karynova 0 Posted August 10, 2002 I noticed on Avon's FAQ that, depending on the outcome of the the previous mission (Information), you get to play different versions of the Occupation mission that follows it. I assume the decision is based on whether you work stealthily or give your position away in Information and the Soviets change their plans accordingly (not that Information was very hard in the first place, especially considering the missions that came before it). Does anybody know what changes? More tanks I assume. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John C Flett 0 Posted August 10, 2002 Exactly what I understood. The tanks which you watch leave in the intro will be there if you attack earlier because of poor intel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karynova 0 Posted August 10, 2002 Sounds like a pretty lame way to bump it up to a 20 mission expansion pack. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John C Flett 0 Posted August 12, 2002 Actually I wish they had more missions like that. I get a little tired of the idea that a mission must be done over and over again until you get it right. Even a small change means that your efforts were actually for something. What I really long for is a nice branched campaign that lets you fail missions but keep moving on, even if that may mean losing the campaign in the end. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted August 12, 2002 wasn't that supposed to be the origonal concept for the 1985 campaings? what ever happen to it? probaly to difficult to make happen i take it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted August 12, 2002 i dunno..probably they had strict deadline set by CM and had to forego it.... anyway, it seems like new management system is more in scriptting too...using some command like "savevar <name of variable>" seems to be the way...but takes longer to script it i guess Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John C Flett 0 Posted August 12, 2002 I think the main problem with a true branched campaign is simply that you can play through a campaign once and mayby only see 50% or less of the missions. If the average gamer only plays a campaign once then its kind of hard to justify all those extra missions at you monthly budget meeting. Shame though cause way this used to be the norm for a lot of games. I remember the Wing Commander games in particular were very good for the idea that the player could live and see the war lost if their performance wasn't up to scratch. I have seen a few designers make pretty good efforts at this kind of thing though. The 1969 Viet Nam campaign for one had a number of missions which you could lose and still continue though there might be a price to pay in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snoopy 0 Posted August 12, 2002 wing commander was the sh*t back then, it was cool! but i keep accidentally forgot to cloak one and jumped into autofly with out cloak on and had to kight infinet numbers of ships by myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreyKnight 0 Posted August 12, 2002 Wing Commander (sigh). Gone are the days of Mark Hamill in a role other than that of Luke Skywalker... lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBass 0 Posted August 13, 2002 The problem is that missions have to be made. If you make differentr missions depending on different ending you cannot spend as much time making missions in a wholem campaign. So if every mission had a win or lose scenario then BIS would need to make about 50 times as many missions to keep the campaign a reasonable length Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
