Army General: Reconsider random map tiles

[Twistking]

One of the recent patches introduced random maps per tile on Army General, where a new map is selected per turn.
I think that's not very good. I understand the wish to make the campaigns more replayable, but the solution is un-immersive and makes it more difficult (on the hardest difficulty it was really helpful to have the same map each turn in order to refine tactics).

I propose a randomisation where the maps per tile are randomized ONCE at the START of the CAMPAIGN and then are static.
This would keep the higher replayability, but it will also feel more realistic and offer the possibility to plan ahead, because the map is known in advance on chokepoints.

Thanks.

[Twistking]

Originally posted by Lukas Alexander:

Originally posted by zomba69:

I guess neither you nor devs from Eugen who come up with thise idea never played AG.

Actually, I played AG almost 70 hours, so you missed horribly.
Idea is good but you kids will moan whatever decission Eugen will make. At the launch I saw complaints about AG repetitiveness. When they finally changed it, it's bad again because you're no longer able to beat AI on the single map you memorized and stacked with strong batallion composition.

From my perspective change is great. I hope there will be more of this kind.

You are entitled to your opinion, but suggesting that people are just not "good enough" to enjoy the change is not an argument. Warno has selectable difficulty, so everyone can adjust their experience to their level of experience and skill.
I mentioned difficulty in my OP, but not because the game was too difficult for me to beat (In fact, i'd say it is too easy even on hardest difficuty). The new change feels unfair though. In other words: It's a cheap way to increase the difficulty without needing the AI to cheat (even more). It's true that having the same map per tile makes the game easier, but having it random makes it less immersive. Repetitivness of the AG mode is an issue, but multiple defensive battles on the same tile were actually quite fun for me.
There are other ways (and better ways) to solve the problem of repeated defensive battles. Strategic AI could be made smarter, or there could be more sophisticated rules for repeated battles and unit fatigue that would change more parameters for the real-time battles.
Like dumba said, we want more persistance and connection not less!
I personally also would like a bigger challenge (on the harder difficulties), but i want it without arbitrary rules like the one discussed here.

[Lukas Alexander]

Originally posted by Twistking:

You are entitled to your opinion, but suggesting that people are just not "good enough" to enjoy the change is not an argument. Warno has selectable difficulty, so everyone can adjust their experience to their level of experience and skill.
I mentioned difficulty in my OP, but not because the game was too difficult for me to beat (In fact, i'd say it is too easy even on hardest difficuty). The new change feels unfair though. In other words: It's a cheap way to increase the difficulty without needing the AI to cheat (even more). It's true that having the same map per tile makes the game easier, but having it random makes it less immersive. Repetitivness of the AG mode is an issue, but multiple defensive battles on the same tile were actually quite fun for me.
There are other ways (and better ways) to solve the problem of repeated defensive battles. Strategic AI could be made smarter, or there could be more sophisticated rules for repeated battles and unit fatigue that would change more parameters for the real-time battles.
Like dumba said, we want more persistance and connection not less!
I personally also would like a bigger challenge (on the harder difficulties), but i want it without arbitrary rules like the one discussed here.

Implement more rules or variables and people start co complain about making it simulator. I want to remind that Eugen added more condition points because players struggled to keep their battlegroups not exhqusted. Now you want units to be fatigued after continuous battles which looks like another stat decrease.
There is no way to satisfy everyone, especially people who play multiplayer. AI will always be dumb for them due to their experience with human opponent.
I must worry you all but AI won't be much smarter than it is now.

[Autoridade Tributaria]

Originally posted by Lukas Alexander:

And then you will complain that AG is too easy and overall boring.
Eugen's idea is good because enemy won't attack the same spot few times in a row and it simulates his different approach. Try to adapt instead of sit in the same spot with ton of MBTs aiming at the nearest crossroad.

Make it a selectable choice by the player then...

[Tellashim[GIF]]

+1

[Истина]

This can have, not really necessary to me as Ai are not really challenging for me, but someone else maybe need this.

