Re: Solo vs. multiplayer, campaigns, and difficulty

[Dave Fancella <david.fancella@comcast.net>]

On Tuesday 09 March 2004 01:18 pm, Patrick Forhan wrote:
> Quoting Dave Fancella <david.fancella@comcast.net>:
> > On Monday 08 March 2004 06:10 pm, Jens Granseuer wrote:
> > > That's another interesting possibility. I keep thinking that those
> > > generalized approaches can easiliy go wrong, but this is mainly gut
> >
> >...
> > The problem with the generalized approach is that it's too mechanical. 
> > It's too easy to tell that the game is exactly the same, just harder. 
> > Generally ...
>
> Isn't "Same Map, Same Units, Just Harder" what we are looking for?  By
> nature, a more difficult battle will play out differently.  If we are
> wanting different units or an entirely different experience, isn't that
> really a call for flexibility in starting units (ie, random units or random
> placement or such)?

Hm, I don't know, is it?  ;)

I'd like to see maps where we can lay out our units, to tell the truth.

It also just occured to me that maybe the solution isn't to try to apply 
different difficulty levels to each map, maybe it would be better to just 
categorize the map as easy, medium, and hard?  FOr both sides, because a map 
that's easy for the FNA should probably be at least medium or hard for the 
EoK, and vice versa.  That would neatly solve all problems, except then we 
have a sudden shortage of maps.  :)

> I would think if you want a radically different experience, perhaps it
> should be a different map.  If you just want to make AntHill a bit easier
> or harder, it should be a similar experience to Normal mode.  And I would
> make everything relative -- Normal for one side in a map may be easier or
> harder than normal for the other side.  That's just up to the mapmaker.
>
> I think the trickiest thing here is not completely unbalancing the game. 
> For example, if advantage for a side means the other side has only five
> units in a full contingent (rather than six), it would make a difference,
> but it may be too much to be fun.  I guess playtesting to find that point
> would help here.
>
> > > > In fact, you specifically, Jens, who has been
> > > > playing this game ever since it was first playable, might start
> > > > wanting that feature soon.  ;)
> > >
> > > Heh, already giving up? ;-)
> >
> > Are you talking to me?!
>
> Crimson Fields: Cage Match.

Speaking of whiches, do the current save games store the entire history of the 
game?  So, if some as-yet-nonexistant player appeared that could play an 
entire scenario from start to finish from a save game, then we could actually 
watch old games, and each other's games, and stuff.  Like watching TV, but 
better.  Actually useful.

> > I'm in favor of this, too, actually.  ;)  I've also been thinking that it
> > would be cool if there were some way to score the entire game based on
> > campaigns won and give the players at the end a score, like Marginal
> > victory
>
> At the very least, perhaps a scorecard could be presented, with things like
> kills, loses, top-ranked units, number of turns, etc.

Probably a scorecard would be best at first, to get an idea of what kind of 
scores are actually being earned, and then to project that into how big the 
game should be.

Dave

> Pat.

-- 
Visit my website!
http://www.davefancella.com/?event=em

When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life.
		-- Samuel Johnson