Campaign Construction
Chances and dangers of non-linearity
from 
GalCiv2 Forums
GalCiv2 Forums
Just some thoughts about non-linear campaigns - long post (sorry) but one or two ideas at the end might be interesting.
While it's great to continue on an alternative path after you lost a scenario, I noticed (from games that gave me that opportunity) that there's still a strong incentive *not* to explore the alternate paths, but to replay and win the scenario instead ... every time. There were games where I did that, never exploring the alternative routes.
But usually I'm not the "save cheat" type of player. So why do I use a similar strategy in some campaign games? I think it depends on how the campaign is structured.
An easy way to structure a non-linear campaign is the "second chances" approach. You have one "main branch" of the campaign that you go along as long as you win all the scenarios. When you lose, you enter an alternative chain of scenarios (which may lead back to the main branch if you win them), but those scenarios often tend to be harder than those on the main branch. The reason for that is a) story logic (if you couldn't kill the enemy in the first scenario, then he's still around, an you have lost many ships in the scenario you just lost) and
gameplay (the thought that the player should be rewarded for winning a scenario and punished for losing it, not vice versa.)
However, if I know that leaving the main branch will lead to harder games, why should i do it? I just *lost* a scenario, so I expect to lose again if the scenarios get harder on the alternative path. So if I want to *win* the campaign, I should *not* go onto the alternative path, but replay the scenario I just lost until I win it, so that I can stay on the main branch.
I'd like some feedback whether this is just strange thinking on my parts (tends to happen sometimes
) or whether this is indeed a danger of campaign construction.
Assuming that the latter is the case, how do I get around it? How can we give players more incentives to explore alternate paths? At the moment, I'm thinking about 5 possibilities (easiest / weakest solutions first). I'd like your feedback on those.
a) Just let (some of) the alternative scenarios be easier than those on the main branch.
This might not be realistic, but assures that the player cannot fall into a vicious circle of losing a scenario -> getting a harder alternative scenario -> losing it -> getting a harder one etc.
Example: You lost a scenario in which you had to conquer the Drengin colony Hades. Seeing that your power is waning, the Arceans provide you with assistance. You get a second chance to beat the Drengins (other olony this time) with Arcean support behind you.
Have missions that are *meant* to be lost
To break the habit of "playing a scenario until one wins it", one could implement scenarios that are *very* hard to win. Winning this scenario despite the bad odds may provide a shortcut so that the player doesn't have to play the next 2 or 3 scenarios on the main branch. Of course, all this has to be communicated to the player in order to prevent frustration.
Example: The colony SmallGaulVillage fights desperately against superior Drengin forces. Everyone knows that they will succumb sooner or later, but they don't give in. There are also rumors that the Drengin flagship is in the area. Although their chances are minimal, the leaders of the planet decide that they will try to destroy that ship. If they actually manage it, this may stop the advance of the Drengin forces for a while. if they don't ... well, it was a desperate plan anyways. There will be other chances to destroy that ship.
c) Have incentives in some alternative scenarios
If you have many alternate paths, you could hide one or two "bonuses" in the alternative paths. You tell that to player in advance, when the campaign starts, so that he knows that even when he lost a scenario, he may be in for a lucky surprise. But since there are many alternative scenarios, he wouldn't know where the bonuses are hidden, so it's difficult to "hunt" for them (i.e. intentionally losing scenarios)
Example: You lost a battle against the Drengin in which your objective was to destroy a precursor artifact that they found. Instead, the Drengin used that artifact on your fleet, hurling it through space right into an uncharted nebula which is full of space monsters. The next scenario starts within that nebula - you have to get through the space monsters, and you can also make contact to a mysterious old race that inhabits a planet hidden in the nebula. This race is deadlocked in a constant fight against the monsters. If you manage to save their planet from the monsters, they agree to help you and support you with very powerful technology. If you win that scenario, you and up in a better position as if you had won the first one (Because then you wouldn't ever have met this mysterious race).
The idea is: if the player knows that *somewhere* in the campaign tree a surprise like this one waits for him, he will be more willing to accept a loss and explore alternate paths.
(Note: I realize that this kind of rewards really calls for a campaign in which you can transfer ships or technologies between scenarios. I know that this isn't planned for GC 2.0. However, rewards like this can be implemented nevertheless, it's just a little harder and rquires more work.)
d) Have players make *decisions* instead of just winning or losing a scenario
This concept would introduce a lot of strategy into the campaign mode. Instead of havin the player follow a route of victories or losses, let him set objectives and make decisions about paths to take.
Example 1: Near the Terran colony Faraway, your scouts have discovered two minor races which are at war with each other. Each of the two races has something you could need, but you cannot get both. You have to ally with one of the two races and defeat the other in order to progress. Thus you don't "win" or "lose" this scenario by reaching a preset objective (or failing at that); instead you make a *decision* which path you want to follow, which will influence the way the story unfolds.
Example 2: You are notified that a minor race is trying to break away from the Drengin empire and asks you for help. However, there are also rumors that this is a trap, made up by the Drengins who want to use this minor race as spies. So you make a *decision* whether to save this colony or not, which may or may not be a good idea - depending on how the story unfolds later.
e) Have alternative endings
Of course, players are much more willing to explore alternate paths if they know that they can indeed lead to alternate endings. If alternative scenarios are just second chances that always lead back to the main tree when I win them, then I'm less inclined to explore them.
So what do you think? Am I wrong? Am I just stating the obvious? May this be of relevance for GalCiv2? May some of my thoughts even be useful? Feedback is most welcome.
