Most severe weakness of single player campaign

[Observer1]

(Just my suggestions)

What bothers me most about the single player campaign now is that I feel like you have to play each map two times. The first time is the "natural" way to play it -- you play to win. The second time you play it, you play to "make as much gold" (and xp) as possible.

The most perverse aspect is that you don't want to recruit/recall too many troops. This really bothers me because unless you know what the computer is going to do, you don't know how many troops to recruit/recall. Winning a map with too many troops is a disaster for the next map -- when your gold is short. You're being asked to win with minimum force, and the only way to know what that level is, is to play it twice.

I think this is a pretty severe flaw in the game.

I was trying to think of a suggestion, but they all have serious side-effects. I think the clearest suggestion in my opinion is to force the starting amount of gold in every campaign map. In other words, gold should not be portable between levels (xp would still be). This has the advantage also of making a scenario designer more capable of gauging the player's "level" going into a map.

However the problem is 1) how do you stop people from "farming" xp and sitting on a map that is already "won"? 2) what incentive do you give people for finishing a map early?

This is just a suggestion, but I think people should bring in some idea about maybe Score (or some other term -- Merit, whatever). Your "Score" would be how many turns ahead of time you finished a level. And this would be cumulative. So you could say, "my score at the end of the Undead campaign was 42." Meaning I finished the campaign (cumulatively) 42 turns ahead of par. That also makes for a nice comparison with other players.

Thanks for reading.

[allefant]

I agree, it is a bit of a problem, if you try to play so you gain the maximum possible XP/gold all the time. A campaign designer can't really expect you to have more than 100 gold at the beginning of any scenario (you may have been stupid in the previous one), so it should be possible to win it with that (even if it's very hard). OTOH, if that's true, you will always have too much gold, since the upkeep for as much units as you can recruit with 100 gold will never eat away as much as you earn for finishing early.

But then, I sort of like having lots of gold, and more units than are required - so I don't see this as a flaw at all - it's something which makes me like the game Other things like not being able to resurrect my favorite fallen units are much more severe to me.. I keep reloading forever just to save some units (and don't care about gold/XP that much at all), and that really destroys gameplay.

[turin]

I don't think that is really true. I playtest each map once, and if I win it without it being too easy, I say it is balanced. I don't play each map twice. I don't think playing it twice is ever really necessary.

You are right that if you "don't know what the computer is going to do" it is hard to recall the right troops, but that is the whole point of the game - learning how to predict what they will do before they do it.

[Elvish_Pillager]

...but that is the whole point of the game - learning how to predict what they will do before they do it.

Mostly not. The main point of the game is to be a skilled tactician. Among the secondary elements are to check what the enemy is going to do, by giving it a try first, and to have the sense to look up all the surprises (like those stupid secret passages in HttT and the elf ambushes in the Barag Gôr.)

[hiryuu]

However the problem is 1) how do you stop people from "farming" xp and sitting on a map that is already "won"? 2) what incentive do you give people for finishing a map early?

Give each unit on the field 1 xp per turn remaining. Of course, if you don't carry gold through, you create a new issue. Except in a few REALLY huge scenarios, you recruit/recall all you need in the opening turns, so upkeep and village control become irrelevant.

Unless a scenario was a total disaster, you won't gain much replaying it. Playing each one twice to maximize gold & xp reminds me of all the RPG players that run the characters up to lv. 99 or whatever just because it's there. You only have yourself to blame if you get bored doing it.

[Cuyo Quiz]

Weird, i always tough that if i recall for leveling a unit, i should just do that for one or two, focusing on protecting them and giving the kills.

In Barag Gor (forgive me i don't know how to put that thing over the o), it's annoying when an elf gets his lucky 4 hits in the first turn (happened to me twice, and i said ¨who the hell created this?¨).

Oh yeah, leave the campaign be. The only thing i always play it again for is to make sure i have a leveled up leader >_>.

EDIT: EP, maybe it was that random generator seed thing they were talking of in another thread, but it felt bad when an elf did his critical strike.

[Elvish_Pillager]

¨who the hell created this?¨

Benj, who (IIRC) thinks that the random death adds to the strategy.

[Observer1]

Thanks for the replies.

1. From a scenario or campaign design perspective: If you recall/recruit too many troops, two things happen, 1) the present map becomes too easy, 2) your hurt yourself on the next map. The scenario designer (and computer) can't compete against you if you have 2x as many troops as he was expecting. Example: first time I played the Siege of Elf... I was short on cash and the map was too difficult. The second I played it, I had more cash and it was very easy. The problem was a map or two earlier I recruited too many troops. The extra 100 gold made all the difference. You can also think of it this way: the scenario designer has to make an estimate about how much money the player has, in order to make a challenging scenario -- and this figure varies widely.

2. Tactically, if you aren't sure how many troops to recall/recruit, your leader has to stay near the fort, just in case there needs to be another wave of troops. I often want to send my leader out, but then I find the enemy leader has more money or scripted reinforcements, etc. That's what I mean about playing scenarios twice. You recruit too many people sometimes and sometimes you don't recruit enough (do you need 2 castle loads, 3 castle loads, etc.). This is not a test of your "tactical" ability -- it's random.

3. What do you guys think of the Score idea? I usually hate the idea of "score", but I do think it would give people an incentive to finish early. It has no bearing on the actual game (so it's the player can choose whether or not to care). On the other hand, really "advanced" players would have something to strive for -- "I finished heir to the throne with a score of 50..." etc.

[allefant]

A campaign designer actually can do it already, as far as I see. Keep a score counter, and set a fixed amount of gold at the beginning of each scenario.