Player Preferences: Operations vs Individual Scenarios

[dfgardner]

CM community, which do you prefer: Operations consisting of several battles or individual scenarios?

Personally, when playing a "human" opponent, my preference is towards the Operations. I like the fact that the results of each battle can impact the forces available for the next one.

How does the AI do in Operations?

[Croda]

I tend to like individual scenarios or QBs. This is mostly due to time, and finishing what was started (which can take forever with PBEMs), but also since operation AARs are not always accurate and the fact that when starting subsequent missions in an operation, your carefully constructed troop placements must be re-created, which is very annoying. I had to set up my defenses anew every mission in the Arnhem Operation...this was horribly annoying. Scernarios and QBs are quick and painful.

------------------

"Nuts!"

[CavScout]

I prefer Operations as well and hope the "results screen" will be fixed soon. As for the AI, it is really no different than in the single games. I tend to do better because, in ops, I have more time.

[Dick Reece]

I prefer operations, for the very same reasons you've posted,and because it allows one the opportunity to lose a battle, but still win the "campaign".

Dick

[Guest ckoharik]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dfgardner:

CM community, which do you prefer: Operations consisting of several battles or individual scenarios?

Personally, when playing a "human" opponent, my preference is towards the Operations. I like the fact that the results of each battle can impact the forces available for the next one.

How does the AI do in Operations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I prefer the Operations, especially when playing humans. The AI does a decent job, but just doesn't have that suprise capability.