[横眉冷]

agree

[CORRIDA]

Originally posted by Lukas Alexander:

Originally posted by zomba69:

I guess neither you nor devs from Eugen who come up with thise idea never played AG.

Actually, I played AG almost 70 hours, so you missed horribly.
Idea is good but you kids will moan whatever decission Eugen will make. At the launch I saw complaints about AG repetitiveness. When they finally changed it, it's bad again because you're no longer able to beat AI on the single map you memorized and stacked with strong batallion composition.

From my perspective change is great. I hope there will be more of this kind.

At least for my part the repetitiveness comes from the lacking interconnectivity between tactical and strategic combat rather than maps.
Most maps consist of two zones in the middle and one more or less in your half.
Although there are a few exceptions, one zone is always in the middle, sometime ever further or in another weird place (one or two maps are like this).

This layout leads to a massive repetitiveness because you always already met the enemy on the middle zone(s). For me all battles feels the same, just like skirmish.
Compare that to SDII or RD, both games do have weaknesses and other weird designs but the atmosphere do feels better. (At least for me)

SDII got defense, close combat and normal meeting engagements plus a frontline system on top of that. This alone make the same map feel different each time. Also you could go to the other end of the map and block the entry points, overrun and destroying the enemy battalions in the process.
A direct action you can take beside the battle with a logical consequence.

RD had fixed map with fixed entry points you would need to conquer to move to that neighboring "tile". Each battle continued, more or less where you left, you even needed to wory about counter attacks during the enemy round. (and not on a new map without any consideration what happend last battle like in warno )
The only way to win was destroy their cmd's, capture their supply routes or destroy enough forces.

Both game do have their problems, you could name a few and i would agree.
Yet they are fun, each battle had a few things that would differentiate it from the last one.

I played SDII recently thinks it's way better compared to release, i hope WARNO will also improve with time. Both are great games

[zomba69]

Originally posted by CORRIDA:

Originally posted by Lukas Alexander:

Actually, I played AG almost 70 hours, so you missed horribly.
Idea is good but you kids will moan whatever decission Eugen will make. At the launch I saw complaints about AG repetitiveness. When they finally changed it, it's bad again because you're no longer able to beat AI on the single map you memorized and stacked with strong batallion composition.

From my perspective change is great. I hope there will be more of this kind.

At least for my part the repetitiveness comes from the lacking interconnectivity between tactical and strategic combat rather than maps.
Most maps consist of two zones in the middle and one more more back.
Although there are a few exceptions on zone is always in the middle, sometime ever further or in another weird place (one or two maps are like this).

This layout leads to a massive repetitiveness because you always already met the enemy on the middle zone(s). For me all battle feels the same, just like skirmish.
Compare that to SDII or RD, both games do have weaknesses and other weird designs but the atmosphere do feels better. (At least for me)

SDII got defense, close combat and normal meeting engagements plus a frontline system on top of that. This alone make the same map feel different each time. Also you could go to the other end of the map and block the entry points, overrun and destroying the enemy battalionsin the process.
A direct action you can take beside the battle with a logical consequence.

RD had fixed map with fixed entry points you would need to conquer to move to that neighboring "tile". Each battle continued, more or less where you left, you even needed to wory about counter attacks during the enemy round. (and not on a new map without any consideration what happend last battle like in warno )
The only way to win was destroy their cmd's, capture their supply routes or destroy enough forces.

Both game do have their problems, you could name a few and i would agree.
Yet they are fun, each battle had a few things that would differentiate it from the last one.

I played SDII recently thinks it's way better compared to release, i hope WARNO will also improve with time. Both are great games

Almost nothing to add here, you and the author of the post explained everything that is wrong with Army General. No cosmetic changes like random maps or increased fatigue can fix dumb AI - it is just boring.

I can only add that AI in skirmish seems more reasonable than AI in AG tactical batlles. Now, AG is random skirmish generator with dull AI.

[Protoss|]

+1 Fully agree with this.
Having them randomly switch between rounds feels weird.
Having them randomized at the start of the campaign is nice for replayability.

[dumba]

What Protoss said. Surely it can be made an option, so everyone wins?