exsonic01 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Is the result of previous mission affects on next mission inside the campaign? I showed "highway of death" to the Russians during "poking bear" mission, only a few tanks and ifvs escaped, and my score was all green light in AAR. However, I'm still seeing tons of Russian tanks and ifv during "backs to the wall". Isn't this a group of same ones with the groups that I knocked during "poking bear"? I thought they are continued in here. Any hints about "backs to the wall" during first 20 min? This is just the Alamo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russwg1970 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 The only adjustments are made to your CORE units in the campaign if they are destroyed. Though depending on the campaign, destroyed units can be replaced. The enemy units are not effected from mission to mission. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 The enemy units are not effected from mission to mission. Is there a way to do this though? It'd be an awesome twist to a campaign to reward authentically aggressive behavior, and would be a nice touch to see the enemy's third company only has six tanks because I killed four of them last mission. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Wenman Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Yeah you can have core units for both sides, but don't have to. I'm not sure of the structure of the Russian Campaign but I don't think thr UKR forces have a core, whereas for RT the Russians did have a core force and so destroying elements early on had a benefit later in the campaign. Edit to add I've just checked the design document for the Russian campaign in BS and there are no core units for the UKR forces. P Edited February 17, 2015 by Pete Wenman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Hmmm. There's no way to do this "directly"... I mean, not like it happens for the player's forces, which are somehow followed by the campaign system.. But, there could be a walkaround. The campaign designer could tailor, let's say, the first mission so that the player could score a certain victory only by Killing 10 out of 10 enemy tanks, and then add a branch to mission 2 where the enemy has no tank left... if the player doesn't reach the 10/10 the next mission will be one of a branch with 5 enemy tanks in it. Not an easy jos to do anyway. Also, considering that during a campaign you encounter different enemy formations, not just a single one, I belive a Whole lot of programming for this wouldn't have all that sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Cool. A pet peeve of mine in video games has always been as you progress, despite inflicting massive losses on the enemy, you always wind up facing a totally fresh enemy force that is in no way hindered by the death of several divisions worth of its comrades. It also adds incentive to playing out losing battles more because you may lose the battle of stan's farm or whatever, but if it cost the enemy two companies to do it vs your scout section, it should make tomorrow's fight less difficult, while you can still make the previous battle valuable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Wenman Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Hmmm. There's no way to do this "directly"... I mean, not like it happens for the player's forces, which are somehow followed by the campaign system.. No you can do it. P 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablius Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 "Back to the Wall" is brutal What I did was move the sole T-64 you are given, together with all three BMP-2s to the right flank and leave the left flank basically to fend for itself My logic was, I can`t defend both effectively, I might as well inflict as much damage as I can on one side, and for the most part it worked, the T-64 ended up with like 7 enemy vehicles knocked out, but only by defending from the internal lines, not at the front of the buildings, it survived, with some damage to tracks and optics and a rattled or broken moral Anyway, almost everyone but a squad died or panicked on the left flank and on the right remnants were few, I had to retake a couple of buildings the Russians managed to occupied when reinforcements came What I didn´t do, and maybe would have been better is give ground in an orderly fashion as suggested in the briefing, it should certainly take a better player than me to take the time to plan for all the proper coordination without killing everyone in the process and reloading a million times 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exsonic01 Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) "Back to the Wall" is brutal What I did was move the sole T-64 you are given, together with all three BMP-2s to the right flank and leave the left flank basically to fend for itself My logic was, I can`t defend both effectively, I might as well inflict as much damage as I can on one side, and for the most part it worked, the T-64 ended up with like 7 enemy vehicles knocked out, but only by defending from the internal lines, not at the front of the buildings, it survived, with some damage to tracks and optics and a rattled or broken moral Anyway, almost everyone but a squad died or panicked on the left flank and on the right remnants were few, I had to retake a couple of buildings the Russians managed to occupied when reinforcements came What I didn´t do, and maybe would have been better is give ground in an orderly fashion as suggested in the briefing, it should certainly take a better player than me to take the time to plan for all the proper coordination without killing everyone in the process and reloading a million times Agree. At the moment of Calvary arrival, I already lost more than half (around 70%) of initial troops. I tried to stop Russians in all fronts, but just fall backed a bit. My initial defensive perimeter was buildings around 100m behind the outermost wall of the factory (almost second and third line buildings), to lure Russian vehicles and infantry to my trap, and to evade from LOS of autocannon and tank shells. Problem was, they just came too many. My troops were all overwhelmed, just saved 12 story building. and south part of factory near that tall building. That was tough Edited February 18, 2015 by exsonic01 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Cool. A pet peeve of mine in video games has always been as you progress, despite inflicting massive losses on the enemy, you always wind up facing a totally fresh enemy force that is in no way hindered by the death of several divisions worth of its comrades. It also adds incentive to playing out losing battles more because you may lose the battle of stan's farm or whatever, but if it cost the enemy two companies to do it vs your scout section, it should make tomorrow's fight less difficult, while you can still make the previous battle valuable. I agree. But could this be addressed by campaign designers in a way similar to that suggested by Kieme? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.91b60a5bafb4dcb6f45c202eabcb3ba8.thumb.png.21ff5f518ecf2b01c5cc47825eb57414.png){kind=avatar}
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.