Your "Perfect" Scenario?

[BlunterII]

Now, after reading some of the opinions and criticisms about the "H&S" I thought it might

be interesting to discuss what kind of scenario you folks would prefer or would want it

to be (if it were up to YOU!).

 

What would be your "perfect" scenario?

I realize - perfection is an unachievable standart but, perhaps, something close to "very

enjoyable with high replayability values" might be a better word choice. I put together a

short list of possible approaches to scenario creation (whatever came to mind, really).

 

Feel free to comment and share your ideas

_________________________________________

1.) How would you want the scenario to start?

What should the "driving reason" be for the player to care at all?

 

a. Hero in peril. Self rescue?

b. Lost identity, amnesia, brain trauma? "Who am I? What happened to me?"

c. Investigation of a seemingly trivial crime or a strange phenomenon that grows into

something more important as the story unfolds?

d. Rescuing someone else (and discovering something in the process)?

e. Losing somebody important and the resulting need for revenge/ justice?

f. You are already part of the conflict with clear distinctions between the "good", the

"bad" and the "ugly" (some discovery involved, but the big picture is pretty clear from

the start).

g. The main character is initially uninvolved and slowly gets sucked into the story (most

things are vague and require help in interpreting them/ knowledgable buddies and quest

characters might be necessary to drive this kind of plot forward).

h. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

2.) How immediate should the "action" be? How much feedback does a story need to keep the

player informed of what is going on?

 

a. No journal, no updates (requires the least amount of time)

b. Only major entries (with little things left to the player to remember)

c. All important and marginally important news and developments are placed in the journal.

d. Every little thing is being kept track of (requires the most amount of time).

e. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

3.) What should the "odds" be against the opposition?

 

a. Fair? (the bad guys should at least have a chance...)

b. Their quantity vs. my quality. Cannon fodder bad guys (there are many of them, but

each is indivially much weaker than the player)

c. Varying levels of difficulty (boss characters - tough with perks, the rest are from

weak to medium. some medium might have perks and moderate hit point increases)

d. Random (unpredictible, difficulty. From effortless to extremely hard)

e. Very challenging (all enemies are tough, tons of hit points, various perks given. No

weak enemies)

f. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

4.)How should the odds change along the plot progression?

 

a. Encounter specific? A military base would have many enemies of relatively high level,

whereas a hamlet might be a walk in the park with only a few baddies of lower level.

(somewhat unpredictable difficulty)

b. Level and/or party size based? (will always adjust to the player's level and/or party size)

c. Gradually progressing, regarless of the player's level or party size? (preset

difficulty. It might force the player to "level up" a bit before undertaking some of the tougher missions)

d. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

5.) How gradual should the character progression be? Experience rewards distribution?

 

a. Achieving goals in a "desired" fashion = should yield better rewards. Maybe even bonus

experience for staying on task.

b. Exp is equally spread among the party members (meaning - more members - less

individual exp. gains)

c. The amount of experience should be adjusted to the party size. One shouldn't be

penalized for bringing more mercs with them.

d. The members who did most of the work should be rewarded more.

e. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

6.) What should be the primary source of unique experience every time you play a campaign?

 

a. Each character class should play very differently (missions, rewards, etc.)?

b. Lots of random encounters > 50 with > 4 variants each?

c. Varying missions?

d. Several ways to achieve the same objectives?

e. Multi-branching plots. Going down a different path every time?

f. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

7.) Should there be random encounters(RE)? What would be the role of REs? (H&S didn't have them)

 

a. A way to increase Exp and wealth?

b. Tied to the main plot? Affecting the plot somehow?

c. Should they be available all the time once opened, disappear after certain events,

disappear after certain number of "visits", disappear after 1 visit?

d. Serve as the only way to obtain certain information (leading to some side quests, new

locations becoming available, rare manuals, parts, materials etc.)

e. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

8.) How emotionally charged does the plot need to be? Please, elaborate...

 

_________________________________________

9.) What kind of choices would benefit the scenario best, in your opinion?

 

a. Obviously beneficial vs. not so desirable.

b. All potentially beneficial, with no clearly detrimental consequences?

c. Class based? Ex.: Only an engineer would receive a "Blow smth up" quest.

d. Stats based? Ex.: Only a character with Str > 11 would get an "arena fist fight" or

"officer club boxing match" type of offer.

e. Based on the player's previous actions? Ex.: If you followed the orders consistently,

you might get a mission to escort some big wig party leader (and advance in rank or

receive a reward) or to handle some extremely "sensitive" documents.

