Campaign structure?

[TuuSaR]

Are missions just linked in continuum or does winning matter in any other way than collecting game points? Can player influence outcome(or next battle) or is war lost or won strictly based on history?

And yes I think I know the answer already but I just have to ask because its always bit funny that company X says "we make best game ever!!!" and in next sentence "well we are small company, lacking money and personal, sorry cant do"

So no hard feelings, going to buy it regardless

[sebastian]

I would love to see at least something like the stategic map in Close Combat, and not just a linear bunch of missions. Especially if you have a limited amount of maps (like in CC and ToW), you can create a lot of playtime, if the player can loose a battle, be forced off the map, then attack the same map from a different direction.

I remember CC-battles where I had to hold a map with a bunch of intantry, against tanks. I knew I could not win, I just wanted to survive and cause as much damage, as possible to the enemy. Because it all counted for the strategic situation. This was fun!

The strategic level was very motivating. Games that mix tactical battles with a strategic level, are the most addictive ones.

[Madmatt]

Currently, there are 5 campaigns (UK/US, Polish, French, German, USSR) and each campaign has between 3 and 13 pre-set battles that you play through. Progression is linear, and success is required (at least as of right now) to proceed to the next battle.

We are looking at the possibility of some changes to the current system implemented, but its too early to comment on that.

Madmatt

[TuuSaR]

Thanks for quick reply. Close combat 3 map system would be fun for multiplay.

[Megakill]

Let me also check with the guys on that - but I believe that your progress also depends on how well you play - like what units you can get in the next mission, etc, etc. There are rewards for good playing.