RS campaign "easy" maps

[gimpy117]

something HAS to be done about maps balanced for Japanese and their inferior firepower. The US side seems to get a freebie or at least a hefty advantage when selecting a map that is balanced for the Japanese in campaign mode. To me, a map designed for bolt action-ed players attacking, a semi-auto team(plus lamethrowers), flipped the other way around seems a little broken and jut plain silly. An easy way to fix is is to lock out such maps when the allies attack

 

[Cat_in_da_Hat]

For the Aussie / NZ server we have switched all the maps around because of this. For example we have set it up so the Japanese are not likely to ever attack IwaJima it took a bit of trial and error but it can be done.

Ok you lose accuracy of the battlefields but for the sake of balance it is worth it.

Did the same with the RO2 campaign and added some custom maps into the mix.

I have attached screen shots of how it is currently set.

 

[emcdunna]

Yeah it does seem like a big disadvantage in being the defender (any team) is that you don't get to pick the map. There's always a few maps that one side LOVES and the other side HATES, and they always get played.

 

[LugNut]

True. It might work better if the attackers can pick the territory, but not the map.

In a future evolution of Campaign, I'd like to see more choices for both the attackers and defenders.

For example, a range of combat power that you could apply to a specific map. Combat power is pretty vague right now, I'd like to see it tied to hard numbers. Use 100% per map and you get 100% of reinforcements, 85% = 85% of reinforcements etc. So, if you were forced to defend a difficult map, you might only allocate a small amount, and concede quickly saving combat power for another map. The attackers would have to wager how much to allocate, too much and they waste it on a retreating enemy, too little and they could lose the map.

 

[emcdunna]

Because then the defenders could allocate small amounts of combat power when the map is biased towards the enemy, meaning they would be able to limit the success of the attacker.

Brilliant!

At the same time, if you really want to hold a territory then you can allocate more of your combat power and put everything on the line!

 

[LugNut]

Yeah, when you were down to just a few maps and CP on both sides was down @ 125, you could try to get the attackers to use too much too soon and save yours to make a last stand. Or they could think that's what YOU were going to do and not use much on the first one, and you could turn the tables on them.

I've just seen too many campaigns grind to the end with lopsided teams working their way through Station/Apts/Grain/Barracks. No risk= boring.

 

[emcdunna]

Do you think the other problem is the fact that people vote on this?

For instance, if the most senior player on the team got to decide for everyone what map to play on, then maybe you'd be able to get more variety in maps and less of the "boring" ones.

Personally i'd rather have a veteran leader play the commander class each game and also do all of the map/territory choosing.

You really think stalingrad or kursk would have happened if they let the soldiers vote on where to attack? Haha

 

[Cat_in_da_Hat]

Do you think the other problem is the fact that people vote on this?

For instance, if the most senior player on the team got to decide for everyone what map to play on, then maybe you'd be able to get more variety in maps and less of the "boring" ones.

Personally i'd rather have a veteran leader play the commander class each game and also do all of the map/territory choosing.

You really think stalingrad or kursk would have happened if they let the soldiers vote on where to attack? Haha

I like these ideas however there is the danger you will get a jerk in command and spoil it for everyone.

Some of the best campaign matches we have had involved one or two people remaining command right through the match. I guess it boils down to the amount of co-operation you get from the players base. To over regulate decision could cause its own issues.

Maybe a hybrid system where the commander makes a selection and the team players get to vote if they agree or disagree. The commander could then change their mind. might be over complicating things for a small gain though.

But good discussion.

We do a campaign on Sunday night at about 6.00pm on the Aussie / NZ server. That's Australian time gmt+10. Drop buy.

 

[Raven1986]

The thing that was and is annoying still is the fact that the maps do not fit in the campaign mode. Simply exchancing the teams on the attacker and defender slots does not provide for a realistic and immersive experience.
Attacking Japanese fortifications on any map as Japanese is weird. Assaulting Iwo Jima instead of chasing the Yankees down to the beaches would be rewarding.
We currently have the same discussion with Heroes of the West. Attacking Normandy beaches as the Germans would be just the same.

However, we from 40-1 have also experimented with the default maps and custom maps both on Eastern and Pacific Front. Indeed default map placing is suboptimal and we changed around.

Still it is sad that a territory can be captured by winning a single map when there are 3 maps in the territory. You should be forced to win at least two of the maps in order to capture the territory. Not just play Apartments to win other entire Barrikady. And for RS it would be nice that you need to both play Iwo Jima and then play Mount Suribachi in order to capture the Iwo Jima territory.

 

[emcdunna]

I have been playing this game for 2 weeks and I have only played a few maps more than 1 time: iwo jima, hanto, bridges of druzhina and apartments.

Those ones I have played like 5 times or more each.

I'm just annoyed that there isn't a game mode that allows me to play the other maps with the same frequency, it seems like everyone who plays this just wants to play the "best" or most "unbalanced" maps and that's it.

 

[Raven1986]

I see, on servers allowing map voting you will have a narrow experience of everything RO2/RS have to offer.
The typical map voting goes: Apartments, Bridges, Apartments, Barracks, Apartments, Bridges etc.
or with RS: Iwo, Hanto, Iwo, Saipan, Iwo, Hanto

On campaign servers it depends where the maps are alocated. Territories in the "middle" are played most if you have an equally strong team as Team A wins then loses, territory gets counterattacked by Team B, Team B loses, Team A attacks again.

If one team is better the maps of the worse team get played until the end.

 

[emcdunna]

Exactly. Its just a huge rotation of those 6 maps... what the cruddd...

 

[LugNut]

Not many servers run any custom maps either, and there are many. 40-1 is about the only regularly populated campaign server I can think of with customs. There's a few other servers that have them, but they are usually empty.