Stealth or Strategy Missions?

[Instinct]

What do you prefer, classical Stealth missions with a group of specialists behind enemy lines, or do you prefer being a commander of dozen of squads and fight big battles?

Vote and give a statement please! :)

[Tigerkiller]

For me it would have to be strategy missions, although I wouldn't mind what number of forces that I would have. I just like major fighting Fronts, with the screeching of planes fighting and bombing in the air, Artillery raining down shells on every position, large platoons of tanks fighting it out, and large scores of Infantry facing off against each other. I'd love to see just one mission like that. I wouldn't mind playing a stealth mission either, as long as I was controlling one soldier. ;)

P.S In the poll screen, you've spelt Strategy wrong. Just spell-checking. :)

[Instinct]

Yes strategy missions will be sort of what you described.

[Mushroomcar]

I prefer a mix of the two, an hard big battle with not so many troops. Although you should be able to flank them and get them one by one, that's more my style. But i don't like the stealth like in the "radar" or the "rochefort" mission, it's too dark in radar, chaos if you make something wrong, if the alarm goes off. More like the "return the documents" and the "clerf" mission, there are open areas, you can choose by many tactics and it's a more open and you don't have to sneak as much as in the "radar" mission. It's fine with fields and cities though.

[wilhelm]

I like stategy but a lone sniper mission or saboteur mission or both would be nice. For instance a German misson to blow pegasus bridge after the allies capture it. Or for the allies the assasination of Hitler at the Eagles nest I think these would make for some interesting gameplay . Aw heres another suggestion how about a Michael whittmans last fight at Villers bocage or Ernst barkmans day long fight with the allies . :idea: :D by the way my mention of a pegasus bridge sabateur mission is that this time you control the sabateurs after the initial charges fail to drop the bridge and you must sneak back with scouts silently
kill allied guards and place charges and blow the bridge 8)

[Wasteland Warrior]

I'd prefer both, altho I will say large battles with lots of troops don't work very well in FoW. Large battles really show how weak the AI is, and as such, I think smaller squad-to-squad, specialist missions are much better suited to FoW. I also detest chaotic clickfests, and the larger the battles, the more troops there are, the more FoW becomes a chaotic clickfest. Having said that, if the AI were improved drastically, then large battles would not be such clickfests. There are already some ridiculously chaotic moments in the game, I'd rather NOT make the entire FoW2 this way. If I want to play a chaotic clickfest RTS with hundreds of units, I'll play AC, Cossacks, SW:EaW, WiC, or Supreme Commander! I like that FoW does NOT play like these other games.

I think the true strength of FoW is the LOD and the larger the battlefield, the lower the LOD has to be. I think the ONLY way to play FoW and enjoy it is to take control at the individual unit level and so less chaotic, stealthier missions work best, IMO. I don't think it has to be one or the other - stealth or strategy. I think single/dual squad missions can have both stealth and strategy elements, as well as tactical elements. While there are some strategic and tactical elements in the current FoW, I would love to see this expanded and improved in FoW2. I think it's cool that in most missions there are other things going on that the player has no control over - makes the player feel like a larger war is going on. However, I think it's ridiculous that most missions end up being my squad or squads against hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of enemies. Even tho it's kinda fun to see that my 3 guys killed 300+ enemies and destroyed 100+ enemy vehicles, this makes FoW very arcade-like, which isn't my cup of tea. If I want to blow away hundreds of enemies, I'll play an FPS!

So I guess my vote would be - Please do NOT make FoW2 a chaotic clickfest with hundreds of troops executing very weak AI routines. Take what you already have and fix and make that better. Just my opinion....of course :roll:

[HANSPETER]

I think both. But in this "strategic" missions there musn't be 10x10x10........ soldiers! I think missions like in Soldiers HOWWII are good. You could add some misions with many soldiers, but:
1) we couldn't manage all of them, just takin control of a small group of big forces.
2) Big forces shouldn't be SO BIG, because it will be no pleasure of playing when hundreds of soldiers on map are running shooting everywhere. It's not athmosphere of this game.

[Slapping Penguin]

^^^^^ WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Simple, this game is awesome with massive, massive battles.

I like controlling med sized forces too! Big stradgey battles please! !!!!

[Latdonine]

Both that would make everyone happy :) and u could have combination maps also like u have huge army at the front line and some troops behind enemy lines :woah:

[Wasteland Warrior]

^^^^^ WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Simple, this game is awesome with massive, massive battles.

