "glasses".
1., I don't think it is a good idea to put something in a scenario, which is definitely not accessible. I had since playing the PC one scenario of this: the 3rd scn of the Slovak campaign (with the many bunkers with guns...). The Lake Balaton was also impossible to make a DV with Rommel and with the short campaign, but I can imagine, if you try it 50x (I mean the whole campaing )and have extra luck, you can make it.

2., I prefer the scenarios, where you have to try again and again, maybe even 10 times, memorise the positions and possible moves of the enemy, and have luck (also with the weather) to make the DV. I encountered this situation at least 60%, while playing/testing the Italian Campaign 2.0 and hell yes: it was very hard and I was many times very angry. But, when I made the DV, I was very happy. No more frustration.
But if you setup the scn so, that it is absolutely gives no chance to make a DV, that will give frustration.

Well, I hope I wasn't unclear - I absolutely agree that scenarios, or even a whole path of the campaign should all be accessible, there should always be a way to get to them.

Making scns or a certain path that cannot be reached by the player because of victory conditions be set to harshly would be pointless anyway and a waste of time - why would creators make scns that noone can play...

That being said, this has not to be tied to DVs- you could still allow these to be played without being able to get DVs in every case, every battle. That is what I meant.

I think, I understood: the player has not to make (always) a DV to stay on the 'right' track. Did you mean that?

Yep