And vice versa, if you've been killing civilians, failing objectives, etc. you might be

sent on a suicide mission (that you won't necessarily know about until too late) with a

"clean up" squad behind you (survivable but a definite stab in the back).

f. Unclear in their value until completion? (keeps one guessing)

g. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

10.) How rigid should the plot line be, in your opinion?

 

a. Rather rich but linear (with no significant deviations)

b. Two different major plot lines (each noticeably shorter than a linear one would be)

c. Randomly placed clues leading to different locations. (seemingly unpredictable plot

development, like S^2)

d. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

11) Does the player need to be "punished" for not folowing the plot line?

 

a. Killed to force a restart?

b. Deprived of certain goodies, loot, rewards - as logical consequences of their actions?

c. "Overwhelmed" by the constantly increasing opposition attacks? The opposition might be

your former comrades too hunting you down for treason.

d. Threatened by or faced with party members leaving?

e. Dumped into a dead end?

f. Provided with a specific plot line catering to "hack and slash" approach?

g. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

12.) How flexible does the plot need to be to accomodate the "rogue" playstyle? (Killing

your own, attacking civilians, "breaking" the plot by hostile actions towards quest

givers)

 

_________________________________________

13.) Should there be a way to "redeem" the player after they critically deviated from the

plot line?

 

a. Church donations (monetary, for them to "fix" your status)?

b. Contacting the side that was "offended" and negotiating a remedy through a neutral

party. (Payments: Monetary, loss of experience, doing some "dirty" work, etc....)

c. Surrendering and doing jail time. (Might lead to loss of experience, new contacts,

possible escape, working for the other side, etc.)

d. No redemption. What's done is DONE!

e. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

14.) What do you think the role of secondary missions/side quests should be?

 

a. Provide with extra experience and loot?

b. Directly or indirectly affect the main plot?

c. Puzzle piece collecting? (with some big payoff at the end, once complete)

d. Unique weapons, weapon upgrades (manuals, weapons themselves, etc.)

e. Clues to additional loot, secret locations (otherwise unavailable)

f. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

15.) Easter Eggs (Very rare items, unavailable through regular means)? Where should they be?

 

a. Main missions only (to encourage folowing the plot)?

b. Side quests (to encourage exploration)?

c. Random locations (One never knows where they might be)?

d. Make some of them - rewards for certain missions (guaranteed or random)? (element of

surprise)

e. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

16.) What is the "optimal" number of squad members, in your opinion? Why?

 

_________________________________________

17.) Should the party members have different personalities (requires a lot more

programming)?

 

_________________________________________

18.) Does the idea of a base (safe haven) appeal to you?

 

a. Base is necessary. It simplifies things, requires less programming and allows to get a

short little break from constant fighting.

b. No base is required. The party should be mobile and carry everything they need with

them (weapons, ammo, repair tools, medicine, etc.)

c. Temporary bases sound more logical for commandos and spies. Based on the players

actions the bases might not be safe when under attack.

d. A completely mobile base in a form of a vehicle (car, truck. motocycle) where the

player can store all their goods - is more preferable. It needs to be in good condition

to be accessible, and if destroyed a new one would need to be purchased.

e. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

19.) How does the global map help your immersion? Does a scenario need a map?

 

a. Global map is not really that important. Several missions could be tied together

completely without a single exit to the global view.

b. Map is essential to the gameplay. The scope of the action is only emphazised by a nice

global map.

c. The art is very important. Just an aerial photo of some unknown location is not enough.

d. It helps to have a real map, with real names, instead of made up locations.

e. Other (please, explain)

 

_________________________________________

 

 

Of, course, there are other factors to consider such as: economy, timed missions and many others.

 

So if anyone feels like commenting. Please, share your thoughts.

 

Thank you.

_________________________________________

 

Blunter

[Thorondor]

As you mention, there are no "perfect" scenarios.

 

Nonetheless, I did think of something so, a little intro by way of suggestion...

 

From the back of the "box" :

 

"June 1941 - leaving Lithuania, a mixed party of NKVD and Gestapo elements are secretly relocating a group of captives. Their destination lies eastwards, somewhere on the Russian taiga.

 

This midnight, however, adverse weather conditions cut short the soviet cargo plane's journey, and the ensuing crash, on a forested area, indiscriminately kills and injures occupants of the craft.

