Stealth or Strategy Missions?

[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 .

[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.