More Content

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

More Content

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> More Content

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

More Content - 11/13/2013 4:17:56 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

Given the choice between a longer campaign or two shorter ones which would you prefer?

Not the size of the battles, the length of the campaign. Would you rather, for instance, prefer two campaigns with 5 scenarios in it or one with 10?

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 11/13/2013 5:18:55 PM >

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

Post #: 1

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 4:40:21 PM

FroBodine

Posts: 872
Joined: 5/5/2007
From: Brentwood, California (not the OJ one)
Status: offline

I like long campaigns, so I vote for one campaign with 10 missions! Hoopla!

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 2

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 4:51:12 PM

JohnO

Posts: 268
Joined: 6/8/2005
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline

Me I would go with just five (5) scenarios per campaigns. But thats from a person who hasn't built a campaign yet.

I would also go for more campaigns then just one or two with a lot of scenarios to them.

But thats just my 2 cents worth

_____________________________

Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 3

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 4:53:06 PM

BlackMoria

Posts: 12
Joined: 10/7/2011
Status: offline

I have mixed feelings on that. Shorter campaigns but more of them does have the appeal of greater variety and diversity. A longer campaign has the advantage of player investment and identification with a particular unit, seeing it through most phases of the war to victory (or defeat). Not sure which way I am leaning on this just yet.

< Message edited by BlackMoria -- 11/13/2013 5:53:46 PM >

(in reply to FroBodine)

Post #: 4

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 5:07:33 PM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Well, depends, if the long campaign has the option to play both sides or not... if is not i prefer 2 shorter campaigns where you can play in both sides of the hill.

Ummm maybe this is a good point, add allways the 2 versions of the campaign, you can play as WP or NATO is a campaign where you start in a certain point with a side and push to the left or right

(in reply to BlackMoria)

Post #: 5

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 5:54:27 PM

stormbringer3

Posts: 875
Joined: 7/26/2007
From: Staunton, Va.
Status: offline

I vote for longer, but then I think that there should be some effect on the units involved. For example, if a particular unit is used scenario after scenario to fight without any R&R, there should be some kind of fatigue penalty.

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 6

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 6:04:48 PM

VilleYrjola

Posts: 115
Joined: 12/9/2009
Status: offline

How about both? Maybe two shorts first and one longer after those with no rush to push it out.

(in reply to stormbringer3)

Post #: 7

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 6:07:28 PM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Other option is have a big campaign divided in 2 parts, you can play "defensive part" and later "counterattack" or viceversa, you can start campaign in the middle or from the begining.

< Message edited by Hexagon -- 11/13/2013 7:07:55 PM >

(in reply to VilleYrjola)

Post #: 8

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 6:41:17 PM

Curious

Posts: 172
Joined: 8/22/2003
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Two short campaigns sounds better to me than one long campaign. There should be more variety that way. If a real WWIII had happened would a brigade (or whatever level organization) have survived 10 battles anyway?

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 9

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 7:11:25 PM

TheWombat_matrixforum

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

I like one long campaign, if it's paced right and you have a sort of dramatic arc, say from covering force through delaying actions to holding the line, and then transitioning to a counter attack.

(in reply to Curious)

Post #: 10

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 7:56:16 PM

trebcourie

Posts: 301
Joined: 2/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curious

Two short campaigns sounds better to me than one long campaign. There should be more variety that way. If a real WWIII had happened would a brigade (or whatever level organization) have survived 10 battles anyway?

Pretty unlikely considered the lethality of the "modern" battlefield. I think that's why, in the Soviet campaign, you're facing West German territorial forces. A first echelon Soviet brigade or division would probably only last a day or two before it was combat ineffective, at which point the next echelon would roll in and maintain the attack.

(in reply to Curious)

Post #: 11

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 10:55:33 PM

tide1530

Posts: 103
Joined: 4/15/2011
Status: offline

I would like the shorter.

(in reply to trebcourie)

Post #: 12

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 11:14:13 PM

TheWombat_matrixforum

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curious

Two short campaigns sounds better to me than one long campaign. There should be more variety that way. If a real WWIII had happened would a brigade (or whatever level organization) have survived 10 battles anyway?

Pretty unlikely considered the lethality of the "modern" battlefield. I think that's why, in the Soviet campaign, you're facing West German territorial forces. A first echelon Soviet brigade or division would probably only last a day or two before it was combat ineffective, at which point the next echelon would roll in and maintain the attack.

No reason though why a campaign couldn't put you in charge of a battlegroup that might start out as one nation but eventually become a mixed force. Well, once they put that capability in the game, I guess :).

(in reply to trebcourie)

Post #: 13

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 11:39:07 PM

budd

Posts: 2972
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

more shorter ones for variety.

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)

Post #: 14

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 11:50:09 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Well, depends, if the long campaign has the option to play both sides or not... if is not i prefer 2 shorter campaigns where you can play in both sides of the hill.

Ummm maybe this is a good point, add allways the 2 versions of the campaign, you can play as WP or NATO is a campaign where you start in a certain point with a side and push to the left or right

Campaigns can only be played from one side. By their very nature I wouldn't expect you to see the same campaign done from two different sides.

Having said that, you guys feel free to create whatever you like.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 15

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 11:51:43 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stormbringer3

I vote for longer, but then I think that there should be some effect on the units involved. For example, if a particular unit is used scenario after scenario to fight without any R&R, there should be some kind of fatigue penalty.

At the end of each battle there is a restoration phase. You determine how long they rest. Which determines how much of your fallen out forces are brought back to strength. At the same time the rest of the unit is 'resting'.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to stormbringer3)

Post #: 16

RE: More Content - 11/13/2013 11:54:52 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curious

Two short campaigns sounds better to me than one long campaign. There should be more variety that way. If a real WWIII had happened would a brigade (or whatever level organization) have survived 10 battles anyway?

Pretty unlikely considered the lethality of the "modern" battlefield. I think that's why, in the Soviet campaign, you're facing West German territorial forces. A first echelon Soviet brigade or division would probably only last a day or two before it was combat ineffective, at which point the next echelon would roll in and maintain the attack.

No reason though why a campaign couldn't put you in charge of a battlegroup that might start out as one nation but eventually become a mixed force. Well, once they put that capability in the game, I guess :).

At the moment the reason that couldn't happen is that only one nation's forces can be in the OOB for a side at any one time.

With the difficulty in implementation I wouldn't expect to see multiple nations forces in a battle any time soon.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 11/14/2013 12:55:51 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)

Post #: 17

RE: More Content - 11/14/2013 12:25:47 AM

TheWombat_matrixforum

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curious

Two short campaigns sounds better to me than one long campaign. There should be more variety that way. If a real WWIII had happened would a brigade (or whatever level organization) have survived 10 battles anyway?

Pretty unlikely considered the lethality of the "modern" battlefield. I think that's why, in the Soviet campaign, you're facing West German territorial forces. A first echelon Soviet brigade or division would probably only last a day or two before it was combat ineffective, at which point the next echelon would roll in and maintain the attack.

No reason though why a campaign couldn't put you in charge of a battlegroup that might start out as one nation but eventually become a mixed force. Well, once they put that capability in the game, I guess :).

At the moment the reason that couldn't happen is that only one nation's forces can be in the OOB for a side at any one time.

With the difficulty in implementation I wouldn't expect to see multiple nations forces in a battle any time soon.

Good Hunting.

MR