exsonic01 Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Hello all How about giving 'ironman' mode to campaign? (name 'ironman' is coming from XCOM's that ironman opetion) It means NO SAVE & LOAD during campaign games. You can only save & load before / after each games during any campaigns. In the middle of game, you cannot save and load, and all your decisions will be irreversible. (Or, lets give a chance to save only every 1hr in the middle of the games, just in case you need to leave or go to bed...) In real world, there is no save and load, and every commanders must be responsible for his commands and directions. I hope this game becoming realistic in "absolute way", so give us chance to pay for our impatience or greediness I can guarantee that this mode will be painful and somewhat masochistic (like how XCOM ironman mode do), but hey, that is the war in the real world. This will truly give us some chances to see how real commanders think and feel on the field. If someone finished the CM:BS campaign with elite+ difficulty with ironman option and uploads the evidences in the forum, then let's give him (or her) honor in this forum, with distinctive nicknames or badges in the forum profile. I have been thought this kind of idea from the days of Close Combat, since everyone can finish the campaign with lowest possible casualty with infinite save & load. Of course, one can 'choice' not to play with save & load, but eventually, everyone will gonna use save and load. So I think this might be forced from the game options. How do you think? Thank you Best, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitzenhund Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I was thinking 'Why not just simply not reload the game? It's not like other games where it's 1 click away to reload'. But the idea of having it as some sort of personal achievement where it says 'Beaten in Iron man mode' is actually a cool idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I recall awhile ago (a LONG time ago) I was playing battles where I did not ascend to 'eye of God' observation height and I never moved the camera beyond my own troops front line. I kept the camera a ground level as much as I humanly could. And of course no tree toggle. The game turned exponentially more challenging. Being in a copse of trees where you can't see three feet in front of you, hearing unseen rifle fire and suddenly an artillery barrage shakes the ground beneath you is pretty terrifying, especially when there's no fleeing skyward with the tap of a key. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Toleran Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Funny, I remember in the CMx1 days (and I think MikeyD is referring to this), Ironman meant playing as MikeyD just described it, first-person only, no top view other than using the map view (level 8 or 9), and switching using only the plus and minus signs, or units that were visible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waycool Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Franko's rules 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Nope - I prefer choice - you want to play that way you can do already don't impose it on others. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 It wouldn't really be imposed, would it? It'd be an option like "difficulty levels" are. All that we who wouldn't care to use it would lose would be the time that Charles and PhilC spent coding it and all the betas spent testing it.So you're right, it's unnecessary and wasteful, but it's not like anyone's asking BFC to force you to play that way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I recall awhile ago (a LONG time ago) I was playing battles where I did not ascend to 'eye of God' observation height and I never moved the camera beyond my own troops front line. I kept the camera a ground level as much as I humanly could. And of course no tree toggle. The game turned exponentially more challenging. Being in a copse of trees where you can't see three feet in front of you, hearing unseen rifle fire and suddenly an artillery barrage shakes the ground beneath you is pretty terrifying, especially when there's no fleeing skyward with the tap of a key. This type of play would draw me into multiplayer if it was a game option. I would modify the camera restriction to allow movement in a 100metre radius from a selected unit, to make plotting moves a bit more do-able 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 It wouldn't really be imposed, would it? It'd be an option like "difficulty levels" are. All that we who wouldn't care to use it would lose would be the time that Charles and PhilC spent coding it and all the betas spent testing it. So you're right, it's unnecessary and wasteful, but it's not like anyone's asking BFC to force you to play that way. Agreed and as you point out - this stuff can be done already - it just requires the player to have the self-discipline to, in the words of the OP to 'NO SAVE & NO LOAD'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I agree with the Others, why bother with something the player can do on his own discipline? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 It is much easier to control the camera if the boundaries of movement are set for you by the game. Additionally, when your camera is knocking up against the boundary and you can't see over the hill properly to plot moves or fire missions, suddenly the game has given you a reason for a bit of recon (beyond finding out where the enemy is). In short, being constrained by the game and not having to think about your own self imposed rules is a lot more immersive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMoria Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I'm played a multilplayer game with someone in which the highest level HQ unit (the leader soldier in particular) represents you. If your pixeltruppen representing you become a casualty, you lose the scenario immediately. And there is no gamey hiding the HQ in the corner of the map stuff allowed. Adds a certain edge to the game. It gets no more 'iron' than that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.