I like controlling med sized forces too! Big stradgey battles please! !!!!
I could NOT disagree with you more. The strength of FoW is most certainly NOT massive, massive battles. Larger battles really show the limitations of FoW and the larger the battles, the more of a clickfest it becomes. Simple - larger battles = less LOD and less LOD makes FoW just another exercise in frustration. You want to play a clickfest with lots of units - play any of the many available build-recruit-rush RTSs or if you just like killing lots of enemies - play an FPS. I'm all for more strategy and tactical options, but massive battles is not the way to accomplish this.

Having said that, some serious improvements to the AI might facilitate massive battles, but again, I really think FoW shines brightest when dealing with smaller squads. The gameplay of FoW is different from almost every other RTS out there and I would hate to see FoW2 turn into a massive battle clickfest, like those many other mindless RTSs. Besides, massive battles in FoW are nothing more than fire until the last man is standing - not much strategy to that. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree 8) I think making FoW a massive battle RTS would require too many changes that would ruin what is already there. I guess we'll see.....

[UsF]

I look forward to strategic battles like the one in the russian campaign in front of the Reichstag.
You shouldnt control alot of units, but alot should be going on around you. Your actions should have some influence on the battle and help your people advance and progress through the battlefield.

Maybe stealthmissions gone wrong could turn into strategic battles. If you succeed, the strategic battle would be a cakewalk, but if you fail your objective, the enemy will be warned and put up a fierce resistance or attack.

I voted for strategic.

[Trevoga]

Coop missions, even coop campaigns would be nice. When you play with a few of your buddies, even larger force battles become fun, because you can slit larger force into manageable size force in coop.

Another thing to think about is the pace of missions. Sometimes it feels like a leisurely wabbit hunt. If adding sense of urgency in the designs and I'm not talking about adding timers.

[Panzergrenadier]

I'd like strategy missions. I find stealth missions just tend to never be plausible even though they are stealthy. The only one that was nice was Radar. I mean there was about 20 men there altogether, but when we speak of stealth we're talking 1-5 men sabotaging entire bases right? Not my cup of tea. Maybe even a little puzzle game could be included where you control all the guys protecting the base and one of the men in disguise is the sabotage (all walkers that either run, unload goods, patrol areas and such would have to be as allies because that's the whole point you have to find out) and whenever the enemy completed an objective you're supposed to defend, they'd be re-located a bit away from it so it's not so obvious. Then, if they succeeded in all their objectives, then the player would be made aware of it all soldiers would load the guns the alarm would go off and all of the soldiers would be in headless chicken mode (temporarily AI). Then a message warning that in 5 minutes or something the enemy attack would be coming. Of course, the player's soldiers should shold be restricted to 1-2 full clips of ammo that is expendable by the player because they aren't AIs who shoot till they die. Of course, the enemy attack would have quite a nice amount of force, say 5-10 men arriving constantly in a loop say 30 seconds apart from eachother at different parts of the map maybe attacking two points at once so as to not make it too easy for the player to sit there and focus on one direction. Since, the ammo would be so low for the player however and since this mission is in a depot/base there'd have to be ammo storage that say get's dropped off by coincidence when the attack begins (the supplies dropped off by train by allied soldiers carrying loaded boxes off the train). Then if you survive the enemy attacks that should stay fairly strong throughout (who the hell attacks weak and gradually gets stronger, it's the other way round in wars) reinforcements should arrive, say two or three full truckloads with jeeps, motorcycles and the lot. They should park around the camp and it sholud cause them to bump into surviving enemy troops which once driven off the player should win. Ok, now for the rest of my post rather than my fantasies ...

Equal numbers in the battles should be involved but the battles can't be too excessive. Ones like Avranches or Wiltz were nice. However, bit bigger than that. Then, if the units were all player controlled the Player could be given their objectives anyway with the whole force in mind and with the beginning Cutscene of each scenario perhaps advice should be given like "Intelligence has reported that their right flank isn't as strong as the rest of the line, so breaking through here would weaken their line and maybe cause a retreat." Also, when there are scripted retreats it would be nice if rather than just having to blow the crap out of their remainding troops if it's a large battle then they should just retreat to the next line and their AI should inform them so as where to go (with guidance from the triggers). Once they get to their retreat waypoint and the player pursues them once you come in to view/open fire then they should hopefully run into the trenches rather than say in Walcheren where units were just constantly spawned in fixed positions. Of course, the AI should still get reinforcements (where the designers make it so it fits in so like in FOW when things would happen without the player noticing.)

