Finished AO 1939

[colberki]

What shall I do now? Replay from SCW?

[adiekmann]

What shall I do now? Replay from SCW?

That's what I did. But now I'm done with AO39 again. It just released and I'm already itching for AO 40!

[Kerensky]

As someone who completed both chapters, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on difficulty.

Especially Spanish difficulty, 1939 reduced difficulty, and what direction you think the future should go.

Right now, I'm mostly of the mind that making the content as accessible as possible is the best way to go. This does not include achieving bonus objectives though, which I have no problem making very difficult.

[Retributarr]

As someone who completed both chapters, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on difficulty.

Especially Spanish difficulty, 1939 reduced difficulty, and what direction you think the future should go.

Right now, I'm mostly of the mind that making the content as accessible as possible is the best way to go. This does not include achieving bonus objectives though, which I have no problem making very difficult.

Kerensky!... My thoughts on 'Difficulty'... just-occurred to me... right after reading your post!.

Is it reasonably possible to give the player the choice or the selection of how difficult that their selected choice of 'Scenario' will be...by say... reducing the number of Enemy Units or other such adjustments. For example... I played the SCW-Ebro death-fest... [I think it was Ebro?] and even though I didn't enjoy the Overwhelming Assault that I had to deal with... I still preferred to play it just the way that I did.

So now... not only will the player initially select his Game-Difficulty at the beginning of the Campaign... but now... also... with this additional Option… the Player can then further fine-tune their anticipated experience on more acceptable terms!.

[adiekmann]

As someone who completed both chapters, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on difficulty.

Especially Spanish difficulty, 1939 reduced difficulty, and what direction you think the future should go.

Right now, I'm mostly of the mind that making the content as accessible as possible is the best way to go. This does not include achieving bonus objectives though, which I have no problem making very difficult.

I found the SCW scenarios originally about right in difficulty. It probably should be noted that I usually play at standard difficulty level the first time through, but then increase the difficulty level in later replays. So this last time I did raise the number of General Traits to the maximum 7, but increased the difficulty to General (the middle one). I for one prefer the difficulty of a level/campaign coming from it's original design and/or adjustments to the prestige that you and the AI receive. Kind of like it was in PC1's GC (though hardest AI difficulty was still pretty easy i.e. "level 2 vs. level 1 vs. level 0"). For the longest time I played the GCs in PC at the second highest difficulty setting (whatever it was called).

So to answer my previous question, if I start a new playthrough again, it would be with the default 2 G. Traits and General difficulty level. I don't like artificially making the AI stronger statistically (i.e. higher accuracy %).

Now, to answer your question, the two missions that gave me a hard time were Ebro and Teruel (sp?). Burnett was only a challenge the first time I played it. Now, let's be clear, I AM one of those players who always tries to capture ALL hexes, cities, and objectives. I was in PC1 too. But on Ebro I (originally) wasn't ever able to do so. There was always a couple of victory hexes that I couldn't maintain control of by the end of the last turn. Yes, I easily achieved a "victory" but not complete as explained above. My very first time playing it I barely had even enough victory hexes to "win."

But now, after the AO39 patch, I cleared the map easily. The last few turns there was nobody left to fight unless I went over into the fortification/entrenchment lines.

Teruel same thing. (Sorry, too lazy to go look up how it is spelled correctly!)

In short, both were too easy now. I did not know about the latest patch's efforts to make them easier until after I replayed them, so I was stunned and couldn't figure out what exactly I had done that ended them in such complete victory.

[adiekmann]

As someone who completed both chapters, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on difficulty.

Especially Spanish difficulty, 1939 reduced difficulty, and what direction you think the future should go.

Right now, I'm mostly of the mind that making the content as accessible as possible is the best way to go. This does not include achieving bonus objectives though, which I have no problem making very difficult.

Now, re: AO39, I thought it was noticeably easier even the first time through I never had any difficulty winning in grand fashion. I did not really ever experience any of that tension or edge of my seat wonderment whether I would come out victorious.

[IceSerpent]

As someone who completed both chapters, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on difficulty.

Especially Spanish difficulty, 1939 reduced difficulty, and what direction you think the future should go.

Right now, I'm mostly of the mind that making the content as accessible as possible is the best way to go. This does not include achieving bonus objectives though, which I have no problem making very difficult.

I think the difficulty in AO1939 is about right, with only a few scenarios being too easy, like Lvov for example. The only issue with difficulty for me is that when you go for bonus objectives, the difficulty comes from not having enough time instead of tactics. It's a puzzle of sorts, where you have to figure out where exactly to put your troops and how to move them in order to make it to all objectives within the allotted time instead of figuring out how to break enemy defenses. I think it would be more interesting if it was easier to get to all those places, but more difficult to actually conquer them.

