Campaign missions very easy?

[Hukka]

Does anyone else find campaign missions very easy? I've played 5 missions now and only once I've had some real resistance from the Syrian side, and that was on the second mission.

Other than that, I've completed missions with very few to none casualties on my side. I've been playing with veteran difficulty. I feel like I'm having way too much and too powerful units on my side.

Many times half of my units hasn't even taken any part in the combat. I know that is the way it's kind of supposed to be, it's US vs. Syria after all, but game-wise it isn't so fun.

Are the missions getting harder or should I expect to walk through the other missions as easy? Or am I only too good?

BTW, how is the elite level? I haven't tried it yet. Do you find it more fun than veteran?

I must say, I'm still having lots of fun with the game and really waiting for the next patches which will hopefully squeeze the largest and ugliest bugs from the game.

[metalbrew]

I had no serious difficulty in the campaign on elite. The AI plans put no pressure on me.

I thought most of the campaign missions were too heavily based on "Ah-Ha!" factor.

"The Air Force bombed this area and they think they got all the bad guys, go in a make sure. Here's a couple of TOW equipped Strykers just in case... Ah-Ha! Surprise! There's 14 T-62s no one noticed popping out of nowhere. Good thing we gave you the heavily foreshadowed TOW equipped Strykers..."

The predictable AI and scripted nature of AI movement makes for very boring combat. Since much of the AI is broken now I'll give it a chance in future patches too, but I think the AI is just too brain dead to provide any challenge. The only real chance for a challenging red vs. blue engagement with the AI playing red is to give the Syrians a huge numbers advantage and go with the "The Air Force is napping, go clear out that village..." storyline. Even that is boring after a while.

Seeing the AI as it is makes me wish for a more capable red force. One with BMP3s, T80s, T90s, Soviet designed airpower, and copious artillery of it's own. The more I think about it, I just want better play balance for multiplayer games and I really care less about an accurate Syrian inventory. The Syrian angle is boring and short lived. If QBs ever get fixed I'll probably end up playing red vs. red and blue vs. blue just to get some balance.

I venture a guess that one of the big draws (for fans and players) for including the Brits and Germans eventually is so players will have a properly equipped enemy to fight. Since the whole thing is fiction anyway, include the Russians too. I don't really care what premise the Russians arrive, as long as they bring their armor and infantry.

[jomni]

call me stupid but i stumped the 1st mission and the airport mission.

[monkeezgob]

Campaign missions are wayyyyy too easy. Enemy AI is positively passive. Predictible scripting just as bad as TOW and ruins any replayability. Not much of a tactical challenge.

[Feltan]

I am playing on Elite WEGO.

Second mission is tough for sure. Some of the later ones are challenging, but only if your goal is to minimize U.S. losses. Also, some of the victory conditions are not well stated -- so you think you are completing the mission, but get graded on something not in the mission order.

Gotta keep casualties low. When a Stryker gets nailed with the dismounts inside, I can't help but think that some limp-wristed wanker from CNN is there with a camera to tell the tale of American incompetence and how it is all Bush's and Rumsfeld's fault; and then cut to scene with Pelosi in tears and Harry Reid looking for his testosterone pills in a news conference.

Regards,

Feltan

[Thomm]

What I miss so far (I am around mission 14 or so) is a T-something tank keyholed in a side street with an infantry screen around it. Or perhaps a couple of them forming an urban strong point.

Most of the time the red tanks attack over open ground and are dead within 50 meters of their spawning points.

Still, I have to say that there is a lot of suspense in each mission, even though, in retrospect, resistance is light most of the time!

Unfortunately, we have to consider that the missions were designed with a beta version of the game, perhaps even under time pressure; so it is safe to say the real gems will be made by the community during the next months.

Also, it appears as if BFC did not want to twist reality too much just for providing more challenge, so perhaps the game just shows what an actual invader would have to expect.

Still wondering about those keyholed tanks, though, or tanks hidden in garages, or somesuch!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Hukka]

Originally posted by Feltan:

Also, some of the victory conditions are not well stated -- so you think you are completing the mission, but get graded on something not in the mission order.

Yes I suffered from this also in my 5th (or was it 6th) mission where I had to capture hotel buildings at the west edge of the map. I did all I was asked for and I proposed cease-fire. I score only a minor victory as I hadn't wiped all the enemy forces off the map. I only lost one bradley in the fight.

[patrik pass]

for me are campaign missions nicely balanced. im playing on elite and in real time. when i have more than one dead and one wounded soldier, im trying again. i think - its easy to win, but its quite challenging to win without dead soldiers.

what i dont like on some missions - teleporting fresh enemy units very near your units(on the borders of maps.) sometimes are enemy soldiers and jeeps appearing in the middle of US units and thats for me quite unrealistic.

[Hukka]

Originally posted by patrik pass:

when i have more than one dead and one wounded soldier, im trying again. i think - its easy to win, but its quite challenging to win without dead soldiers.

Some people have weird tastes what is fun and what is not.

[patrik pass]

yes. youre right. for me its quite realistic. for US is very important keeping looses as low as possible(public opinion etc)

i believ, that creators of campaign missions had this option in mind

[Hukka]

Originally posted by patrik pass:

yes. youre right. for me its quite realistic. for US is very important keeping looses as low as possible(public opinion etc)

i believ, that creators of campaign missions had this option in mind

In that case I think the WIAs and KIAs would weigh more on the US side in victory conditions.

edit: And sorry, I didn't mean to offend you any way.

[molotov_billy]

Airport mission was fun, everything else was a snoozer. And yes, the only "challenge" provided came in the form of silly scenario tricks - tanks spawning at the edge of the map that would have been spotted from a mile away, etc etc.

I played the red on red chechnya user-created scenario that was recently posted - and that was the first really enjoyable scenario I've played so far, other than the airport mission. Give it a try if you're bored.

[metalbrew]

While it's true that the US needs to keep casualties low, the standards are quite different for an all out conventional war vs a security mission like Iraq. The political considerations that require very low casualties during a security mission aren't there for all out war. We obviously don't want huge casualties but our tolerance for them is much higher during something like this fiction invasion of Syria.

My point is, replaying large scenarios until you can get by with only one or two casualties isn't necessarily very realistic. Play the game how you wish though.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

I played the red on red chechnya user-created scenario that was recently posted - and that was the first really enjoyable scenario I've played so far, other than the airport mission. Give it a try if you're bored.

I think you might like the tactical vignette scenarios included with the game. The 2 included were very good. I think the Chechnya scenario is comparable.

[Calvin]

Boy, do I suck worse than I ever imagined!

[Paper Tiger]

Calvin: LOL. Just think of all the fun you're going to have learning to beat the AI in the months to come though.