FInally, I wish the German campaign to be in the final defence of North Africa and in Operation Avalanche and Shingle. I mean, Operation Shingle was one of the toughest battles in World War II! I mean, the allies were doomed from the start but the Germans outnumbering them performed disgustingly in Operation Fischfang. Weirdly enough it wasn't Hollywood i'm speaking about but real life. Then maybe for the East Front fans maybe the Bonus mission like in FOW could be a East Front one. Something like Stalingrad, Kursk, the battles at Koenigsberg or maybe even the Siege of "Festung" Breslau. Well, that's all.

[Slapping Penguin]

I voted for Stragey

because Stealth missions are never done right. Like the guy above said, 5 guys sabotaging bases is not cool.

Stealth missions would be good if it was like you squad escaping a downed aircraft back to friendly lines,

and something like sneakying into position before a battle etc

Not commandos styled missions!

[Tomm992]

I like big battles, no stealth missions..........

[Dilust]

I love both game experiences, but both experiences failed in FoW imho.
If you remember in the German campaign of FoW there are two mission: one uncovered mission, with two soldiers that have to neutralize an Allied fuel depot and the second one is a big map, with germans sieging a well defended town in a winter scenario, its one of the lasts, i forget the name.
Those missions are frustrating and I never replayed them. They are heavy scripted and it seems the Author created a tunnel, with an obliged direction the player should follow.
I experiencee this in the whole single player gameplay of FoW and this is the reason I preferr the sp of Soldiers.

In my opinion the mission, stealt or strategic, should be structured with different soluction ways. No more unended battles if you do not capture a sector or invisible obstacles placed avoiding player to pass in front of the enemy bunker... this heavy scripted point of view reduce drastically the replay value of the sp compartment.
Maybe the script should be limited and some prize could be added: i.e. if the player perform a particular actions he will be rewarded with some extra units (paradroped units, enemy captured weapons, etc.), this will incentive players to explore the map and to replay it in a different way.

[Mad Cat]

I love both game experiences, but both experiences failed in FoW imho.
If you remember in the German campaign of FoW there are two mission: one uncovered mission, with two soldiers that have to neutralize an Allied fuel depot and the second one is a big map, with germans sieging a well defended town in a winter scenario, its one of the lasts, i forget the name.
Those missions are frustrating and I never replayed them. They are heavy scripted and it seems the Author created a tunnel, with an obliged direction the player should follow.
I experiencee this in the whole single player gameplay of FoW and this is the reason I preferr the sp of Soldiers.

Exactly. The gameplay and other features of FoW is what led me to toss it off on someone else who also didn't appreciate it. I expected so much better from a S-HoWWII sequel that is for sure :cry: .

[DDTank]

Dilust and Mad Cat: Ditto guys, ditto...

[mp5_sd]

A little bit from each.

[Naterstein]

I would love to have a mission similar to Ambush from SHOWW2 and perhaps the Russian one with the Ruins.

I love the assault then wait to ambush mission.

[Defy_you]

Hard decision. Maps like airlanding would be nice :realbig:

[heady89]

Strategy missions definantly, while i love the Commandos look alike games it's rather obvious that the engine ain't built for it, it just feels abit out of place sometimes on how the AI behaves and reacts in stealth missions.

That's of course judging from previous titles FoW, SHOWW2 , we're yet to se how it works out in MoW.

[abacap]

I voted for Strategy missions but I think that Stealthy missions would be fun also! But not something like commandos. Maybe having a couple of sqauds stuck behind enemy lines and your goal is to reunite them and join up with a larger attack force and then take a small town and then the rest of the mission would be Strategic.

[dazzd]

Stealth missions are good when you have a rambo go kill every thing style. If its a recon where theres not much killing or you need to just sneak past a hard point suck! :D

I loved the S:HOWW2 style where you had a 2-3 man army that you have to look after. Trying to get through an entire level with only one soldier etc.

[andreher]

it could be a mix of 2, not too big battles because they always become click fest unorganizated... but small/medium number of infantry with a few armor to support is so nice

[Mishkin]

Even though the missions have already been done, i just voted stealth. Controlling 1 or 2 units in Co op was the most fun in FoW, i remember playing the german mission with the bridge you need to blow up in co op.. 4 players ... we had to get off the bridge before it blew, 2 of our teammates were dead but there was no time we had to leave them and get off the bridge... after the bridge blew it become a mission within a mission to swim accross and rescue them laying surrounded by enemy infantry stationary guns and tanks, it was awesome we were heroes and rescued them!

