DavidFields Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 As is common, I am not asking this as a morality question. But my guess is that some players are unwilling to do this--will play until they win, perhaps play until they get a total victory, or be frustrated and stop. This matters, I would guess, with scenario designers. I almost feel as though there should be some sort of hint from the scenario designer that a romp is not likely or even desirable. (I think in Courage and Fortitude, second scenario, the designer did a good job implying that, but maybe not everyone got the message.) Indeed, though it seems the CM1 campaign style of releasing reserve formations at certain degrees of loss is not here (right?), can one design a CMBN campaign where it is better to take....perhaps a small loss......for a stronger position in a later scenario? My point is that of clear communication: people should have a great time playing CMBN, so different types of players could best make their wishes explicit, and the scenario descriptions would be matchable to those wishes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I have a sneaky suspision that most are not willing. That is why I read in some threads how some scenarios are easy and that the designer should crank up the difficulty. But I ask, at what difficulty setting are these players playing at? After all, there are five different levels for the player to choose from, basic to iron. And as for scenario designers, do they keep a certain level of level play in mind when they design the scenario? Maybe they should make a comment like, if you play at veteran and below it will be an easy going, but this scenario was designed for elite or iron mode of play. I myself prefer to lose a scenario and admit that I lost. I come back to it, after I play some other scenarios, with a new approach and energy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidFields Posted June 1, 2011 Author Share Posted June 1, 2011 The issue has practical consequences for the campaign designers and campaigns in CMBN going forward. As I see it, the campaign construction in CMBN can be very elegent, with lots of branching, but that won't matter much if almost everyone declines to ever lose a scenario. Personally, I see it as a preference and communication issue. The designer giving the player some of what he was thinking, and how it might optimally be played, likely will save a lot of frustration. Even with single scenarios, there are the "puzzles" and the "work it through on generally principles completely blind." Some of the latter ones will be very easy if one loads, reloads, or knows approximately what/where the enemy units are (even with variable AI), and some of the former ones will be essentially impossible on the "blind" first go. [ie: having to know that one has to indirectly fire on, for example, certain locations in a certain order, because of limited ammo, to have a chance of succeeding] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Road to Dinas campaign in CMSF, if you won everysingle battle the end ones got harder and harder, fantastic design by Papertiger! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I play Elite difficulty...no more no less....Paper Tiger scenarios are pure gems... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I am willing to loose a scenario. Sometimes this just makes the next games so much better because of an emotional investment. Used to reboot from saves when I lost a guy or 4 from a silly Tac AI decission. But that is rare these days. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antig3n Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Used to reboot from saves when I lost a guy or 4 from a silly Tac AI decission. But that is rare these days. I am doing this a lot with the CMBN campaigns. I don't like doing it but I'm scared of getting to a later mission and having sustained too many casualties to complete, and then having to replay all those missions again. Especially when you don't have much time to play, just an hour or two every other night. Thats basically the point where you end the campaign early and feel like you wasted all that time getting to the point you're at since you can't continue. This is happening to me in the Road to Monteburg so in Panzer Marsch I'm conserving life as much as possible, even if it means playing through the mission over and over again. I admit that it's actually kind of sapping some of the fun out of it. Feels gamey. Strange. But what else can you do? Maybe I should just stick to single battles till I have more time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.