 

Circumstance alone do they share. But here as elsewhere, almost without respite, life compels those left breathing to go about their way...

 

This is a story of survival at the very onset of Operation Barbarossa."

...

 

There are many ways to take the story from here, but here's what basically crossed my mind in terms of plot/gameplay:

- You're the co-pilot (a Belarusian). The Lithuanian pilot is now dead. These flyboys know routes, not missions, or what/whom they carry and just enough to realise not to ask questions if they want to stay alive.

- Night 1: just as you recover from the crash a side must be chosen (captors or captives). Captors will be hunting down the captives who survived, while captives will seek to finally escape to safety.

- one way to make this choice in-character might be to have a Gestapo officer proffer you a gun to help seize the captives immediately before they can escape. You may do so, thusly aligning yourself with the captors, or opt to take the weapon and immediately turn it upon the officer (you didn't expect Nazi presence), siding with the fugitives in the heat of the moment

- limited initial weapons and ammo to be salvaged from the plane's armory (works mostly the same for either side, except captors already carry their own weapons)

- Once outside in the dark of night the hunt is on, and more choices unfold. You must choose (for instance) between going East or going South by hearing the arguments made by the other characters in your party and things will go from there in a Day 1/Night 2, etc. sequence

 

At the very beginning of all this the protagonists are naturally unaware of events to come (crash and following effective start of Operation Barbarossa by the 3rd Reich), which provides interesting future possibilities in terms of having NKVD survivors turn on their Gestapo counterparts once the invasion becomes clear to them (if the player opted for the captors' side), or perhaps having the NKVD survivors stay together with them to better progress in their ongoing hunt for the captives on Nazi-controlled territories in Russia. Those fleeing are likewise in the midst of enemy territory and warring factions that are equally hostile to them, with a substantial ground to cover if safety is to be achieved.

 

 

Okay, now for the numbered list:

1.) How would you want the scenario to start?

What should the "driving reason" be for the player to care at all?

 

Look at a mix of _a_ and _g_, as it's self-rescue, but you'll require communication with others to understand what are the options at hand so as to make decisions.

 

The first invisible tie is the desire for main character survival; before you're told anything you already know he must not die. Death is a form of ultimate failure, while continued survival is a measure of ongoing success.

 

The very next objective in our road to "caring" is then having the player more explicitly identify with the onscreen character's "own" goals.

 

One of the foremost tools to achieve this is wronging the player character. Examples: making him suffer for something he hasn't done, or have him betrayed, or leave him behind, etc.

 

These are the fundamentals that cross the boundary between onscreen character and player, eliciting an emotional response (such as indeed a desire to exact revenge, the pressure of not slipping to stay a step ahead on the way to salvation).

 

Just past that, and less influential, comes the desire for discovery/diversity and to explore the world while noting the outcome of your actions. If something you're responsible for has noteworthy in-game consequences, not just immediately but also in coming stages of the story, you'll be more prone to give thought to what you do and say.

 

 

2.) How immediate should the "action" be? How much feedback does a story need to keep the player informed of what is going on?

 

I pick _b_. However, I think a good initial grounding, at least, is important to establish a connection. Therefore, at scenario start the journal should have dated diary-like entries of small to average size, giving a taste of personal account to establish the protagonist's general frame of mind, mentioning relations, friends or family in passing. All in the interest of "getting acquainted".

 

 

3.) What should the "odds" be against the opposition?

 

_f_: I'd recommend a middle-ground approach involving a mix of _a_ and _b_ to some extent, leaning towards _b_ just a bit. An enjoyable experience comes from managing to defeat the enemy. Specifically, from scoring enemy kills while mostly holding your own with your assets. Given this context it's acceptable to somewhat sweeten perceived player lethality with a complement of well-accessible enemies here and there in a fray, while letting most of a player's edge be a result of his natural advantage in tactical awareness.

 

 

4.)How should the odds change along the plot progression?

 

_a_: A remark is in order, though. Because my answer could be misleading.

 

Certain locations should logically be better defended than some others (ports, borders, state military facilities, etc) serves as a good guiding principle.

 

On-site observation, however, should be what's behind the player's choice of engaging or not engaging the enemy forces present. Just because an enemy presence exists it's not automatic that you should attack it (unless, of course, it's an end-game scenario).

 

All too often players have the (historically well bred) preconception they aren't really required to think at this level - it's just about following to the next thing the game drops in front of them.

