Campaign Progression

[Kolakhan]

Was playing the Japanese campaign and won the first few scenarios. At the Coral Sea I sunk all the Port Morsby group and killed one carrier and 75% of all their carrier aircraft. At the end it says I was defeated??? I said ok let's get on with the war and see what impact I really had. It appears once you have suffered a defeat the Campaign ends??? I can replay the scenario but is it how it seems in order to continue the Campaign I have to win every scenario? During a war you take wins and losses and fight on. Who the heck wants to win every scenario? If that's the case I know I am going to win the game at the end. This has really put a damper on my enthusiam to continue the game or buy more content if it is this way with the other mods. I would appeciate the developers telling me why I have to win every battle to keep playing.

[KSB]

Interesting theory, let's see what the devs have to say

[Kolakhan]

When I purchased the game I was under the impression it contained a "dynamic" canpaign. As it turns out it is a series of scenarios cobbled together that have little to do with each other except for carrying on a few units. This to me is not a campaign. I would like to win or lose a scenario and move on with the results.

[Xenos]

Originally posted by *KH*Kolakhan*:

I would appeciate the developers telling me why I have to win every battle to keep playing.

I think you need to consider that designing branching scenarios for every possible outcome would be an immense undertaking. The original Panzer General had some, but it was a simpler game overall. At the end of the day, branching campaigns are a lot of work for something that just a few players will experience.

[Kolakhan]

I fully understand what you are saying. It's just that my impression when reading about the game was that it did have branching scenarios. If I had known it was so linear I would not have bought the game. To me it makes no sense to play a campaign you can't lose. You just keep playing until you win (repeating scenarios) till you win. You learn from your mistakes and sooner or later you prevail. To me that takes the challenge out of any campaign game. I may lose one scenario but I will never lose the war.

[Xenos]

Originally posted by *KH*Kolakhan*:

I fully understand what you are saying. It's just that my impression when reading about the game was that it did have branching scenarios. If I had known it was so linear I would not have bought the game. To me it makes no sense to play a campaign you can't lose. You just keep playing until you win (repeating scenarios) till you win. You learn from your mistakes and sooner or later you prevail. To me that takes the challenge out of any campaign game. I may lose one scenario but I will never lose the war.

I agree that at least a losing path for each campaign, with defensive scenarios, would have been interesting. But as I understand it the game was made on a budget, so they had to prioritize.

[Slitherine_Iain]

In a previous game we allowed users to get marginal and decisive victories. We even allow them to lose and the campaign progressed. We created a vast branching tree of missions. This is what we found.

Nobody wanted to lose. They would not even accept a marginal victory. Everyone (barring a tiny minority) reloaded the game to guarantee a decisive victory. Almost nobody saw a large chunk of the content we created because they wanted to win big. As a result we decided not to do that and we put all our effort in content the player will actually see.

Your core force is the key gameplay dynamic. You take it with you and customize it and upgrade it. They are like characters in an RPG.

[Adherbal]

We'll have a look at this particular scenario. It's been created so long ago I can't remember the exact design at the moment.

Beside the transition of the core forces however, secondary objectives often impact things which happen later in the campaign (ex: killing battleship at Pearl Harbor prevents them from taking part of Midway). As Iain explained, a branching campaign didn't seem like an effective use of our limited time and resources. The system does allow it however, so mods or (some) feature campaigns may contain branching. In fact, the Morning Sun expansion gives one more ultimate battle if you score decisive victories in the last 2 scenarios.

