mode: conscript to grognard and AI opponent challenge

[nix]

In the large solo mode battles (Montabello in Demo 1 and Montabello, Grand Champs and Austerlitz in Demo 2) the options menu allows three set choices of play mode; from Conscript to Grognard. Does this correspond ONLY to increasing levels of 'Fog of War' (meaning restricted information about enemy and allied troop locations and engagements at any one time, time delays for orders, interception of orders etc) or does it also indicate a more difficult challenge by the AI opponent due, for example to changes in unit statistics of the opponent: strengths, moral etc?

In many strategy games the level of difficulty settings do change opposition unit statistics to make beating them more difficult. I suspect that this is not the case here as the idea here is to simulate a conflict between units with well defined abilities. Am I correct?

New players to the HWLG game who have played TW or other series may choose to begin with the grognard level of difficulty for the reason they would in those games (after all they are not just 'conscripts' they know about military strategy etc...) and they will be frustrated that they cannot see all the units they wish to control and think there is some sort of bug...

If, as i suspect, the AI opponent is the same for 'conscript' to 'grognard' difficulty, but the game becomes more difficult to play because the fog of war increases for the player, this should be made explicit in the tutorial or else in the mode name which could be changed from 'conscript' etc to something  reflecting the level of information available to the commander.

[Hook]

To the best of my knowledge, the only difference between the three settings is the fog of war.  You can see all the changes on the options screen.  They are in the manual as well, but some of that may be out of date.  Enemy units do not get stronger, and currently the AI does not do anything different.

The original names for the difficulties were Aspirant, General, Commander-in-Chief.  The French word translated as Aspirant was Conscrit.  Conscript might be better than Aspirant.  I've requested going with Conscript, General, Grognard because people have gotten used to calling the hardest difficulty Grognard. 

It really doesn't matter what we call the difficulty levels, there will still be players who think, "Hey, I never play on anything but the hardest level." 

Hook

[nix]

Exactly! They will go to hardest level as soon as they start. But in TW games (as an example) the hardest level is still essentially the same game as the easiest, only the AI gets harder to beat (due to the biases on the unit statistics or whatever), whereas here in HWLG increasing the 'fog of war' qualitatively changes the nature of the game...

I think what should be made clear is that going from conscript to grognard doesnt make the AI opponent harder to beat as such, but changes the nature of the game. So that the conscript level here is equivalent to the hardest level in the TW game where no fog of war exists. (i.e. no shame in an old hand playing in conscript mode! which is why i thought 'conscript' may, from a  psychological point of view, be an unfortunate name choice for the mode).

Some emphasis on this apparently trivial point on introduction to the game might resolve some of the comments from new players which seem to show unease that the game plays the way it does and not like a TW clone!


Perhaps rather than Conscript, ..Grognard it should be 'Gods eye view'....'comanders eye view' ? I'm sure a better name could be thought up but you get the idea.

[Mooncabbage]

I think the difficulty levels in HWLG are more like the difficulty levels in the ARMA series, in that they progress towards realism, more than they progress towards difficulty. Infact I think "Realism Setting" would be a better phrase than difficulty. At some point in the future JMM might decide to include difficulty levels that alter AI behaviour towards the stupid end of the scale, for newbie players, but personally I hope no statistical changes are made. It always irked me the way difficulty levels worked in the TW games.

[nix]

I agree that no simplification of the AI be made to create 'easy levels'. In fact I like the way it is at present but feel many of the 'anti' comments may have arisen from this misunderstanding of what the mode choice provides.

(Sorry to show my ignorance but what is the ARMA series? )

[Hook]

In the game, it's not called "Difficulty", it's called "Mode".  The manual says, "As well as being able to set each option manually, these three modes provide preset options that determine increasing levels of difficulty:". 

We've been dealing with the "only play at the highest difficulty" people for years in other games.  Some people just have to understand that the highest difficulty isn't for beginners.

Hook

[Mooncabbage]

sorry to show my ignorance but what is the ARMA series?

