Re: Solo vs. multiplayer, campaigns, and difficulty

[Patrick Forhan <pforhan@muddyhorse.com>]

Difficulty:  Generally, I'd say the maps are satisfying enough, offering a
challenge but are not unbeatable.  But you do have to know all the advanced
techniques, how units behave, and how the whole crystal and factory thing
works.

The first thing I'd recommend is making a tutorial campaign dedicated to one or
two tactics per map.  Have tiny (10x10?) maps that each illustrate a point,
such as wedging, use of artillary or container units, moving crystals, etc.  If
possible, make each scenario unwinnable without using these techniques.

That way, everyone will be coming into 'real' maps with the same footing.  I'm
guessing doing this is actually possible with Crimson Fields' current state.

As to variable difficulty, it would be ideal to just adjust some global setting,
such as changing the range of random rolls (ie, if random numbers normally
range from 1 - 100, with higher being better, make the range 20-100), or giving
things double or half hit points.  That way, the setting affects the difficulty
regardless of setup.

One thing that slightly annoys me about current campaigns is that I still must
remember the password after I've unlocked a level.  Could levels become
unlocked either for a single player (then you'd need player profiles) or for
the whole game?

On a related note, there are times where I want to play, but most of the levels
are too big to just jump into.  I sometimes find myself playing the first map
of the campaign just so I can have a quick resolution.  But that gets boring
quickly, with the limited selection of units.

You could look at this as a call for smaller/tighter maps, but what about random
maps, or random units on existing maps?  Just allocate a certain amount of
units to each side.  In fact, perhaps the user could use such a feature to
modify difficulty...

Pat.