In co op games when we are given a lot of starting units we only really using 1 or 2 men the rest we just usually leave them at the start of the map doing nothing as (back up units) incase our main guy dies.

Big battles like Louvian and Reichstag are quite boring to play co op, i prefer the big battles on combat, battle zones, victory flag etc.. for SP missions and co op i prefer stealth.

[Pollux]

I've always liked the ones that start out stealthy where you have to meet up with the defense line or something, then you have to use strategy. But I get enough strategy fulfillment from multiplayer so I have to say stealth.

[SS-Kommando]

I'm not sure if I have interpreted stealth correctly here, but I completely detest the types of missions -like Rochefort in FoW- where you have to hide and can't even engage in open combat without losing the mission...

But I also don't like controlling far too many units in a Co-op; I like being able to manually control each infantryman I have, refilling their inventory and so on. Having between four and eight soldiers at a time per player is about ideal for me (there should be plenty of friendly soldiers around too, but they should be AI-controlled.)

/SS-Kommando

[sgt_steiner]

i definately prefer strategy missions, as i find creeping around too much gets boring after a little while,i dont mind stealth too much as long as its mixed with a healthy amount of fighting and action!!!

[Oliverian]

I vote for Strategy! because, Strategy and the WW2 Scenario is the best Mixture ever.
These two things fit so well together like beer and Bretzeln.

cheers :beer2:

[Gep@rd]

i definately prefer strategy missions :realbig:

[AnEvilGuy]

I prefer small squad control, not huge army's where you have to manage all your units at once. Like in the First German mission.... it started out fine till you got 20 guys all armed with pistols as your force and you had to get them all weapons.

[Lt. Sherpa]

That's a very good point. I found that the large influx of units under my control meant that I spent more time managing them/equipping them than I did fighting the Brits.

Regardless, strategy > stealth

[Trog]

One thing to remember, this is not command and conquer! If you have adhd, then play another game.
Setting the make up of units, moving and cover, watching ammo levels, All of this sets the series apart from the others,Remember the Basic Training from Soldiers. DONT GIVE IN TO THE SHEEP. Stealth, Strategy, either work what would be a good thing is not a straight line campaign, but more of if you fail, still move forward in the game with maybe a hero unit. or something, the reinforcemts could work for either stealth, or strategy.
Perhaps setting up some way for green troops after so many kills to gain levels? then you may have to balance between keeping soldiers alive and meeting misson goals. short term vs long term considerations. Capture equiment, but run out of ammo because no suppy on your side? 45apc vs 9mm?

NO WHERE DID I say no large battles. just the ai is lacking to leave units un attended without suffering heavy losses. and ai players never run out of ammo either. LOL

[Fonzie]

The first German mission was very chaotic, I had to spend most of the time to equip my troops. It's also very annoying to click the movement mode off all the time, as the landing paratroopers advance when I don't want them to move.

I prefer more big strategy missions, where you're attacking with force or defending (like Evacuation, Moscow and Last Stand). I just don't like to sneak around and kill baddies with a knife.

[Naserve]

I wouldn't mind controlling 2 guys or 10, but I hate the missions where I get like 20 full squads and no time to check them over or see where they all are. As for stealth or strategic open combat, either one. I enjoyed the russian stealth missions a lot, but I also liked the russian mission where I had a full squad and was charging the german village. I guess I just prefer one or two squads so I can manage them properly.

[pelitys]

I prefer more big strategy missions, where you're attacking with force or defending (like Evacuation, Moscow and Last Stand). I just don't like to sneak around and kill baddies with a knife.

I wouldn't mind controlling 2 guys or 10, but I hate the missions where I get like 20 full squads and no time to check them over or see where they all are. I enjoyed the russian stealth missions a lot, but I also liked the russian mission where I had a full squad and was charging the german village. I guess I just prefer one or two squads so I can manage them properly.

