Re: Solo vs. multiplayer, campaigns, and difficulty

[Jens Granseuer <jensgr@gmx.net>]

On 08.03.2004 17:26, Dave Fancella wrote:
> On Monday 08 March 2004 06:10 pm, Jens Granseuer wrote:
> > > With a better AI, I would prefer to enable/disable features of the AI. 
> > > How about this:
> >
> > Erm, we don't have a better AI.
> 
> Apparently, it's coming.  ;)

Right now it's more like a wrapper around the current AI. It doesn't get
any easier to develop a new AI, either, but the nice thing is you can
easily test your new AI against the current one and see which is better ;-)

> > > My preference is to have two tabs, one for scenarios that makes all maps
> > > available, and one for campaigns.
> >
> > Without passwords, that is?
> 
> Yes.

What do we need campaigns for, then? If all maps are immediately available,
the only plus of a campaign would be that you don't have to select the
next map yourself (and maybe the upcoming campaign scoreboard).

> > Campaigns should not affect other campaigns.
> 
> It's cause and effect.  Theoretically, anyway, at least in a real war, if one 
> campaign is won, it would make necessary another campaign, in order to win 
> the war.  But if the first campaign is lost, the second campaign can't even 
> be done because it depends on achieving positions in the first campaign.  SO 
> you do something else.  We don't have to get that detailed, but that's what i 
> was thinking, anyway.

I'd say if a campaign has influence on another campaign there should be only
one campaign in the first place ("campaign" may technically not be the correct
term, though).

Jens