[o_t_d_x]

Now that spain is fixed with the new patch, i clearly think that spain has the perfect difficulty. Especially Ebro i really like. Other battles like brunette, which i thought have been hard, are easy now. (what support with 152 mm arty for ai allies changes...and of course the perfect tactic - i attack from the beginning now - no more defence line, just buy 4 italian tanks and some it. infantry, ai allies on hold forever and attack, then big encirclement and simultaniously you attack over the right street, so the hq in the north is no problem)

Its not good, when i finish a new dlc on field marshall without positiv traits in less then two days. (AO39) And its even worse, when i win so many maps first try, in iron man.. I would have bought spain, (i have field m. ed.), but AO39 ... i would have preferred a LOOOONGER and HARDER AO39, then i gladly would have paid 15 Euro.

[Tassadar]

I found the difficulty just right considering the time period and the opposition the player is facing, but then again, there is still some option to ramp it up slightly. The difficulty does not have to come from prestige draining, huge battles (however they are always welcome from time to time as a true test to the core and something that enables players to use units that usually stay in deep reserve), but also the objectives. I think the balance between side ones and basic ones this time was just right and have nothing against the idea of having an easier time after SCW.

However, starting AO40 things should get progressively more difficult by tiny bits. Be it scenarios in Norway, where the enemy forces are not huge, but terrain is crazy or those in France, where maneuvering and smart decisions are needed to take on forces that easily rival your own. There is still place for relatively easy scenarios where historically there was lighter resistance just due to the basic factor that German army was outnumbering the opponents and had much better equipment and despite defenders best efforts the result was decided from the start (Netherlands from example), but these should be distractions or side missions as a change of pace.

[Scrapulous]

Why not let the player choose? Right now scenario design includes branching paths, which seem to be different only in terms of maps and objectives, but not difficulty. Why not make one path more difficult, make that clear to the player on the choice screen and in the end-dialogue of the pre-choice scenario, and let players sort themselves according to their difficulty preferences? It's not necessarily more work than you're already doing, but it's a step toward getting past the "how difficult should this DLC be?" conundrum.

[goering_slith]

As someone who completed both chapters, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on difficulty.

Especially Spanish difficulty, 1939 reduced difficulty, and what direction you think the future should go.

Right now, I'm mostly of the mind that making the content as accessible as possible is the best way to go. This does not include achieving bonus objectives though, which I have no problem making very difficult.

With the DLCs my way of playing changed. Before with the base game I wasn't playing smart. In SCW it is a must to capture enemy equipment in order to survive. I prefer now to work with encirclement and hunt units which are better then the German ones, what I didn't before. In AO 1939 I followed this approach too. For me the difficulty of SCW would be fine for all DLC. But it depends also on the way you start the DLC. If you could import a very good core force of the last DLC the new DLC should be easier. If you have to start new then the DLC may be difficult. So I think it isn't easy to set a difficulty which always works well.

BTW, I observed how you comment here, Kerensky. Really good work of you! Like it

[NightPhoenix]

It can be harder than 1939, Spanish Civil war had me doubting sometimes whether i would make the objectives, but 1939 you just steamroll through, bonus objectives included. Most of all i would like the option to fiddle more with prestige without giving the enemy accuracy bonusses. Since i cant do that right now and i don't want to create enemy superhumans, i'm swimming in prestige at the middle difficulty which makes thinking about casualties a no-brainer. Would be nice if that ever made it into the game, like in panzer corps 1. This way, people can decide their own difficulty however they like!

[Scrapulous]

It can be harder than 1939, Spanish Civil war had me doubting sometimes whether i would make the objectives, but 1939 you just steamroll through, bonus objectives included. Most of all i would like the option to fiddle more with prestige without giving the enemy accuracy bonusses. Since i cant do that right now and i don't want to create enemy superhumans, i'm swimming in prestige at the middle difficulty which makes thinking about casualties a no-brainer. Would be nice if that ever made it into the game, like in panzer corps 1. This way, people can decide their own difficulty however they like!

100% agreed. This is my experience, too and I have had the same wishes.

[adiekmann]

It can be harder than 1939, Spanish Civil war had me doubting sometimes whether i would make the objectives, but 1939 you just steamroll through, bonus objectives included. Most of all i would like the option to fiddle more with prestige without giving the enemy accuracy bonusses. Since i cant do that right now and i don't want to create enemy superhumans, i'm swimming in prestige at the middle difficulty which makes thinking about casualties a no-brainer. Would be nice if that ever made it into the game, like in panzer corps 1. This way, people can decide their own difficulty however they like!

Exactly what I was trying to say above, but don't try to turn a Sherman into a tiger tank artificially.

[BaronVonWalrus]

Personally speaking, I hope that "accessibility" of scenarios (e.g. moderating challenge levels) isn't a mantra you stick to rigidly in later DLC.

I'd prefer tough battles (medium sized battles can also be tough) with perhaps a couple of extra turns on the clock to allow for sensible asset management and/or infantry-heavy core variants, where the penalty for consistently mediocre play is actually defeat rather than just a hefty prestige bill or a lower haul of bonus objectives.

No risk at all of defeat = no challenge and, dare I say, no "fun". Of course, not every moment in a campaign should be balanced on a knife-edge but it's those gaming moments and success in the face of stern challenges that live in the memory.