Stealth missions are fun without the stealth, because managing a handful of men or vehicles is very enjoyable. I also try to avoid losses as much as possible, and with AI zerging forward everywhere around me, it's hard to even keep your troops in a leash, or out of fire. In the end I end up clearing the map with a tank if one is available or a couple of men, keeping the rest of my forces in a corner as reinforcements. I bet most people prefer to play this way too. I hope they learn something from this.
Hopefully the next iteration of the series would have some Call of Duty -style combat, but just from RTS perspective with direct control. While you would still be able to choose your method of clearing the enemies ahead with whatever weapons you prefer or find, the progression would still be fairly linear and scripted. You ofcourse COULD stray off the path you are expected to advance by, but you'd be met with lots of added challenge, which would be hard to conquer with just a single infantryman, but not impossible. Much like the game "Commandos", which was awesome. The first soldiers pretty much only had this kind of small-scale skirmishing, which made it so awesome. So if you're feeling you want the challenge, you could go fight D-day with your lone rifleman, or just take the stealthy detour and get to your objective without load/save juggling :D I hope you get the point.

Large scale strategy battles only really work in defence missions, and even then you must have plenty of time to arrange your forces, or have them pre-positioned. After that it's just patching the holes in your line with reinforcements, while AI handles the shooting. Awesome to micromanage to see your enemies go up in flames and run back to their mommies, while sitting comfortably inside a beefy tank or behind an AT-gun/HMG.

[Nanaki]

I want to see missions that have you as a smaller part of a larger force. Say, a game where your side has the usual ludicrous number of men, tanks, AT guns, and other things you see in the usual strategy mission. They do not have to be ALL under user control, keep them all under AI control with exception of one tank and two infantry squads. Say, a mission where a Tank and its infantry escort are pushing through an occupied city.

I especially dislike defense missions that give you no time to setup your forces at all. If all those units are to be under my command, I should be able to set them up the way I like it. The Russian mission 'Evacuation' is a huge example of this, I look at the massive blue blob around the map and say 'My forces are far too spread out, I gotta bring em closer in and get strategically smarter positioning' and I only have a precious minute or two to do this. I hate clickfests on speed one and having to restart because some idiot decided he did not want to pull that Maxim MG any further and stopped.

[Piotrburz]

I would like to see soldiers/fow/mow game saga evolve to something like full spectrum warrior in commanding the squad. It would be awesome in WWII reality commanding a platton sized squadm, rushing into stalingrad streets with tank assistance. Heavy battles+destructible everything+FSW command style+great physic and we have more impressive movie, than a game!

[pelitys]

I would like to see soldiers/fow/mow game saga evolve to something like full spectrum warrior in commanding the squad. It would be awesome in WWII reality commanding a platton sized squadm, rushing into stalingrad streets with tank assistance. Heavy battles+destructible everything+FSW command style+great physic and we have more impressive movie, than a game!
That would be just like another Dawn of War 2 then :sick:

[JARHEAD]

I like both as long as there is some balance between the two, but I prefer strategy missions with massive battles.

[mhtsos]

I prefer stategy over stealth, but I really enjoy when you have both in a game.
3 or 4 strategy missions to 1 stealth would be a good ratio.

[foxforcefour]

Stealth Missions are boring in my opinion - you're just going around in the bushes, hiding, doing some sabotage here and there.

Strategy Missions have the full fight in them!

[sgt_steiner]

most definateley strategy games are the best, my ideal is mostly 3v3 0r 4v4 map with some bigger and smaller maps too,

in sp missions maybe a part half way through some of them where you have to do a :ninja: to get onto the main battle would be good!!!

[asureka]

I vote for strategy missions :P i think big battles would be great(big battles,tank battles and something like that).But stealth missions boring and there is no much action.thats my opinion.

~asureka

[Lloydyboy]

I vote Strategy but Not big Massive maps, meduim to large are ok for me, i dont wanna strain my hand from moving my mouse every second, just dont make another Louvain like back in Faces of War

[Zebah (szebus)]

stealth missions where on the same map the ai or other players playing heavy action.

[DDA]

This, although alot of the regular stealth missions in red tide were alot of fun as well. If only those darn german infantry artillery guns wouldn't turn and instakill you as soon as you were spotted :(

All of the red tide missions were pretty well done imo

[LegionnaireFandragon]

I prefer strategy battles. Not necessarily a large force, but instead maybe 2 8 man squads, a couple of tanks and a series of objectives, much like ive done in my own MoW mod.

I tried to make a series of stealth missions, but well, I dont know how to make triggers that would really give it a "stealth" feel. ATM they are all more like a 4 man assault and my dudes just try not to die while completing thier objectives.....