Hmm, I'm actually finished now. Sorry for being lengthy.
While it's great to continue on an alternative path after you lost a scenario, I noticed (from games that gave me that opportunity) that there's still a strong incentive *not* to explore the alternate paths, but to replay and win the scenario instead ... every time. There were games where I did that, never exploring the alternative routes.
But usually I'm not the "save cheat" type of player. So why do I use a similar strategy in some campaign games? I think it depends on how the campaign is structured.
An easy way to structure a non-linear campaign is the "second chances" approach. You have one "main branch" of the campaign that you go along as long as you win all the scenarios. When you lose, you enter an alternative chain of scenarios (which may lead back to the main branch if you win them), but those scenarios often tend to be harder than those on the main branch. The reason for that is a) story logic (if you couldn't kill the enemy in the first scenario, then he's still around, an you have lost many ships in the scenario you just lost) and
gameplay (the thought that the player should be rewarded for winning a scenario and punished for losing it, not vice versa.)However, if I know that leaving the main branch will lead to harder games, why should i do it? I just *lost* a scenario, so I expect to lose again if the scenarios get harder on the alternative path. So if I want to *win* the campaign, I should *not* go onto the alternative path, but replay the scenario I just lost until I win it, so that I can stay on the main branch.
I'd like some feedback whether this is just strange thinking on my parts (tends to happen sometimes
) or whether this is indeed a danger of campaign construction.Assuming that the latter is the case, how do I get around it? How can we give players more incentives to explore alternate paths? At the moment, I'm thinking about 5 possibilities (easiest / weakest solutions first). I'd like your feedback on those.
a) Just let (some of) the alternative scenarios be easier than those on the main branch.
This might not be realistic, but assures that the player cannot fall into a vicious circle of losing a scenario -> getting a harder alternative scenario -> losing it -> getting a harder one etc.
Example: You lost a scenario in which you had to conquer the Drengin colony Hades. Seeing that your power is waning, the Arceans provide you with assistance. You get a second chance to beat the Drengins (other olony this time) with Arcean support behind you.
Have missions that are *meant* to be lostTo break the habit of "playing a scenario until one wins it", one could implement scenarios that are *very* hard to win. Winning this scenario despite the bad odds may provide a shortcut so that the player doesn't have to play the next 2 or 3 scenarios on the main branch. Of course, all this has to be communicated to the player in order to prevent frustration.
Example: The colony SmallGaulVillage fights desperately against superior Drengin forces. Everyone knows that they will succumb sooner or later, but they don't give in. There are also rumors that the Drengin flagship is in the area. Although their chances are minimal, the leaders of the planet decide that they will try to destroy that ship. If they actually manage it, this may stop the advance of the Drengin forces for a while. if they don't ... well, it was a desperate plan anyways. There will be other chances to destroy that ship.
c) Have incentives in some alternative scenarios
If you have many alternate paths, you could hide one or two "bonuses" in the alternative paths. You tell that to player in advance, when the campaign starts, so that he knows that even when he lost a scenario, he may be in for a lucky surprise. But since there are many alternative scenarios, he wouldn't know where the bonuses are hidden, so it's difficult to "hunt" for them (i.e. intentionally losing scenarios)
Example: You lost a battle against the Drengin in which your objective was to destroy a precursor artifact that they found. Instead, the Drengin used that artifact on your fleet, hurling it through space right into an uncharted nebula which is full of space monsters. The next scenario starts within that nebula - you have to get through the space monsters, and you can also make contact to a mysterious old race that inhabits a planet hidden in the nebula. This race is deadlocked in a constant fight against the monsters. If you manage to save their planet from the monsters, they agree to help you and support you with very powerful technology. If you win that scenario, you and up in a better position as if you had won the first one (Because then you wouldn't ever have met this mysterious race).
The idea is: if the player knows that *somewhere* in the campaign tree a surprise like this one waits for him, he will be more willing to accept a loss and explore alternate paths.
(Note: I realize that this kind of rewards really calls for a campaign in which you can transfer ships or technologies between scenarios. I know that this isn't planned for GC 2.0. However, rewards like this can be implemented nevertheless, it's just a little harder and rquires more work.)
d) Have players make *decisions* instead of just winning or losing a scenario
This concept would introduce a lot of strategy into the campaign mode. Instead of havin the player follow a route of victories or losses, let him set objectives and make decisions about paths to take.
Example 1: Near the Terran colony Faraway, your scouts have discovered two minor races which are at war with each other. Each of the two races has something you could need, but you cannot get both. You have to ally with one of the two races and defeat the other in order to progress. Thus you don't "win" or "lose" this scenario by reaching a preset objective (or failing at that); instead you make a *decision* which path you want to follow, which will influence the way the story unfolds.
Example 2: You are notified that a minor race is trying to break away from the Drengin empire and asks you for help. However, there are also rumors that this is a trap, made up by the Drengins who want to use this minor race as spies. So you make a *decision* whether to save this colony or not, which may or may not be a good idea - depending on how the story unfolds later.
e) Have alternative endings
Of course, players are much more willing to explore alternate paths if they know that they can indeed lead to alternate endings. If alternative scenarios are just second chances that always lead back to the main tree when I win them, then I'm less inclined to explore them.
So what do you think? Am I wrong? Am I just stating the obvious? May this be of relevance for GalCiv2? May some of my thoughts even be useful? Feedback is most welcome.
Hmm, I'm actually finished now. Sorry for being lengthy.
