Confused about "Campaign"

[zOldBulldog]

I just finished the Watchtower campaign. But it was a bit of a surprise ending. My assumption was that the takeover of Guadalcanal and associated southern islands was just the first mission. But the moment I completed that first mission's objectives it said I had completed the campaign.

Questions:

1) Is the Watchtower campaign incomplete, with further missions due to come? Presumably using the "Guadalcanal end state" as the beginning state for the next mission? If so, I would suggest adding a panel stating that more missions for this campaign are under construction.

2) EDIT I figured it out, answer below: If Watchtower is what it is with no further missions planned, what is the difference between a campaign and a single battle? (other than perhaps the duration/length).
ANSWER: A single battle starts in Tactical and with preassigned units.

3) Looking at the modding subforum I saw a couple of posts from people that were working on creating new custom campaigns. But I did not see any threads with the completed products for download. So...
3.1) Are there any player-designed completed custom battles/campaigns?
3.2) Is there a repository of custom battles/campaigns somewhere?
3.,3) May I suggest a custom battle/campaign subforum, to promote that kind of player contributions?

[JazzObserver127]

The goal of Operation Watchtower is to prevent the IJN from using the airfield located at Guadalcanal from hitting the supply lines of the US and Australia along with covering any assaulting IJN forces, and in return making Guadalcanal your own major airfield.

So technically Watchtower is complete, however it would be pretty dumb not to take the other islands in order to secure your position.

[zOldBulldog]

A campaign (in any game) is usually a sequence of missions.

Most people reading the description would expect capturing Guadalcanal to be just the first mission... to grab a foothold from which to continue.

As a matter of fact, capturing and controlling the bases listed in the description literally ends the campaign, without even a "Continue" button should you want to take over Shortland, Bouganville, Buka, and the other bases on the Bismark sea to fully expel the IJN from the area. That naturally hints to "further steps" to do those things and truly gain control of the sea lanes. It makes the game feel incomplete... which it might be indeed and I think only a developer can answer that question.

So, if Watchtower is complete (or complete for now until further enhancements) it would be a very good idea to either add a Continue button after you complete the objectives, or to give some additional explanation that if you want to capture all of the bases in the map you need to do it BEFORE completing the objectives. (learning the rules AFTER you finished... is a bit late, LOL)

[byepopejoy]

For many players, completing the objective for the historical Operation Watchtower, i.e., the occupation of Guadalcanal and the Florida Islands, only happens after they have sunk most of the opposing navy.

The next historical USN objective would be the reduction of the upper Solomons, but this is pretty trivial in WOTS since the IJN is usually at the bottom of the sea by this point.

For the IJN, the next step would have been to secure New Guinea, but taking Milne Bay and Port Moresby is pretty easy since building a big airfield on Guadalcanal usually means the Allied navies are in Davy Jones' Locker.

[zOldBulldog]

Agreed on all counts byepopejoe.

On a short term basis this could be easily resolved with a warning message at the beginning of the campaign (so that you avoid that level 5 Guadalcanal airfield or final capture if you want to finish the unwritten objectives) or with a Continue button that lets you keep going until all bases fall.

For the long term, it could be done by breaking the campaign into missions and saving some of the enemy forces for the later missions (or making a ton more ships available). And of course this would then require rebalancing so that all missions remain challenging but viable. Not a simple task.

[Johan217]

Is this really a problem? I mean, the campaign titles and intro descriptions look pretty straightforward to me. There are certainly areas where the campaign could do with improvement, but the overall objectives are what they should be.

I do like the idea very much of having different campaign phases (or missions, as you call them) so that some forces only come into play at a later stage. This could even affect the availability of aircraft and supplies/ground forces (in real life, reinforcements usually arrive later than you need them but before you are ready to transport them ;-)).

[zOldBulldog]

Yes, it is a problem. It was not until I *finished* the campaign that I discovered that achieving the Guadalcanal goals was the end. I was fully expecting additional missions up to that point.

