campaign preferences (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

ubertechie -> campaign preferences (1/20/2002 5:50:00 AM)

Okay - opinion time - do people prefer to play campaigns where they can pick all of there core and support troops, pick only support troops - or have all pre-defined - I am planning to unleash my Operation Sealion Campaign ... but need to know how people would prefer it - have built it all defined - but its easy enough to remove forces for other options please let me know thanks Ubertechie



Supervisor -> (1/20/2002 7:29:00 AM)

My personal preference is pre-defind by the creators only because when I've gotten total control I usually make bad choices. The option to only pick support units isn't bad either, because if you made a mistake you only have to tolerate it for that 1 battle. My guess is that most of the hardcorers would prefer total control. But you never know, Mega's are all the rave and you don't get a choice there. [ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: gmenfan ]



ubertechie -> (1/20/2002 7:51:00 AM)

thanks for the response - intersting view - i like picking everything as that is for me part of the experience - read the briefing pick the tools for the job. Sometimes i do wonder why certain units are in scenarios - historical accuracy is important - but its meant to be fun.
anyway - the more viewpoints here the merrier
Ubertechie



Mikimoto -> (1/20/2002 7:59:00 AM)

Hello. The core force depends on the designer wills. It is silly to buy an infantry core if the designer is making a tank oriented campaign... and if the campaingn is named "a bridge too far: 1st British Airborne" you can't expect to have lot tanks... Well, I am always very thankful when in the campaign briefings appear some notes about buying the core force. A campaign must be designed with some force composition in mind... Just my 2 euro cents



ruxius -> (1/20/2002 8:35:00 AM)

I prefer to play campaigns where historical core forces are rebuilt the close as possible ...I like to play campaigns also to learn from other experience about what happened there ..so I vote for the designer advicing about core force.
Bye



ubertechie -> (1/20/2002 3:54:00 PM)

bump - guys i really want as much feedback as possible - i may only have a little voice here so SHOUTING - PLEASE RESPOND Thanks
Ubertechie



RichardTheFirst -> (1/20/2002 4:16:00 PM)

I guess it deppends on the style of the campaign. I really don't know what is Operation Sealion, if it is small or big and if you have researched TOE's. I would only admit pre-constructed core forces or even support forces if the research is very good and to simulate reality as closer as possible. Otherwise I would prefer to buy myself. That's why I say: it deppends. Hope this helps



richmonder -> (1/20/2002 8:33:00 PM)

Prefer the ability to select my own core; however, I appreciate any type of historical cueing that I can get. For example, the Stalingrad and Watchword Freedom campaigns are a good example. They advise about the key elements of your core, but don't point out every type of unit you should select. Cueing should be in the ballpark - not too specific.



ubertechie -> (1/20/2002 9:12:00 PM)

Richard - Operation Sealion was the codename for the German invasion of the UK in 1940 - it never happened - thankfully.
The scenarios are all well researched from the available material - although a ceratin amount of guess work must be used for the finer points.
I think i may release the campaign in 2 forms - 1 fully defined by me - the other with mission notes that should point the user in the right direction
Okay - am off to carry on with this labour of love
Thanks
Ubertechie



RichardTheFirst -> (1/20/2002 9:48:00 PM)

Many thanks and I wish you a pleasant work. Cheers,



Phil Buster -> (1/22/2002 12:52:00 AM)

I think that, as the invasion of Great Britain never happened and there´s no combat reference on it, the core force should be selected by the player at the beginning of the campaign. This should be reoriented with the support force to the special needings of every mission, but the core should be improved, but not completely changed.



ubertechie -> (1/22/2002 3:41:00 AM)

phil - althoug there is no combat refernece - as ther was no combat - there is a lot of material around - the german plan was for the 17th infantry division 55th and 21st regiment to land on the west side of the assault and the 6th Mountain division 143rd and 141st regiments to land on the west. The OOB's of this units is readily accesale and they where to be augmented by Tauchpanzer III's and IV's - (amphib versions) after the inital assaults - similary - the british forces where documented 1st and 2nd Lodon Brigades and 135th Brigades. Therefore for the pre-defined force - its infantry heavy - although for the user definable version - i owuld recommend mostly infantry anyway - We Brits didnt have a lot of anything to defend with except cunning and ferocity... Thanks for the feedback
Ubertechie



Lost Lieutenant -> (1/22/2002 4:55:00 AM)

Personally, I like to select my own force for a campaign. But doesn't a commander always want complete control? However, the designer should take into account the forces available and restrict the force commander's options accordingly. On the Eastern Front, I would allow a commander to choose whatever he wanted. But in an operation like Sealion, where the forces available were mostly going to be light, I'd pick the core force for him, then give him some lattitude on the support troops. I'd make the core force light infantry, focusing on one of the divisions that was intended to participate. Then let him pick tanks and what not if he so chooses. The Lost Lieutenant
"Hey sergeant - have you seen my map?"



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.59375