Worth buying for single player campaign only with no DLC?

[Dongmyeong]

Worth getting just the base game with no interest in multiplayer to play through the campaign(s)?

[Abacus]

yes.

[Nats]

I don't think anyone buys these games for the campaigns. If you are interested in grand strategy campaign games there are other games by Slitherine (Flashpoint Campaigns) and Paradox that are better to play. I've bought a lot of these games and Total War games and yet never have I felt that the melding of turn based grand strategy and real time battles has worked very well.

I've yet to finish or even get a quarter way through any campaign in any of these games the gameplay is so laborious.

[Grant]

Originally posted by Dongmyeong:

Worth getting just the base game with no interest in multiplayer to play through the campaign(s)?

Hmm, not really. Like most RTS, the AI only know one thing and that is to leory jerkins into your men. Therefore, unless you like playing German facing an waves after waves of Soviet units, the campaign is meh at best.

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Nats:

I don't think anyone buys these games for the campaigns.

Just because *you* don't enjoy the campaign doesn't mean *nobody* does. The fact that people are constantly asking for additional Army General Campaigns proves that there is a strong demand for that mode.

[danOwar]

280h skirmish only, loads of fun, still counting.

[Herr Robert]

It's fun to play through the campaigns as the attacker.

[Nats]

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

Originally posted by Nats:

I don't think anyone buys these games for the campaigns.

Just because *you* don't enjoy the campaign doesn't mean *nobody* does. The fact that people are constantly asking for additional Army General Campaigns proves that there is a strong demand for that mode.

I didn't say nobody enjoys them I said nobody buys the game for them. But I doubt very much whether many people have actually finished just one of these campaigns considering the time investment required. My other post asking about this has had no responses at all so I think that goes to show how few people play the campaigns.

I am quite interested in the campaigns myself but like all these sorts of strategy/tactical meshing games I doubt I will play more than 4 or 5 battles in a campaign before getting fed up. Like the Total War games the devs need to realise where the games' strength lies and create shorter campaigns over a day or two that might take 5 or 6 battles to conclude, rather than longer ones that require tens of battles to finish. The later Total War games have made the situation even worse by drawing out the strategic map parts which have always been rubbish and should just act as a way to quickly get into the tactical battles. At least with these games the strategic part of the campaign is fairly painless. Although I think they may be changing that with the Warno campaigns to come.

[Herr Robert]

Originally posted by Nats:

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

Just because *you* don't enjoy the campaign doesn't mean *nobody* does. The fact that people are constantly asking for additional Army General Campaigns proves that there is a strong demand for that mode.

I didn't say nobody enjoys them I said nobody buys the game for them. But I doubt very much whether many people have actually finished just one of these campaigns considering the time investment required. My other post asking about this has had no responses at all so I think that goes to show how few people play the campaigns.

I am quite interested in the campaigns myself but like all these sorts of strategy/tactical meshing games I doubt I will play more than 4 or 5 battles in a campaign before getting fed up. Like the Total War games the devs need to realise where the games' strength lies and create shorter campaigns over a day or two that might take 5 or 6 battles to conclude, rather than longer ones that require tens of battles to finish. The later Total War games have made the situation even worse by drawing out the strategic map parts which have always been rubbish and should just act as a way to quickly get into the tactical battles. At least with these games the strategic part of the campaign is fairly painless. Although I think they may be changing that with the Warno campaigns to come.

So long as you don't feel compelled to play every single battle manually, it's realistic to finish a campaign in less than 10 hours. You can even finish a campaign in less than 2 hours if you autoresolve most battles.

Personally I mostly play the battles I think will be enjoyable and autoresolve the rest.

[danOwar]

Pst, caution, classified information incoming!

Those who play a game are rarely active in forums. Because, no time and need for forums, time is rare and needed to play and enjoy the game.

Back to game!

[The Curran]

ignore the guy above,

Now, issue for all ai army general operations in this game are terrible ai.

so they may create cool unit formations, however, only you get to use them and knowning your enemies is useless at the tactical level.

why, because the ai will undeniably just spam units at an extreme rate, you kill them but you may kill a company but that doesn't mean anything as they don't have the same limits as you.

Get army general to play with a friend not alone

[Nats]

These campaigns look interesting but they are pretty useless in practice. You cant play them vs the AI really, and there is very little chance of finding anyone to play them in multiplayer as that would require an extensive amount of time being set aside at regular intervals by all involved.

Skirmishes are ok up to a point with the AI, but you will soon get fed up with them as they do become fairly repetitive. I think Multiplayer Skirmishes are the only real reason to buy this presently. It does go on a sale for a few quid from time to time though so might be worth taking a punt at it then, also the first SD game. That's what I did and I have had some value out of them both offline for little outlay.

It has to be said though that Regiments is far better than the Eugen games for a rewarding single player experience and the Operations in that game are great.

[Herr Robert]

Originally posted by Nats:

These campaigns look interesting but they are pretty useless in practice. You cant play them vs the AI really, and there is very little chance of finding anyone to play them in multiplayer as that would require an extensive amount of time being set aside at regular intervals by all involved.

Skirmishes are ok up to a point with the AI, but you will soon get fed up with them as they do become fairly repetitive. I think Multiplayer Skirmishes are the only real reason to buy this presently. It does go on a sale for a few quid from time to time though so might be worth taking a punt at it then, also the first SD game. That's what I did and I have had some value out of them both offline for little outlay.

It has to be said though that Regiments is far better than the Eugen games for a rewarding single player experience and the Operations in that game are great.

The same can be said for the Total War games. There too the AI is incompetent and you will not have a challenging experience in SP. But if you do find someone of a similar level to play with the PvP campaign is very fun (both in SD2 and the TW games).

[danOwar]

Originally posted by curran:

ignore the guy above,

When you feel offended by a little hint presented with a wink, please, follow your own advice.

[MR. LOOSE MOOSE]

Originally posted by Dongmyeong:

Worth getting just the base game with no interest in multiplayer to play through the campaign(s)?

ALL YOU NEED IS THE BASE GAME. CAMPAIGN MODE I NEVER TRIED MUCH. I FEEL CLOSE COMBAT HAS A BETTER CAMPAIGN.

MULTIPLAYER IS ALSO 1V1 VS AI OR A HUMAN PLAYER.

THE 1V1 HUMAN PLAYER MEANS YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE A CHALLENGE :P

OVERALL SD2 HAS ALOT TO OFFER. ITS STILL ONE OF MY FAVORITES. I HAVE CLOCKED OVER 6000 HOURS. SOME OF IT WAS PASSED OUT THO...

[Cro2]

Yes it is worth it.