Because of it I played it completely wrong. I captured and developed the wrong bases and I never did capture all of the enemy bases. Sure I won, but I won wrong and felt cheated.

On top of that even though the total duration of the campaign is about right, while playing it I incorrectly thought that "the first mission" that I believed I was playing was dragging on far too long. But it wasn't because it was the whole campaign. All from not understanding what the campaign was really intended to be.

Even if nothing changes a player needs to understand from the beginning that the campaign has no further missions, and that the real goal is to take out all of the enemy bases.

[Harbinger]

Campaign, by definition, really doesn't have to be a sequential missions tied together. Especially if the campaign tries to be a 'dynamic campaign', as War on the Sea tries to be. In most dynamic campaign, players are given a specific objective and means to achieve it, and it's up to players to create their own story with it.

Of course, even in such campaigns, there could be few scripted missions and sequential objectives to guide a narrative in certain way (or keep it interesting, as AIs tend to have a hard time competing with players), but it's really an optional part of it rather than core part of being a 'campaign'.

[zOldBulldog]

Originally posted by Harbinger:

Campaign, by definition, really doesn't have to be a sequential missions tied together. Especially if the campaign tries to be a 'dynamic campaign', as War on the Sea tries to be. In most dynamic campaign, players are given a specific objective and means to achieve it, and it's up to players to create their own story with it.

Of course, even in such campaigns, there could be few scripted missions and sequential objectives to guide a narrative in certain way (or keep it interesting, as AIs tend to have a hard time competing with players), but it's really an optional part of it rather than core part of being a 'campaign'.

What I was trying to convey (and apparently failed to) is that most people will see the word Campaign and assume/expect a sequence of missions.

What we have right now is fine once you understand that it is a single mission that takes a long time... but it will confuse most newcomers unless it gets clarified :P

[Killerfish Games]

Originally posted by zOldBulldog:

What I was trying to convey (and apparently failed to) is that most people will see the word Campaign and assume/expect a sequence of missions.

We're not so sure...
The Total War series and many games such as Mount and Blade have "campaigns" that they call "campaigns" and these are not mission based at all. They are dynamic sandboxes and so is War on the Sea.

Is it because we focus on the early war in the South Pacific conflict that perhaps you expected to be strategic bombing Tokyo with B29s by mission #10?
Not attacking you, just wondering if there is a way to better present the game/campaign to set appropriate expectations

[Johan217]

Maybe to avoid any possible misunderstanding:
- Change "Dynamic campaign" to "Dynamic campaign set during the historical Battle of Guadalcanal (August 1942 - February 1943)" on the store page

But personally, I find the existing descriptions clear enough.

[zOldBulldog]

Originally posted by Killerfish Games:

Originally posted by zOldBulldog:

What I was trying to convey (and apparently failed to) is that most people will see the word Campaign and assume/expect a sequence of missions.

We're not so sure...
The Total War series and many games such as Mount and Blade have "campaigns" that they call "campaigns" and these are not mission based at all. They are dynamic sandboxes and so is War on the Sea.

Is it because we focus on the early war in the South Pacific conflict that perhaps you expected to be strategic bombing Tokyo with B29s by mission #10?
Not attacking you, just wondering if there is a way to better present the game/campaign to set appropriate expectations

Perhaps the easiest way to present it would be a short description in the tutorial, somewhere around the section where Map and Tactical modes are explained.

Maybe something like like:

SINGLE BATTLE:
An encounter in Tactical mode, where you and the enemy start with a set of units in specific locations and you must use your tactical skills to defeat the enemy,

CAMPAIGN:

A complete scenario where you start in Map mode, assemble your fleet and implement your strategy to direct it through the South Pacific map to find the enemy and engage it in Tactical battles.

The campaign can be stretched out until destroying all of the enemy bases or you can attempt a faster victory by achieving the campaign victory objectives.

------

I would also recommend a popup when the victory objectives are achieved that says:

" Victory! Objectives complete. Do you wish to end the campaign or do you want to continue playing until all bases are captured?

<SAVE> <CONTINUE> <EXIT>"