Is campaign mode even necessary?

I did at first. I will probably go back and play just to play it, but it is not necessary.

Never played the campaign, really. I think I regret it now. If I played it before playing the sandbox game, I guess I would not have noticed the limitations...

I play campaign games when I don't have the time or energy to start a full-blown sandbox game. The missions typically take less time and are easier to focus on since they're typically one on one (or team on team).

-Nero

I haven't played a campaign game yet. I got my butt kicked in small universes a few times while I was figuring it out, and was getting frustrated until I built my own colony & constructor ships. Now I am fully exploring the mysteries of sleep deprivation with this game....(yawn)

I usually prefer campaign modes to sandbox games.

But to be honest, the campaign mode for this game sucks badly, so I never bothered finishing it.

In almost all games I play I prefer a Campaign to sandbox, but in this game I just don't like how they are linked. You don't carry over anything, you even have to relearn the techs. For me the campaign is the part of the game that needs the most work, hopfully they will address this in the expansion.

I only played through it for the story. A story\campaign mode doesnt really work well in games like these so I wasn't expecting too much.

Played the first mission of the Campaign and started the second, in the meantime I started a Sandbox game, and frankly, never went back... ooops. Myabe I'll try mission 2 this weekend...

It was only good enough to teach the games functions and all. But that was it.

I always go for the sandbox rather than the campaign in games of this sort (HoMM, and Warlords springs to mind, I don't even recall if any of the MoO games had a campaign), I even by-pass scenarios if I can and move straight on to randomly generated sandbox games. To me, campaigns are just (overly) lengthy tutorials.

You don't carry over anything, you even have to relearn the techs.

This is my biggest complaint about this game's campaign, and other games have also done this.

One problem with some scenarios is you have to know what you have to have/do to win, and this is almost guaranteed take a couple of tries to figure out (you need to take out this defended position, or build this troop/ship type first to win, etc.) and that may not fit your style of play. With sandbox games you stand a better chance of being able to win your way.

GCII sandbox mode is quite flexible and provides players with a framework where their style of play is competitive.

Cheers,
Reaver

I never played campaign mode. With RTS games and strategy games I always either play multiplayer or the sandbox game. Campaigns always limit me either build wise or tech wise anyways and I bought the game to check out all the features. Probably havent played a campaign mode since Warcraft2 Tides of Darkness.

Wow, I always talk with my uncle about this. I couldnt agree with you guys more. The campaign mode is restrictive and forced. Where as the sandbox mode is limitless and customizable. I just cant imagine having any fun with something that says "buld 2 influence starbases." Usually I dont even THINK about thinking about touching the campaign mode. In Rise of Nations; Rise of Legends it was kinda cool because it was a different game. It had the Risk type main map, then every battle was a small scale RTS where the bonuses you earned on the main map carried into battle with you. But in a game like this, where each battle takes DAYS, campaing mode is rendered obsolete.

I'm currently writing a campaign for the Human Factions Mod and after reading this I wondered if there was any advice you could give me to make it playable.

I almost always play the campaign first... mainly just for the story. So sue me, I'm an RP'r at heart. In GC2's case though, I think the branching scenario thing is basically a waste.

People who always finish a campaign will keep reloading until they win the scenario, people that prefer sandbox will skip the campaign altogether. The only reason I can think of to use a branching scenario campaign is if theres an ironman mode where you can't save the game and must play through to get a "prize".

Interesting post. Because I usually enjoy campaign modes. I tried the campaign in GalcivII but just didn't enjoy it very much. Sandbox, for me, is more enjoyable.

Yes, the campaign is very limited and thus much less fun than playing a snadbox or Metaverse game!

If you want to know what happens during the campaign you can read through the XML.

If you want the learn The Story of the Mithrilar, Arnor, Dread Lords, Humans, Altarians, and Drath, then go to this thread.

Paul D.

The only reason I can think of to use a branching scenario campaign is if theres an ironman mode where you can't save the game and must play through to get a "prize".

I think this is an excellent idea.

It would be nice if there was story generator for every sandbox games. Let me explain:

Imagine a TBS game based in a fantasy setting. All "players" are the human race. They can only build cities in open lands.. etc.. They all have their characteristic and specialty.

But, spread all around the map, there are non-human races, randomly set. In some forest, there is an elf city. Dwarves in mountain, wastelands crawl with orcs, etc.. "Elves" are just mightily powerful, but they keep to themselves. Don't go into their forest, however! Civilization built near them can try to befriend them, try to learn from them (for magical technologies), or even launch massive armies to try to conquer them.

Dwarves are in unreachable mountain. It's just plain impossible to conquer them. But they can be good trade partner, they have their own trade goods, and they could join war.. etc.. Civs built near them would have better-than-average weaponry, but it would cost them.. etc..

Orc simply spawn in wastelands, and attack, attack, attack. The civilization near them would have to become more martial. Their armies, however, would have a lot of experience.

You could also have some precursor superpowerful magical theocracies, who demand tribute to everybody. Eventually, you will have to rally a huge rebellion to free your civs. Etc...

blablabla.. You impliment some kind of.. landscape in the game. Now, imagine a GalCiv2's way of doing this.

Every game should be different, off course. The best example I can think of is Babylon 5: the species have to deal with a universe who is the battlefield of 2 super-powerful races. Extremely advanced, and they use less-developped empires as pawn in their big games.

Or I even remember what the Minbari ambassador told to the terrans in "Babylon 5 : The Beggining": "In all our travels, we went everywhere. But we NEVER upset the Min'Bari". Why not having an empire who keep to himself at the middle of the galaxy, simply centuries ahead technologicaly? Every ship who come near their world is simply destroyed, no question or explanation asked... But except them, they are just.. there.. until a civ become powerful ennough to try to conquer them, and capture highly-advanced technology.


The possibilities are infinite. Why make a simple "sandbox" game that is always the same, when you could.. I don't know, add a little flavor to the whole galaxy with other species. The "regular" species would still be the only race playable, and the only one allowed to win...

Honestly, I'd prefer MP, or just about anything else, to the campaign. It's a waste of time to me.

Cikomyr
Some of what you talked about was also in MoO2

Somewhere in the universe was an ancient ruined precursor planet guarded by The Guardian. Generally, just approaching the system gets you attacked and destroyed, but eventually you get strong enough that you can kill the Guardian. If you do, you get a free "rescued" ship some unique top tier techs and really nice planet.

Yhea. But as you said, there was ONE planet. I am thinking more in terms of many, many different occurances, randomly choosed when you generate a game. Each game would have it's own.. ehh.. "landscape"

A gigantic space monster that eat planets at random, but poop class 15 planets.. I don't know, but there could be 1000 different ways of playing with special occurances

One of the games I played with a GREAT campaign was the Panzer General series. Yes I know it is not scfi and more of a tactical game and yes many of you 'kids' won't remember it. I bring it up to point out the features that made it nice that I think could be added to this game.

How you did in each scenario determined the next scenario, you could have 3 or 4 branches that could lead you off in all kinds of different directions, thus the campaign could play out differently in many ways, making it replayable. Also you carried your core units from scenario to scenario, it made you a lot more cautious on committing hardened units to tough battles but you made sure they were always updated and always lead your big pushes. The campaign had a 'real' feel to it, you became very attached to your core units and each scenario effected the big picture.

As for putting time into it, yea it would take a LOT of work for Stardock to add this level of a campaign and they may not have the resources, if it came down to adding a good campaign or Multiplayer I would be really torn as I would like to see both, but I think I would lean to the good campaign.