Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSix
Yes, thanks. For example, if we make in sequel Moscow 41, Kerch 42, Kharkov 42 or Stalingrad 42 then you won't see FW-190. If we make in sequel Leningrad 42 (late) or Rhev 42 (late) then you will see its. We plan to extend game after release and add new theatres.
|
Good. I like a historical planeset without "balance" or "KeWl" types.
A personal question, unrelated to CloD or any other planned sequels or related projects, BlackSix. What is your personal view on a good campaign, as a successful campaign designer I mean? You have worked on payware releases which, apparently, have been well received by the russian community, but I'm curious which "style" you prefer.
I know some people like long campaigns with a hundred or more missions. I don't. Over time there will be a growing amount of repetetive mission styles and objectives and the longer a campaign becomes the more often this "been there, done that" feeling will pop up. There were some very creative and well-done campaigns shipped with 1946 (especially the VVS fighter campaign which let you start in a MiG-3 at Moscow in early 1942) which worked along the lines of a story being told, or a pilot's diary. I like such campaigns because I am a sucker for good storytelling which weaves the missions into a comprehensive storyline.
Then, of course, is the approach Desastersoft has taken with their recent releases for CloD. They don't focus on story but on player achievements. You have to achieve certain things to "win" the mission (even though winning or losing doesn't hamper the advancement through the campaign). That ain't my cup of tea, personally, but I can see why it appeals to some players.
So, what's your personal take on this matter? What kind of campaigns do you prefer?