|
Scorpion_sk -> (1/15/2002 5:56:00 AM)
|
Good points, WB and Grumble.
Now, like I said, Iīm not bored by the MCs at all-oh no, thatīs why I ordered all of them.
However this was just a bit of positive critical feedback to keep in mind for future endeavors. Sure-itīll take a lot of work and creativity to create entirely new, but feasible "what if"-scenarios on a larger scale (like you said, for example: Rommel in Caucasus)
Itīs a part of designing to make these hypothetical scenarios and conclusions feasible from a historical point of view too.
More "representation" by the player, bigger forces (and thus fewer, bigger battles on a larger time frame) and smaller, or smaller, more clearly defined operations (like the Battle of the Bulge) should be some of the options to make it possible for the historical "loser" to turn the tables (which Iīm pretty sure many of us want to do).
Another good option thatīd enable the one of the future campaigns (be it for whatever engine, CL or CA or another game) to be very dynamical would be to give up on scripted battles, and use a powerful battle generator to create the battles in the campaign.
However, itīd be up to the campaign designer to write the situational briefings and other documentation, and enable a dynamic campaign map (With supply lines etc.)
and script all the campaign happenings (hypothetical or those that have a historical basis) and use them as a guideline for modifying the settings of the battlemaker for each battle (points, nationality, terrain, mission etc. etc.)
Thus scenarios would always have an impact on the campaign (losses would cause the losing side to be weaker until replaced or reinfoced, major victories or a string of moderate ones would cause ground to be won/lost, whatever....and the player could still make the kind of choices that are in the MCs).
Do you catch my drift?
This, in my mind, would enable the campaign to go on until a conclusion, be it for good or bad, could be achieved, and itīd enable Rommel to take the Canal....and go beyond it.
Iīm continuing to have fun with the MCs and hope you have fun designing campaigns in the future, too. Theyīre very important parts of the wargame for me (I canīt stay interested in single scenarios...multiplaying excepted) and for many of us, too.
Still, I donīt think Iīll be returning to the desert anytime soon after Iīve shaken the dust and sand out of my boots and headed to the Steppes...and from there to the jungle-hells.
Iīm pretty sure itīs time for something else after that ![]("wink.gif")
|
|
|
|
![]("tongue.gif")
For example, after playing El Agheila One, save it as Agheila1 if you wish. It has to be an 8 letter file name (shades of DOS).
When you finish, say the first battle for Tobruk, save it as Tobruk1 in your regular save folder and then copy it to the Megasave folder.
Then later you go back when you want and move that Tobruk1 save file into your regular Save file inside Megacam. Then open MC-DF-41, click on load and load 'er up. It should do just fine, unless they slipped in something to stop this without my knowing about it.
Thanks for the kind comments about enjoying the campaign. IF we had had the tools at the time, I probably would have done something on the same idea you mentioned.
I'm sure that capability will be included in the Megacampaign system for Combat Leader. Just as the game will be new, so the Megacam system will be.
It should offer more of what you suggest here.
Wild Bill