 

Some encouragement to think upon what you see will give the player the notion of odds. You observe enemy fortifications, visible enemy numbers, enemy types (from uniform, etc). Only then there's a decision: it's challenging but doable, or to avoid. Not to mention the fact that you may not wish to make your presence or passage noted entirely.

 

 

5.) How gradual should the character progression be? Experience rewards distribution?

 

_d_: merit-based. This actually encourages the use of less-used party members so as not to let them fall too far behind and to impede over-reliance on certain weapons or methods of engagement.

 

I'd accept other solutions and, of course, only testing can tell if this would cause serious imbalances/shortcommings in the long run or not.

 

 

6.) What should be the primary source of unique experience every time you play a campaign?

 

_e_ But not every time. And here I'm thinking along the lines of: two players who pick the same character class for their "hero" will still experience different things.

 

How so? Two examples:

- in the turn-based game "Disciples" you essentially pick self-exclusive technology branches. When you choose to develop one type of creature you'll forfeit the one from the alternate branch. Something comparable can be done with regards to the scenario by presenting the player with mutually exclusive paths or solutions to problems.

- providing a chance for an event to happen or not happen to the player. For instance, a 50/50 chance the plane crash causes people to be initially trapped inside the plane and needing to blow a way out.

 

When two players converse about things one is bound to spout: "Really?! I have never been trapped in the plane wreckage!"

 

 

7.) Should there be random encounters(RE)? What would be the role of REs? (H&S didn't have them)

 

_d_. Note that I advise against using this for spouting side-quests (as in simply in the capacity of filler/additional content).

 

Let the focus remain solidly with the ongoing predicament (escape or pursuit). Give it the necessary overriding force to prevent casual deviation. For instance, it makes no sense to lose time running silly little errands when your life depends on getting as far away as possible from deadly pursuers. You'll just get caught and slaughtered.

 

Good employment of REs would be to reveal/unlock other useful locations or provide special/better equipment (a small airfield to get you farther ahead faster, something that will allow you to overcome or bypass an obstacle otherwise unsurmountable).

 

 

8.) How emotionally charged does the plot need to be? Please, elaborate...

 

I believe I've already elaborated on a need for this aspect on my answer to question #1. Well handled it can make the difference between plodding along the way or thrilling with every enemy scum rout.

 

 

9.) What kind of choices would benefit the scenario best, in your opinion?

 

_e_ In accordance with points made previously on choice and consequence. Additionally, some things may have unforseen yet still logical/justifyable consequences down the line (should be seen as yet another tool to avert excessive predictability).

 

 

10.) How rigid should the plot line be, in your opinion?

 

_d_: One plot line, but with a good few mutually-exclusive options along the way. Goes to provide checkered/differentiated player experience at some points so as to improve replay value. Might or might not yield mildly alternate endings as well.

 

 

11) Does the player need to be "punished" for not following the plot line?

 

_g_: when the plot line is intended to be of sufficient consequence to drive things forward (i.e. in terms of the events set off by it) disregarding it has to yield repercussion.

 

Depending at which stage of progression of said plot line the player is, that repercussion will grow increasingly punishing (i.e.: being cut-off by gradual increase in enemy presence at a location due to excessive delay) to the point it's deadly to the player-controlled force.

 

 

12.) How flexible does the plot need to be to accomodate the "rogue" playstyle?

 

Players should expect to face the consequences of "rogue" behaviour they initiate.

 

Killing your own party members will markedly reduce the ability to confront enemies, with little advantage to be gained from it (in experience or equipment). In the game, as in real life, this is perfectly foreseeable. So, while you're allowed to take this course of action (of fortuitously killing), the only thing I can think of that should actually be introduced as a result is reaction from fellow party members.

 

I suppose this is rather difficult to implement but here are a couple of ideas that could be fun/surprising:

- vocal reaction

- shooting back

- later handing control of one or more party members to the AI when in combat (will still fight the enemy but mostly stand aside and let the main character fend for himself)

- later handing control of one or more party members to the AI and turning on the main character (shooting to kill)

- later arranging to lock the main character somewhere or lose him (as if deserting/walking away)

 

Things are somewhat likewise, with killing a fundamental quest-giver. The quest-giver can be killed, but expect to be hunted for it, then and later, when others seek to avenge it (even as simply as by then gladly reporting your position or heading/destination to the enemy).

 

In short and overall: allow it and respond intelligently in accordance, but with dire consequence almost invariably as the end result. The most important aspect is: the player can do it and it won't "break" the game.

