What do you look for in a campaign

[Baron von Beer 0]

As the title suggests, what makes a campaign good, in your opinion? I am playing with some ideas to turn into campaigns, and am just curious what others likes and dislikes are in them.

Does each mission have to be unique in every respect? Or do you mind having several "similar" missions, that keep in line with the story? (Eg. In vietnam, you are likely to have many S&D missions resulting in brief contact, etc) I think the latter is more "realistic", but the former helps keep a been there done that feeling.

Do you enjoy keeping the role of "your" character the same? Do you want to play Sgt. John Doe from start to end, or switch between people to get a broader scope of the conflict, and experience it from different views? (Does this depend on the nature of the conflict as well?

Is continuity on the map itself important to you? I realize this is an iffy area, but due to the size of the maps, and the fact that 99% are infact islands.... would you find it harder to "get into" a campaign if the map was used simply as a playing field, than the "actual" map of the entire conflict? IMO, this is a double edged sword... it IS hard to bounce back and forth on a map, with no continuous lines drawn between missions. However, it is also hard to create (or believe) a large campaign taking place on a small island, in a modern day conflict. (Let alone the entire history of warfare... beyond WW2 in the Pacific, you have the Falklands, Crete, and not much much beyond.) The very nature of an island conflict brings a huge paradox in terms of reality, that is beyond the scope of this post. So, will leave that one as is.. do you want the island to be "it" or is it a problem if it is only used as a small slice of a larger conflict, used only to represent a small section of the region of conflict. EG. use a map to represent a "chunk" the frontline in Europe, etc.

Ill just leave it at that for now, may add more as it comes to mind. Thanks for *any* feedback.

[jakerod 254]

I usually like keeping the same character but sometimes depending on what the conflict is changing between would be good.

Another operation that took place on an island was Grenada. You could do something like that where you land take over then have to flush out pockets of resistance.

[quicksand 0]

I loved the old feeling that the CWC campaign gave me..I don`t know why but I still like replaying more CWC then the Resistance one...I loved playing as Armstrong and the fact that you start as a n00b,don`t know anything about the war that you are facing and as you finish the missions the story start to unfold...Also I would like in a campaign to be in modern times and fictional let`s say a war beteween USA and Russia on a fictional island..Sure that would never happen IRL but it would sure be fun as hell...I also like the campaign to have twists and turns and at one point it should be hopeless but then a miracle would happen and you would start winning the war...Also it`s very important that the campaign is voice acted that always gets me in the mood...

I am really surprised that with all this good addons that are realesed or close to realese I haven`t seen one good campaign...It really is sad that there aren`t any teams of mission makers willing to make some good campaigns...

[sorry for my english]

[madrabaz 0]

This is an issue of personal taste obviously, but will try to tackle it one by one:

-Being a `realism-is-good` type of guy, I wouldn't mind having slightly repetitive missions, where we don't engage 50 enemies each time we go out of the bunker. Normally, in a war, only a small fraction of missions actually result in a firefight. Therefore, a `realistic soldier experience` should reflect that. That said, the tunnel missions of VietCong were utterly frustrating; perhaps it is possible to strike a balance between fun gaming and realism (tipping the scales on the latter's side if possible).

-Keeping several characters all the way through the campaign is actually a good idea; CWC pulled it rather nicely, IMHO.

-I don't mind playing the nobody. And I don't want my character to be a hero mission after mission either. Perhaps the focus should be on `survival`, rather than accomplishing the mission each time. The missions I liked most were the first ones, where Armstrong is under the command, and tackling the mission with a team.

-As can be guessed from the above, I think a given soldier rarely has the chance to see `the greater picture`. He is able to see only his small theatre of operations. Receiving news about the general going of the war helps set out a realistic atmosphere, though. I am also in favour of dynamic campaigns (who isn't), but the entire outcome of the war is not decided by your actions. You are merely a soldier. You have to save your arse to be able to fight the next day, if you can complete the mission and save a few of your buddies, that's fine.

-This means fighting on an island is not necessary, for example, in a WW2 game, I would be content to see, say western half of stalingrad.

-Why are we limited to United States vs others, US vs. Russia scenarios? There are many different small scale possible conflicts.

For example, in 1974, Turkey and Greece came rather close to war due to Cyprus, which ended in the Turkish military `invasion` of a third of the island. Each side will tell you a different story, of course; but the Turks accuse the Greek side of practising ethnic cleansing and guerilla warfare, sanctioned by the predominantly Greek government of Cyprus. To counter the attacks of Greek guerillas, the Turks formed thier own guerilla forces. The political agreements (I think) allowed legal intervention by Britain, Greece and Turkey, as protectorate states. After some months, Turkey, against the will of US, commenced an attack with paratroopers and amphibious landing craft. Greece did not intervene, but to give you a feel for the scale of things, Turks had attacked one of their own destroyers, thinking it was a Greek ship trying to attack the Turkish forces! The war ended before long, due to international pressure, but not before the Greeks downed a Turkish bomber. Can you imagine how many different scenarios you can make out of that?

Perhaps one of the Arab-Israeli wars? Last 60 years is choke full of such small scale military operations.

I know such issues can be a political minefield, as each side has its healthy supply of die-hard fans. However, I am sure imaginary scenarios can be devised using them as some sort of baselines.

[andersson 285]

I´m so tired of hero-missions, "Its YOU and its up to YOU if this war will be won..." I never played the red hammer campaign to the end because I get fed up to blow 10 tanks and 30 soldiers to s**t every mission.

