Continuity from battle to battle.

[Callahan]

Can anyone tell me exactly how much "continuity" will there be between battles ?

As one particular skirmish or battle takes place within a compaign, will fatalities, loss of tanks and equipment, etc., carry over into the next skirmish or battle and the need to thoughtfully use points to make up for any losses be part of the ongoing planning?

[ChrisND]

Can anyone tell me exactly how much "continuity" will there be between battles ?

As one particular skirmish or battle takes place within a compaign, will fatalities, loss of tanks and equipment, etc., carry over into the next skirmish or battle and the need to thoughtfully use points to make up for any losses be part of the ongoing planning?

Loss of personnel, damage to equipment and vehicles, ammunition expenditure, and morale/fatigue state are all separately tracked between battles and throughout a campaign. These can be replenished at varying rates, based on what the campaign designer has specified. So, at one extreme, you could have a campaign where nothing gets replaced/fixed, and on the other end you could have everything fixed and replaced. It can also vary for each scenario in the battle. So you could have one battle where nothing is fixed, and after the next battle everything is. Or anything in between.

There are no points or other resources for the player to spend to replenish their forces. It happens automatically between battles.

[Erik Springelkamp]

And some forces in a battle of a campaign are not part of the campaign force, they only take part in this particular battle.

If you know who they are, they are the ones to sacrifice, if you have to.

[Callahan]

Loss of personnel, damage to equipment and vehicles, ammunition expenditure, and morale/fatigue state are all separately tracked between battles and throughout a campaign. These can be replenished at varying rates, based on what the campaign designer has specified. So, at one extreme, you could have a campaign where nothing gets replaced/fixed, and on the other end you could have everything fixed and replaced. It can also vary for each scenario in the battle. So you could have one battle where nothing is fixed, and after the next battle everything is. Or anything in between.

There are no points or other resources for the player to spend to replenish their forces. It happens automatically between battles.

Fascinating and, to me, wonderful: Randomness and no guarantees of what might happen - just like RL.

Sems to me this actually opens up the anticipated delight of a complete "non-linear" experience when a scenario/battle is re-fought again and again?

Am I, therefore, right to assume so? The actual total absence of any linear path gives the game the ultimate in replayability.

Goodbye, my future.

[phil stanbridge]

The campaigns could probably be classed as semi-dynamic. There is a certain amount of linearity (is that a word?) within the structure of a campaign just as in Shock Force. ie one mission progresses to the next if you are successful, similar or the same force make-up and so on and so forth, but there are certain random factors in that involved too. Am I right in thinking the AI might also have different plans per battle? That can make things interesting in Shock Force. Although you may know exactly what units the enemy has at its disposal, you might not necessarily know when you will face them. I've played most of the Shock Force campaigns several times, and even though I recognise the battles I replay, the AI positions its forces differently in the most part.

[Callahan]

And some forces in a battle of a campaign are not part of the campaign force, they only take part in this particular battle.

If you know who they are, they are the ones to sacrifice, if you have to.

May I ask this: Will there be individual names to (some) soldiers, sergeants, teams etc., and if so, will the fatalities etc., individually or collectively be recorded automatically? Or would that be too "picky" technically to be an ongoing part of a battle? It certainly would be very fulfilling to be able to follow the "career" of a particular soldier or unit.

My thanks for your informative replies.

[mjkerner]

Am I right in thinking the AI might also have different plans per battle? That can make things interesting in Shock Force. Although you may know exactly what units the enemy has at its disposal, you might not necessarily know when you will face them. I've played most of the Shock Force campaigns several times, and even though I recognise the battles I replay, the AI positions its forces differently in the most part.

It looks like it, phil...don't imagine they'd step back from that in this title. If scenario designers take the time, and make multiple AI plans for both sides in their scenarios, even one-off battles can be played repeatedly with different results.

I'm hoping that's the case with the two scenarios we're getting with the Demo--one of the testers already has said that the scenarios have plans for both sides...I just don't know if each side has multiple plans. Since I'll be playing them over and over until the game arrives, I sure hope so!

[Juju]

And some forces in a battle of a campaign are not part of the campaign force, they only take part in this particular battle.

If you know who they are, they are the ones to sacrifice, if you have to.

In the manual it says you never know exactly which units are your core units. But it wouldn't be that difficult to remember/jot down the names of platoon/squad leaders and see if they join subsequent battles. Gamey, of course. but how is this 'flaw' handled by the game?

[ChrisND]

I'm hoping that's the case with the two scenarios we're getting with the Demo--one of the testers already has said that the scenarios have plans for both sides...I just don't know if each side has multiple plans. Since I'll be playing them over and over until the game arrives, I sure hope so!

AFAIK, they both have multiple AI plans for each side, and I know for a fact that both are fun from either side;)

[Narsus]

Even better, the Manuel says you can rename your units, does this carry over in the campaign? Even if it does, from what Battlefront has said, some core units come and go throughout the campaign so you could never be certain who wasn't a core unit, only certain who was.

[ChrisND]

In the manual it says you never know exactly which units are your core units. But it wouldn't be that difficult to remember/jot down the names of platoon/squad leaders and see if they join subsequent battles. Gamey, of course. but how is this 'flaw' handled by the game?

It depends on the construction of the campaign. Sometimes it is easy to tell who is core, sometimes not.

[mjkerner]

AFAIK, they both have multiple AI plans for each side, and I know for a fact that both are fun from either side;)

Stop teasing!

[JonS]

I'm hoping that's the case with the two scenarios we're getting with the Demo--one of the testers already has said that the scenarios have plans for both sides...I just don't know if each side has multiple plans. Since I'll be playing them over and over until the game arrives, I sure hope so!

Use the time now to line up a PBEM opponent.

[Vanir Ausf B]

There are no points or other resources for the player to spend to replenish their forces.

It would be really cool if there was.

[Erik Springelkamp]

In the manual it says you never know exactly which units are your core units. But it wouldn't be that difficult to remember/jot down the names of platoon/squad leaders and see if they join subsequent battles. Gamey, of course. but how is this 'flaw' handled by the game?

And there are scenario makers who tell you exactly what your campaign forces are.

Sergei, for example, made a campaign for CMSF, where in the second battle the briefing advised you to use the attached police forces as cannon fodder.

Paper Tiger also made scenarios with a very detailed background story, and instructions for each battle on how to deal with casualties, when to be careful, and when you would receive replacements and refits.