hobo Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 First, I really like the game. I will admit some frustration with lack of waypoints and general control issues but these are minor when compared to the beauty and depth of the game. Many thanks to 1C and BFC for bringing it to market. My biggest wish is that the campaigns were more fluid and not just a set of linked missions. If I am about to get killed by an unexpected attack or botched an attack myself, I want to be able to do a fighting withdrawal and save my men for another day. As far as I can tell, there is no way to end a battle unless there is a complete victory for one side. In the polish campaign we had a Mexican standoff. The Germans would not press their attack and I was too weak to attack them. The gamne idled for an hour or two while I ran some errands and nothing moved. It would be nice to have ended the battle in a draw and let both sides re-equip and go at it again. In CM we manually created a campaign system where we tracked experience points and played a series of random battles to simulate a campaign. It was clunky but it worked and was a lot of fun. I eventually stopped playing CM because I got tired of the single missions and grew weary of all the manual spreadsheets. TOW seems to have all the elements that CM missed for a great campaign with the exception of random battles. Does anybody else agree with me and do you think the game has the flexibility to create a fluid campaign? - Hobo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I took a look at the editor, and there are so many possibilities... I can't wait till serious scenario/campaign design begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molo Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I agree completely about ending missions. It's ridiculous... I've had to restart at least one campaign mission (the British farm defense one) three times in order to end it, because the enemy was quite literally not visible. Trolling the map with every unit I had didn't reveal them, and all mission goals (except the "fend off the German assault) were complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 molo, sounds like a bug with the mission scripting to me. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molo Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 If that's the case, then it's a bug in half the missions' scripting. I've seriously had this happen more times than I can count, and I've worked my way through most or all missions in the Allied, French, German, and Russian campaigns. I gave up on the Polish campaign for a while because of the same issue after two missions, but I'm going to try it again once there's a patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lmgroth Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I wonder if the mission editor triggers can be used to help determine a reasonable scenario end point? Perhaps in much the same way that the triggers determine at what point reinforcements should arrive and when, they could be used to decide at what point a scenario should end. I suppose it is debatable if triggers should be making that kind of decision for the player... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avwriter Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I would like to see smaller timeframe between the battles. I would also like to see branching campaigns, where victories and defeats affect more than just assets. For example (a crudely simple one), if you are playing the German side and win a major battle in Poland, you would perhaps move on to Belgium or Dunkirk etc, but if you loose the battle, you will face a different battle in Poland before moving on. I don't know if the mission editor supports the possibility of creating campaigns in this manner, but I hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molo Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I think that while comparisons with the Close Combat series are often poorly-applied to TOW, as far as the campaign and victory standards go they're justified. In Close Combat, you can 1) surrender and withdraw, 2) cease fire and continue at a later period, 3) lose, or 4) win. The win/loss conditions depend on combatant strength and morale - if my forces are getting mowed down, and the enemy remains strong, then they're not likely to accept a cease-fire. On the other hand, if the enemy is getting rocked, they may surrender or withdraw due to force strength or morale. As far as I know, I've seen individual TOW units rout (that's the little Running Man icon, right?). If a small enough percentage of the original force remains, or if enough units have routed, shouldn't that satisfy win conditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeboy Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 timed mission wouldend thjis nonsence, and Almost all the wins I get come after tracking down some lone enemy soilder, kinda silly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lmgroth Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Originally posted by molo: ...As far as I know, I've seen individual TOW units rout (that's the little Running Man icon, right?). If a small enough percentage of the original force remains, or if enough units have routed, shouldn't that satisfy win conditions? I would think triggers could be written for these types of outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 Agree, there should be a manual and forced retreat for the human. The key is what happens next? Could you still fight over that hill tomorrow or would you be forced to teleport to some other pre-determined battle. - Hobo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts