Campaign replay value

[Bruce70]

The single player campaign will probably be the main way I play CM:SF, but unfortunately the demo isn't likely to give me any idea about the campaign system. So I am hoping BFC will answer a few questions, although some of them may be a little too soon for a definitive answer.

1. How many battles will make up a typical campaign?

2. Given that the campaign is somewhat dynamic, how many battles will the campaign system comprise in total? (relative to 1. will be OK)

3. What degree of randomness is involved? It would be a shame if, when you replay the campaign, you say to yourself "I know if I win this battle I will be ambushed on the next" or "I know the next battle is difficult so I need to be ultra conservative in this battle".

4. Will there be more than one campaign in the initial distribution?

5. For a given battle, will the enemy foce composition and intial deployment vary each time it is played?

Thanks.

[Bruce70]

bump... because it's onto the second page already and Steve is probably not even out of bed

[Treeburst155]

Given that the campaign is against the AI, I would say replay value is.....um.......practically zilch. The first time through might be great fun however.

Treeburst155 out.

[Dillweed]

So has it been confirmed that there will be only 1 campaign? I remember steve saying that there will be a "beginner campaign" to ease people in. Hopefully that is not the only one. Also has it beem confirmed that there will not be a syrian camp?

[ October 10, 2005, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Dillweed ]

[aka_tom_w]

good question

How many campaigns?

how about replayability?

curious?

:confused:

thanks

-tom w

[Dillweed]

I myself would love to play a campaign as the syrians. Always favored the underdogs. I can imagine it now. Slowly falling back, hitting the imperialist pigs when you can.

[Battlefront.com]

We are not sure what the exact size or length of the campaign will be. We'll also have to wait and see how many campaigns we do. There will be at least two though, with one being a shorter "orientation" campaign. Since nobody is familiar with the game system, and few are really solid on the subject matter (or at the very least how we portray it), we do expect that nearly everybody will play the orientation campign. We'll make that very fun to play, so no worries about things like "this is a gun, it goes boom on this end when you press this thing here" sort of tutorial like some games.

Steve

[Bruce70]

OK I thought it would be too early for Q1, Q2 and to some extent Q4 (glad to hear that there will be at least 2 camapaigns though), but...

Any thoughts on Q3 and Q5?

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We are not sure what the exact size or length of the campaign will be. We'll also have to wait and see how many campaigns we do. There will be at least two though, with one being a shorter "orientation" campaign. Since nobody is familiar with the game system, and few are really solid on the subject matter (or at the very least how we portray it), we do expect that nearly everybody will play the orientation campign. We'll make that very fun to play, so no worries about things like "this is a gun, it goes boom on this end when you press this thing here" sort of tutorial like some games.

Steve

Cool beans. So no, "this end twords enamy" stuff? They actually put that on the AT4. After I saw that, I thought the US army should put that on all thier stuff. I can see it being pretty amusing if on the main gun of an Abrams, for example. Hmm, I smell a mod.

[Battlefront.com]

For a given battle, will the enemy foce composition and intial deployment vary each time it is played?

Not like you are thinking. Deployment is hardcoded because to do otherwise would mess up the scenario's victory condition scripting. It might be possible that a unit might or might not show up, or show up differently (i.e. damaged or not damaged), but it will always show up in the same spot. However, the way in which the forces conduct themselves can range from accidentally different to purposefully different, depending on various factors.

The Campaigns, however, are not designed to be replayed. They will be more replayable than something like an RTS or FPS game would offer, but not radically. There are some good reasons for hadcoding this stuff into the scenario besides trying to avoid showing how little AI programming the game has in it.

Steve

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There are some good reasons for hadcoding this stuff into the scenario besides trying to avoid showing how little AI programming the game has in it.

Ummm . . . does that mean there won't be significant improvements in AI performance for this one?

Or are you referring to a different kind of AI than the tactical AI we have come to know and love/hate?

Steve

[Bruce70]

OK I can live with that, but depending on the answers to 1 and 2 the campaign can still be replayable. For example, if there are X battles in a typical campaign, but the campaign system comprises say 3X battles, then the campaign would still throw a few surprises at you for quite a few replays. This would be especially true if there is some randomness to the way battles are chosen by the campaign system. If the order in which the battles are experienced also changes then that could also add to the replayability.

Of course the downside for BFC is that they may spend a lot of effort on some battles that are very rarely played. No downside for me though...

[Battlefront.com]

Nah, I meant other games hardcode scenarios in part, more than not, to hide the fact that there is little to no AI going on. Simple trigger points and carefully considered placement of units. That sort of thing. This is one thing that some people, like me, usually think of first when they think campaigns. But there are other more "legit" benefits to doing it this way.

Steve