 

 

13.) Should there be a way to "redeem" the player after they critically deviated from the plot line?

 

_d_: There's no room for redemption given the impending nature of the plot line.

 

 

14.) What do you think the role of secondary missions/side quests should be?

 

_b_: These should still directly or indirectly contribute to the achievement of the main goal in a significant way. For instance: diverting attention and enemy forces from another location, thus improving your possibility to successfully strike elsewhere you needed to next.

 

 

15.) Easter Eggs (Very rare items, unavailable through regular means)? Where should they be?

 

_d_: make some of them randomly available or not in certain missions (50/50 chance)

 

 

16.) What is the "optimal" number of squad members, in your opinion? Why?

 

This is extremely debatable due to a number of factors (individual soldier strengths, how much time it takes to move/give orders to them all per turn, coverage they offer in relation to map sizes, etc)

 

In this case I'll just go off on a limb and say 7. Lucky 7. Magnificent seven

 

Like this soldiers would pair off in three groups of two with one spare element to cover oddities that surface. Remembering seven names and corresponding skill sets and weaponry/ammo is just about ideally manageable as well.

 

 

17.) Should the party members have different personalities (requires a lot more programming)?

 

That is always fun to have, and I don't expect I'll be doing any of the additional programming so I'd vote for it if you're up to the extra challenge.

 

Generally I'd say it will score you bonus points - but only if the main aspects of the game are solidly nailed down.

 

If people are annoyed by other important faults with the core product delivered this won't get you anywhere far.

 

 

18.) Does the idea of a base (safe haven) appeal to you?

 

_c_: people on the move will find refuge and aid (personnel/equipment) when and where they can.

 

 

19.) How does the global map help your immersion? Does a scenario need a map?

 

_e_: the map is important to give a sense of location, forces and relative positioning of one location in relation to another. It's also important to give a sense of heading (i.e.progress towards an end destination).

 

 

Finally, a quick comment on timed missions: personally I dislike to be rushed by "mission must be completed in under 30 turns" goals. I'd otherwise prefer it if something was implemented to moderately reward the player for being quicker than average to resolve a conflict.

 

::

 

I'm still reeling from all this typing and intellectual effort so I believe this is all I have to share for now, master Blunter...

[BlunterII]

Very interesting ideas, Thorondor! I appreciate the time and effort you put in your

response .

 

Also, I hope you don't mind some futher brainstorming about the topic. Anyone else is

welcome to comment as well (about this or their own ideas) .

 

I have some questions about the "Destination Taiga" scenario.

(Hope you won't take some of my remarks as nit-picking, I am just speculating, at this point):

 

 

1.) What is the actual mission? Why is it so important that two Secret Police agencies

are involved in this joined effort?

 

That inescapably raises one of the most important questions: Who are the captives? I

assume they have to present significant danger to both Nazi Germany (NG) and Soviet Union

(SU) regimes to warrant this whole operation.

 

(I realize that the Nazis and the Soviets might have completely different reasons for

their actions, though. They don't need to be clear to the player but it surely is

beneficial for the scenario creator to be "in the know")

 

 

Some possible reasons and captive identities could be:

 

- Economic. Ex.: Industry magnate(s) with ties to the British and the Americans capable

of undermining German industrial might and/or Soviet international resource trades

 

- Ideological/Political. Ex.: Some influential political leader(s) (Soviet, German,

Polish, British, American, French) who could upset the balance of power in Europe and

thus impede or interfere with Nazi and/or Soviet plans for domination.

 

- Financial. Ex.: Prominent bankers (Brits, Americans, Jews, etc.), department of finance

bureaucrats of high caliber - unsupportive of one or both sides (NG, SU), or hiding some

enormous sums of money somewhere...

 

- Territorial.Ex.: Some representatives of the royal blood lines with claims to both

thrones? (somewhat far-fetched... but taking into consideration the fact that the empress

of Russia - Cathrene the Great was a German born princess there certainly are some

possibilities to explore...)

 

- Military/Academic/ Research. Ex.: A genius physicist on the verge of a major

breakthrough in nuclear fission, or rocketry; A designer of a new secret code machine/ or

a deciphering device; a chemist with knowledge how to create weapons of mass destruction

(deadly poison gases, debilitating neuro-viruses, etc.)

 

- Mystic/Sci-Fi Ex.: Aryan ancestry leads (Ahnenerbe and alike)/ Mutagenic substances

(uber-soldier theme)/ etc.

