From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
1. Show us more detailed briefing and explanation of the situation with big, detailed strategic map. This will give us more immersion and info to the campaign situation, and we could feel the game more realistic and more dramatic. Wargame EE briefing showed a similar way of presenting that I was thinking, (https://youtu.be/XxHTLd1zWYc) but I wish more detailed version than that. It doesn't need to be movie like that, just 3~4 snapshots of google map style static representation of campaign situation would be good as well. But I personally like the voice of that campaign guy of Wargame EE (or XCOM council guy voice as well XD) Giving strategic goal, as well as tactical goal, should be given during briefing.
2. There's an option, that induce players a power to move and control strategic units on strategic map, like campaign map of Close Combat, or strategic map of Wargame AB/RD. But I'm not sure whether is this the good idea or not. I still like Wargame EE's style, but giving freedom and power to control divisions / regiments in strategic theater would be awesome too. However, it would be more realistic to reduce strategic freedom from players. (players are task force commander or regiment commander, who is under control of higher command, thus strategic control should not allowed to players)
3. I'm curious about the definition of "dynamic" campaign from OTS point of view. I believe that the "butterfly" effect is real. But if we consider every single butterfly effect during campaign and battlefield, the game might be too diverging, too complex... So, how about give 5 (or more or less) consequences per each mission, based on player's result "score" or "point" on strategic/tactical goal achievement? Or, it can be judged on occupy condition of strategic goals. Capturing important strategic corridor or highway or bridge, or hold the city blocks... 5 missions will bring 25 possible consequences, but all 25 endings doesn't necessarily need to be different. For example,
a) Player get 5 point from previous mission.
Arty + Air support, limited intel of enemy, Map A (easiest map with good starting point), enemy will be AA, easiest enemy.
b) Player get 4 point from previous mission.
Arty only, no air, limited intel of enemy, Map B (difficult terrain than A, moderate starting point), enemy will be AA+BB, easy AI but massive amount
c) Player get 3 point from previous mission.
Arty only, no air, no intel on enemy, Map B (difficult terrain than A, unfavorable starting point), enemy will be AA+BB, moderate AI with massive amount and all support. (We lost important highway to enemy in previous mission)
d) Player get 2 point from previous mission.
Arty only, no air, no intel. Map C (unfavorable terrain than A or B) enemy will AA+BB but very hard AI and all support
e) Player get 1 point from previous mission.
No arty no air no intel. Map C (with unfavorable starting point). Enemy will be AA+BB and support CC will be later. (We lost city and highway both to enemy in previous mission)
This way, campaign will form a "tree structure". From the mission 1, each consequences will make n number of branches, based on game design. This way, one can optimize and calculate the required number of maps, story line for each cases, and enemy/ally fores. The end of campaign can be decided on various factors, players doesn't need to forced to play all branches. There can be a "time limit" or "Number of mission" condition for campaign end, regardless of the progress. Success/failure will be decided based on enemy damage or territory situation or strategical target achievement at the moment of time limit, or at the moment of n number of games (5 games, for example). Each "branches" doesn't need to be played in all different maps, some branches converges to the same map, but starting point and conditions can be differ.
Those just my thinking as an example for the concept of my idea. Likewise, based on strategic score or condition, we could categorize all 25 different consequences into 5 different categories, which will give 5 endings to the campaign. Of course, those numbers (5 and 25) are just an example. 3 consequences per each mission, with 15 possibilities are also possible. Again, this is just my imagination. You don't need to follow those, I'm just doing brainstorming here.
4. Discussed in #3, but I introduce again, I wish to see different battlefield and different enemies, based on previous mission's score and progress. Currently, player's battlegroup fight in same map against same enemy divisions, regardless of previous mission's score. However, if we could see the dynamic results based on previous mission's "sin", it would be interesting.
5. "Time" can be a very important strategic and tactical mission target. For example, how about conditions like "players will start from surrounded beginning position if the player failed to achieve the time constraint from previous mission, even though the player seriously devastated enemy forces." or "players will face the enemy amount of 3 times more in size, if the player failed to blow up all bridges before sunset in previous mission"
6. Give us more strategic/tactical goals and constraints like "Finish the encirclement instead of frontal attack" "Do not bomb/destroy city, to minimize the civilian casualties" "Something similar with 'Evacuation' mission of Wargame EE campaign (https://youtu.be/W_I_pwe1dlg)" "Rearguard of retreating Corps, fighting enemy from the back while retreat to the other direction" or something like these...
7. Existence of ally AI, preferably different nations or different division/battle group. Same goes to the enemy. If the ally AI force use their own independent command cycle, that would be even perfect. Analyzing 3 or 4 command cycle, and harmonize my movement with ally AI would be challenging for the players. Those 'reinforcements" can be arrive during the game or beginning of the game, based on previous game's score and progress...
8. If the game could show the strategic consequences based on player's score from detailed strategic map discussed in #1, it would be awesome. Like "British forces were able to escape from Hanover, because your forces successfully defended highway and crossroad." or "Polish troops were able to breakthrough the US defense line, while your MRD adsorbed US+French armored push" like this... This will give extra morale boost and immersion to the campaign.
9. 3 strike out: If player played poor 3 times in a row, player will be send to desk job in Alaska or Greenland, or send to Gulag.
10. Iron man mode: Anyone can finish campaign with highest score, thanks to the god of save and load. To prevent this, how about introduce iron-man mode, which gives 0 save chance except the autosave at the beginning of every turn? Without save and load, campaign will feels like multiplay. To compensate the effort of this unforgiving mode, let's make "hall of fame" board in OTS homepage and Matrix homepage, and list the player ID, score, time takes to finish the campaign (game time), and total kill list of who finished the campaign successfully in iron-man mode. Doesn't need to make a rank, but it would be fun to make one.
All of those are just my idea and imagination, I wish I could add more later. But plz don't take those too seriously, I'm just brainstorming here. If my idea helps, that would be awesome.
< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 8/29/2017 7:35:32 AM >