I like when you are just a soldier amongst many. The first missions in CWC are very good, there I´m happy if I get some lousy kills and survive. And I dont mind repetitive missions as long as they got a nice feeling.

Ofcourse a harder more "interesting" mission now and then will lift a campaign. And you can always take command a short time as a regular grunt too, if your leader gets shot or there is a scout mission. Then when that mission/missions are over back in line.

A campaign should aim for feeling (voices, characters) instead for every mission to be that perfect mission that has everything.

Surprise the player? Make a short mission where nothing happens. Also if you make shorter missions you can really give the cannonfodder-feeling to the player. If he dies its no big deal to start over.

I have a feeling that people choose to have the player as commander of a group because its much harder to build a mission where AI has command.

To make this short: One in the line, no hero. I would like that!

[Hamburglar 0]

Characters: I like sticking with the same one, but if its a very large campaign I wouldn't mind having a few main characters. It seems more realistic to play as a Special Ops guy doing covert stuff than having your Army guy suddenly start doing commando missions.

War: I usualy prefer the war to be "part of something bigger". I like to think of myself fighting a small part in one huge war.

On that point, I don't like to be winning the war by myself. I like taking part in more -team based actions and not ALWAYS being the leader of the whole operation. I don't like ALWAYS facing a zillion enemies. Fewer enemies but SMARTER and better placed seems cooler.

Mission Variety: I like having differentiated missions, but there are definitely ways to keep realism in this. For example, in a Vietnam type campaign (playing as the NVA or Viet Cong) i could see these types of missions:

1. Surviving an artillery bombardment. Having artillery start falling on your base all over the place and you have to get certain trucks full of supplies or men out of the area OR find the guy with binoculars that's calling it in.

2. Scouting. Go out with a few men into the jungle and just report on enemy positions. If you make too much combat or spend too long fighting the enemy starts honing in.

3. Enemy Air Strike on you. Perhaps you're in a convoy and the only defences you have are a few truck mounted MG's and you have to escape or shoot down the heli's.

4. Ambush type missions.

5. Move into a village - maybe locals are hostile, maybe they aren't. (For USA, maybe there are Viet Cong in the village). Perhaps the mission could have you entering 3 villages and only one of them has a threat to keep the surprise.

6. (For USA) Defend an LZ that needs to be evacuated. You are the rearguard and can only leave once all the rest of the squads have left.

7. Sniper Hunt: Theres a sniper somewhere around pegging at your men. Go get him. (Only have like a couple enemy troops. Maybe a sniper or two, and a couple of troops protecting them).

There's a couple mission ideas to keep things interesting but always being pretty realistic. None of them have really the objective of wiping out a million troops.

The most hated type of mission to me is:

You and your squad of 9 infantry must assault a town with 40 guards and 4 tanks in it. Its just annoying and extremely unrealistic to do.

Continuity is very important to me - there should be a good idea of what is going on in the campaign in my opinion. Maybe ALWAYS have the map shaded to show Friendly and Enemy territory just to give you an idea of how the war is going.

[The Frenchman 0]

*more undercover missions

More POW missions (being a POW, not saving them)

More missions with voice actors

Missions have a personal notes section

Voice actors, voice actors VOICE ACTORS!

More seeming boring mission but turn into a run for your life

More atmosphere (A rainy enviroment with full fog, on a snow island, with shells exploding with custom ambiance sounds is the scariest thing in the world. I couldn't see 5 feet in front of face and the russian horde came out of nowhere.

[Baron von Beer 0]

Thanks for the feedback thus far. As far as voice acting, I have "volunteered" several people for just that. IMO, having radio msgs, etc, that are mission specific add much more to the immersion, than just text, or the default msgs that are in game. As for my Vietnam example, the first project I think I'm gonna tackle won't be NAM, (But I do have a basic stroyline for just such a campaign written out, (as well as 2 others in other conflicts).

[-TU--33ker 0]

I'd like to see more combined arms!

Or what about the possibility to take part in a big assault, but always in a different role? The first mission as a grunt, the second as a squad leader, the third as tanker, the fourth as chopper pilot... It's still the same place and the same mission, but you have access to different weapons and different ways to win the battle.

[Tibby595 0]

big sale operations are the best

exept for when you only have limited weapons

radio messages make you feel like you're in a big scale operation as well

[Gadger 0]

ORIGINALITY

[The Frenchman 0]

A fun mission would be where you have to destroy a bridge with sachel charges with stealth

[havocsquad 0]

Well, I want and hopefully expect more OFP mission makers to put a more social behaviors in their missions.  People are not cardboard cutouts, they have habits, vices, strengths, and weaknesses.  By making characters more tangible and realistic in behavior, it adds a whole new level of realism in cinematic cutscenes.

Since character behaviors in OFP-R is limited greatly, producing good storylines and creative mission making is the best means to gain and keep interest for a campaign or a set of missions.

Hopefully OFP 2 will design more sophisticated means to deal with nonverbal communication.  OFP 2 should focus on the ability to script movements and behaviors like a handshake, or someone turning really quick to shoot, and many other aspects of character movement and action.

I want mission makers to be able to create an adventure when OFP 2 comes out, like producing a campaign with the quality like the BAS Tonal campaign, only easier to make for talented mission makers and requires less manpower to complete.

Anyways, that's my two cents about it.  Make it where mission makers can get more detailed on the specific actions and behaviors of people in OFP 2 for cutscenes.

[Tamme 0]

I don't have much to say about the story. If it's good it's good. I like to have the same character, and to advance in ranks during the campaign. I start out as a private and in the end I'm a colonel. And the missions should make some sense, and should be linked somehow.