Well it used to stand for "Armed Assault", as of ARMA2 it stands for... ARMA. I dont get it myself. Anyway basically it's a spin off of the Operation Flashpoint series, by the developers who made the original but without the rights to the name. The game is a modern combat simulation. You play as a private, or an officer, or a pilot, or a tank crewman, and essentially the game has progressive difficulty levels which turn up the accuracy and intelligence of your allies and opponents, and slowly turn off the interface and your "armour"/

I think Mode probably needs a proviso, a qualifyer, to further explain it's purpose.

[Montecuccoli]

The levels of difficulty are more like a level of "understanding" what it is happening so more or less informations, ammunitions depletion and so on... in most games the level of difficulty are more such some bonuses and cheats to the AI to become harder to beat

[nix]

Hook: I agree, but  the mode names conscript ...grognard do carry an implication of increasing difficulty. I  just think that if a more precise name set were used some folks who would actually 'get'  the game would not be put off really exploring it. (Its a sales thing i guess i am saying)

[Hook]

Nix, I understand what you're saying, but the only way to solve the problem is to totally remove all the difficulty settings from the game.  If there's *any* way to enable them, people are going to.  Even if we forced people to play on the easiest settings until they've played a certain number of battles, people will find ways around it. 

I worked on one game where the highest difficulty level was basically impossible to play.  We told people it was impossible to play.  They did it anyway, and quickly learned that the second highest setting gave the best game experience.  The setting was still there for those who wanted a real challenge, and some did.

You can't change human nature no matter what you call it or what color you paint it or how well you hide it.  Besides, full grognard isn't that difficult.

Hook

[Mooncabbage]

I think all nix is suggesting is that the difficulty level names be changed to Easy, Normal, Hard or something, to avoid confusion. I can see his point but for myself I am happy with the current settings since it is obvious what they change.

[nix]

The simplest solution is just to rename 'Mode' on the option menu as 'Preset Fog of war' , and conscript then becomes 'None' and Grognard becomes 'Full'. That gets around any confusion about the difficulty level of the AI opponent.

I certainly was not suggesting taking any features out or turning any behaviour off!

[Mooncabbage]

Grognard setting also affects the ammunition setting, and a few other non Fog of War things I believe.

[Count von Csollich]

Grognard setting also affects the ammunition setting, and a few other non Fog of War things I believe.

very true...

[saddletank]

Coming in here fresh to this, may I add my view please?

Hook - I understand exactly what you are saying and yes, you will always get players who like to play that way, however in the 'Mode' setting in the manual you quoted the manual still refers to 'increasing levels of difficulty'. What I think (I hope!) people are suggesting here is you remove that reference to 'difficulty' and insert the word 'realism'. This way you are describing what the game is giving to the player more accurately and I also think referring to the three modes as 'minimal fog of war', 'partial fog of war' and 'full fog of war' (for short they get abbreviated to 'minimal', 'partial' and 'full') will at least now give a manual that does not confuse gamers who have come from what I call 'arcade RTS games'. I think this is the point others were making - that HistWar needs to embrace the TW style player and sell units to that market and while some people will still toggle straight to the 'full fog of war' mode at least this way there is no possible misconception that buyers of the game may suffer under if they think they are selecting 'difficulty levels' in the traditional way computer gamers deal in that concept - and thus you should get fewer people raising complaints or being unhappy about what the software is delivering.

It may help to note clearly somewhere in the manual that the AI behaviour and AI unit performances do not change over the three mode settings.
 
Giving the settings titles like 'conscript' could exacerbate the issue I think since many buyers will not think of themselves in that term and could even be insulted by it!

As I said, we both know certain gamers will always hit the most challenging game setting but if the least challenging setting is still offered as a good tutorial or introductory way to play the game and isn't perceived as "the kids setting", it will help more.

Thoughts coming as I type - that is another way to describe the three modes: as less to more challenging. I do think it is wise to move away from this word 'difficulty'.