PS: The best way to look at a defeat is probably that you personally are relieved from command as a result of the mission's failure, rather than it always leading to a complete defeat of the nation you control. IIRC some missions imply this by saying "the responsible commanders have been reassigned to distant garrisons" :)

[Kolakhan]

First of all I want to thank you for taking the time to answer. This shows your interest and dedication to the game. I have been following the game for months as I do a couple of dozen titles. When you switched over to the "new version" I saw that you were going for a global WWII experience and purchased the title. I truly enjoy the battles themselves. Even though I had done extensive damage to the Americans in the Coral Sea scenario I was quite confused at the defeat but I accepted it and moved on only to find my only choice was to replay it??? I do understand what you are saying that people replay their "losses" but to me that is "cheating". The assumption that the majority of players do not accept losses may be true but that is not a valid reason not to create a "true" campaign game. I own the Totalwar series as one example and people may "cheat" it but others play win or lose as do I. With your price of $40 plus DLC $ you are approaching the $60 price tag of Totalwar games. I think you owe it to the players who are "purists" to produce a product with a true win/lose campaign. I am sad to say I stopped playing the game which I so enjoyed.

[msmagnum3006]

I agree with *KH* Kolakhan* Order of Battle Pacific would be complete and much more fun if it had alternative scenarios for losses and marginal victories. It is boring to win all the time and unrealistic so I stopped playing.

[hmiller]

I have to tell you I find the Belgium scenario frustrating. I just crushed the British and French and one stinking unit got away- and this is a DEFEAT? I think not. I think Kind Edward the VIII would be on the throne with Churchill resigning if all but ONE unit of the BEF and not a single French unit escaped... this is silly- really- all but one unit dead and the Germans lose?

I love the game- but this is not realisitc---

[TentacleMayor]

So far I'm impressed with the game (barring an audio glitch and a specialization bug) and will probably buy a campaign or two, especially since this is one of very few games that deal with naval operations. I understand the reasoning that players don't accept defeats, but branching paths don't have to be bound to losing missions. You could do a campaign that allows players to choose different approaches at key points (e.g. Hitler listening to his generals and focusing on Moscow), with at least one branch comprising of what-if scenarios.

Still, I appreciate that the game isn't just a string of predetermined scenarios thanks to persistent units, commanders and specializations. I think it's important for players like me who demand dynamic mechanics, choices and replayability in their games. I suggest implementing more and varied achievements as well, of varying difficulty levels, that's an easy way to give completionists more bang for their buck.

[=BYOB= Sgt_Rock]

I had something similar happen. As the invading Japanese force I had conqured all of Australia and even thwarted the counterattacks. I had probably captured every city and 90% of the land and the reinforcements (landing force) was hopelessly trapped on the beach. And yet I can only assume that because of the fact that I maybe didn't sink all the ships or destroy the few remaining forces on the beach ... I lost the entire campaign. I've not played this game since sadly because it ticked me off so much.

[=BYOB= Sgt_Rock]

Originally posted by hmiller:

I have to tell you I find the Belgium scenario frustrating. I just crushed the British and French and one stinking unit got away- and this is a DEFEAT? I think not. I think Kind Edward the VIII would be on the throne with Churchill resigning if all but ONE unit of the BEF and not a single French unit escaped... this is silly- really- all but one unit dead and the Germans lose?

I love the game- but this is not realisitc---

Yeah, it's terribly frustrating. To lose an entire campaign over something so silly and waste all that time, I've not played this game since. It's sad because I was enjoying it enough and now I don't play it.

[Gogopher]

while im disappointed in general with the grand campaign and lack of true campaign progression i do agree with the devs...they only have so many resources and they have to decide how to spend them...as a player who has played since the very first panzer corps (like decades ago panzer corps) i used to think the same thing...but i simply never let myself lose even if i had to replay for a maj victory...back then it was vital since u couldnt succed in the long run if u had too many marginal vics (not enough resources) and later it became a pride thing..

i personally have no issue with how they chose to go...i love the secondary obj and im willing to win or lose on them...because in essence they are really the difference between a maj and a minor vic...

now if they could get the grand campaign working (maybe not as intended but as player wanting) then the game would rock

[stootn]

Wow... I just bought this game and already stuck at the Coral Sea. And not one answer for this issue...