Dissappointed with stock Campaigns....

[Charlie901]

Overall this is a great game and has the potential to be truly outstanding.

However, I'm finding the stock Campaigns severly lacking. I appreciate the scope of ToW in it's Campaigns and the battles themselves are outstanding. Unfortunately I'm playing the German Campaign right now and am getting only one battle for each Front during the war... :confused:

I guess I'm just spoiled by the CM series of Campaigns which were centered on specific battles or Operations.

In ToW it's kind of silly, IMHO, to be able to carry troops/equipment over when the battles are months or even years apart on totally different Fronts...

It would have been better IMO if these Campain Battles were just made individual missions until some proper Operational Campaigns centered on specific Battles and dates could be combined.

For instance... instead of fighting the Invasion of Poland one battle of the campaign and then fighting through the Dunkirk Defenses during the Battle of France during the next....

How about having a Campaign just center on the Invasion of Poland or the Battle of France with each seperate Campaign containing about 5-10 individual key battles.

It sounds like the upcomming Battle for Moscow Campaign will hopefully have about 5 battles for each side and I hope that this will be the future standard for ToW Campaign structures.

Now bring on that 10+ Kursk Salient Campaign!!!

[Pandur]

i think the best scope for that game would be when you set a operation over 2-4 weeks as a campain.

so you can even have defending scenario at onemap, than a meeting engagement where you have to reach the end of the map whith enemys coming towards you on the SAME map. when you made it, it could be stroy whise explained in breifing that you marched to the next town/area whatever and you have to attack this town and than hold it again and so on, depending on campain design.

that would be a good scope to give your soldiers expirience and to carry em on in my opinion.

well, i hope we see such stuff when the community isnt too turned off my the editor

[Sneaksie]

Originally posted by Charlie901:

Battle for Moscow Campaign will hopefully have about 5 battles for each side

Battle for Moscow would be playable only from Russian side i suppose.

[Silencer]

both sides will be able to play Moscow

[FinnN]

If I had to pick one thing that I like the least about ToW, it's the campaigns. They jump all over the place, in some of the battles none of your forces carry over to the next but reappear in later missions, you have to win to proceed (unless you turn on the cheaty ignore campaign loss option), you constantly face overwhelming odds (although I found the French campaign on hard a walkthrough for some reason), ahistorical OOBs, crude reinforcements, bugged victory conditions, etc - the list goes on. It's not quite so bad that I'm not enjoying it, but I have little desire to replay the campaigns as they stand now. The Moscow campaign looks to be a lot better, I really hope it puts more emphasis on tactics rather than wave after wave of 'cool stuff'.

Have fun

Finn

[Jippo]

I wish we will see user made campaigns in teh future much like CC-series has. I have the same complaints about the campaign, as I think that a shorter timespan would be far more immersive. Short time with limited resupply would make troop "role playing part" in the units menu far more rewarding, and would encourage saving troops in missions also.

Also there could be more variance with the difficulty of individual battles: do well on a mission, and the follow-up reflects your success as e.g. weak resistance. Maybe then next one after that could have enemy reinforcements pouring in again. This is definately something to look forward to from the community.

[Silencer]

Why can't there be a game the is a mix of Hearts of Iron 2 for strategical and TOW for tactical.

Close combat 4&5 did it already on a small scale. Rome TW and Medieval 2 do it a bit further.

The only game that I know of, but only navy sadly, is Pacific Storm. (production, research, supply etc and tactical combat)

[ June 04, 2007, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: Silencer ]

[FinnN]

Close Combat 2 (The Arnhem one) was perfect in this regard I think. On a bigger scale lots of flight sims also have it - the now ancient Red Baron 3D I guess being known as the best example.

Interestingly I think this is could be possible by writing an external campaign engine, but it'd be a shed load of work. All the supply/reinforcements/force and map selection stuff would probably be quite easy to program, but writing routines to place these units on sensible positions on the maps and giving them a set of scripted orders that made sense and responded to player actions and in an even vaguely sensible way would be a nightmare (I suspect).

Have fun

Finn

[SlapHappy]

I think the scripting language needs to be elevated to a higher order by simplifying routine tasks in an easier to use format.

This would speed up the design process. Unfortunately one of the current things missing is an input dialog for the editor.

[pad152]

The missions are fun, but there is not much sense of a campaign. I wish there was different naming of the core units and the same core units would carry over from mission to mission.

[Charlie901]

Guys,

I think we're getting way off track here!!!!

Like I said initially a lot could be done to improve the Campaigns if they just focused on one Battle or Operation on one front at a time...i.e.

For the Germans:

Poland invasion

France invasion

Moscow

Stalingrad (encirclement and rescue attempt)

Kursk

Seelow Heights

D-Day

Battle of Bulge

Each one of these listed could be it's own seperate campaign with approx 10 battles each.

This alone would go a long way to improve the game and the way units get carried over...

Then the option to carry core units over from one campaign to the next in historical order would be the next step in improving things further.