The missions themselves are dynamic, obviously the larger ones more so than the smaller. What you do early on greatly influences what the AI does, and so on.
Absolutely. I intended there to be two more for launch, but I underestimated the work load when launching a game. So... it will happen, but not tomorrow.Are there any plans to add more maps/scenario's to multiplayer?
There is only one war game I have ever played in my entire history of gaming (since the days of the C-64) that had a real, proper, working dynamic campaign, and that was Falcon 4 (subsequently Falcon 4 Allied Force). And that game was genius. Falcon 3 I recall had one as well, along with some F-22 flight sim I played, but they were not on the level of Falcon 4.
It would be awesome if we had a dynamic campaign, but expecting one is a little too much. A mission editor would go a long way, however.
Total War games, Civilization games, Ageods games, EU3, Hearts of Iron games, XCOM games etc all have dynamic campaigns of some description in that you choose a way to play and the AI reacts and chances their tact to suit, these are obviously all turn based games in the strategy part but I dont mind that if its got a good AI and dynamic structure. F4 and Rowan's Battle of Britain are the only example I can think of real time games with dynamic campaigns that continue throughout the whole game without pause, I am sure there must be a few others. There are quite a few games that have a semi-dynamic campaign engine where missions are created depending on your actions - Rise of Flight and Tornado for example spring to mind.
For this kind of strategy game I don't think it is expecting too much to have a bit of dynamic play over the campaign missions rather than taking the easy route and linearly scripting the whole thing. Admittedly its a small developer, but then these are the things small developers should be doing - being a bit more forward thinking rather than taking the easy route that EA etc are all doing.
The way it is its just a bit ... meh, no replayability. A big opportunity for a new, dynamic, modern, strategy war game that has been missed, it's just a bit of a shame. But I expected as much, you don't see it often these days that developers are trying to push the boundaries of game-play rather than just relying on graphics to carry their games. Expected more from a Paradox game.
Most modern wargames don't have any dynamic campaigns.
Harpoon didn't have one, and that (at least the early versions) was about WW3.
Modern naval combat is short and brutal and there's no way to replace losses.
Simply put:
If you sink the Kuznetsov and shoot down all the Flankers the next mission the Russians are reduced to shaking their fists at you when you fly over Murmansk.
None of those games are war games (except maybe Hoi3) and they do not have very complex combat systems that a modern war game requires. Like I said, Falcon 4 is the only one with a real dynamic campaign and that game was broken so bad it had to be remade.
Almost allowed myself to get thread-derailed by the other games listed in this thread . . .
As for NWAC, I am having a lot of lockup issues on the splash screens (no worries, I will make sure they are reported in the bug thread), and I am sort of disapointed that the campaign seems to have me fighting the same surface groups over and over again, just in different locations on the map. Outside of that the game is well worth playing for its price, and we can only hope that the turbo tape boys continue to support the product as Paradox has with its games.
Geez, start a lot of flame wars do ya? My opinion and/or observations didn't pass your ******* inspection? There wasn't drama (before your snide ass comment), I only, just made a simple statement. There ARE people like me that: 1) have lives 2) have jobs 3) have a wife and kids and 4) can't always sit for 20-30 minutes at a time. This is the first time I've even been on this forum in months---because of, well, see above. Sometimes people don't want to pause a computer game for hours on end to take care of life. OR have other people that need to use it. Or....
Jesus.
Okay! As I can't come up with a downside to having a save feature, I'll say... good suggestion!
Hopefully we can keep the flamin' to a minimum here. Personally, though, I don't think the current lack-of-save is a reason to not buy it and lump it in with SotS2 like the one guy did. But yes, it would be nice. So, drop it in the suggestion box and we'll see what happens.
I can`t agree with "we want saves" crowd, sorry. Missions are reasonably short and it should not a big problem to play the whole mission. Lack of saves makes gameplay more tense and interesting - there were situations where I would reload if I could but I was forced to deal with consequences of bad decisions... and it is fun!
I had not crashes yet by the way.
We're hoping (not promising) to be able to add a save game feature. I agree it would be nice to have.
The crashes, on the other hand, we are working very, very hard to get rid of.