 

- Or a good mix of some of the above (since we might end up having several escapees at

the start)

 

 

2.) How can an uninformed and initially uninvolved co-pilot become a center figure in the

plot? How can he move from the sidelines onto the center stage?

 

In case of escapees it is plausible (regarless of his perceived "non-existing

authority").

 

But in the other case, with NKVD and Gestapo officers present - I am not so sure.

Any ideas?

 

 

3.) To avoid the flawed, overused, biblical "good" vs. "evil" type of approach that so

many RPGs succumb to - what would be the best way to "justify" the pursuit, in your

opinion, for it to feel "right" to be the hunter in this case?

 

I have a feeling that the escapee side wouldn't necessarily need much in terms of

justification, as survival is an essential part of human biology, anyway.

 

4.) Taiga... East of the Ural Mountains? - to me that means Siberia. If so - Why Siberia?

Where were they being transported? Did you have any particular location in mind

(geographically speaking)?

 

Possible locations:

 

- Prison? (to isolate them from ???...)

- Secret lab? (to continue some research or to spill the beans about ???...)

- To be killed (far away from the everseeing eye of Western Press or ???...)?

- Detainment till some time in the future (implies some value to both NG and SU)

- (sci-fi) To be studied / experimented upon (one or more of the prisoners could have

been exposed to some "altering" compounds...

 

5.) Timeline? From June, 1941...to ??? How long would it take them to get out of "there"?

Without any fast and reliable transportation it could take weeks or months to leave

Siberia. In other words - they'd hit Russian winter sooner or later. No?

(Why am I asking? You mentioned Night1, and so on ... Well, I am thinking more like

Night67...)

 

6.) Which brings up another question: Where would the "hunted" be heading to escape? Some

specific country or location? (Maybe a political or historical context or reference..?)

Why would the protogonist even want to travel half across the globe to that destination?

 

7.) What would make NKVD and Gestapo officers stick together? Why would they need each

other even after the news of the June 22 events become known to them?

 

Even though you mentioned the possibility of pursuing across the frontlines and beyond

and the need for the Soviet agents to have some German support, I am still unclear...

(since we are talking about covering hundreds of miles here, all across Soviet controlled

territory, which presents certain logistical nuances on its own).

 

Possible reasons to keep them together:

 

- They are friends outside of their duties/ work. (Hans and Vasiliy went to the same

University in ...???; Vasiliy's wife is a distant relative of Hans' uncle Otto/ etc.)

This one might actually work quite well...

 

- The news about the war reach them when they are not too far from the NG/SU

border/front. (Makes it a late decision, in the plot progression.)

 

- NKVD operatives can't use Soviet forces to assist them as they are considered traitors

themselves. And the only way for them to clear themselves of those accusations is to

recapture or kill the fugitives. This Provides with a solid, both logically and

historically, motivation for the NKVD folks (general paranoia, party cleansing,etc.)?

 

- Now what about the Gestapo guys, then? Perhaps, looking back they finally realize why their chief was behaving in such a strange manner as if he wasn't planning to see them again... They know they are not wanted back home? Or, possibly this mission was some sort of punishment for something they did. Or, in reality they are actually working for Vatican or a secret order whose plans and ideas transcend any armed conflicts, etc.

 

 

Of course, there is a question of why a co-pilot would concern himself with all that. He

was flying a plane, unaware of the "big" mission. The plane crashed. Mission's over for

him. Let him go home. Or maybe not?

 

Sure some captives escaped, but it was not his responsibility to guard them and/or hunt

them down.

 

What's his motivation? He is not on the enemy territory. He is not threatened in any way... or is he?

 

Why would he join the captors, the fugitives, or anybody at all? Not just right after the crash but the motivation that would fuel his actions all thoughout Russian winter, Europe and wherever else the pursuit would take him.

(I noticed you made several general declarations, now how about in detail, if you don't mind?)

 

_________________

_________________

 

Blunter

[Thorondor]

All right, you asked for spoilers, so you'll get some...

 

 

1.) What is the actual mission? Why is it so important that two Secret Police agencies are involved in this joined effort?

 

That inescapably raises one of the most important questions: Who are the captives?

 

It may seem like a strikingly uninspired answer, but the truth is they are exactly that at the time of the accident - prisoners, condemned.

 

But let me not get ahead of myself...

 

By the late 1930s Stalin had killed or incarcerated millions of citizens during the Great Purge, including many common people as well as political oppositors and competent military personnel. Likewise, almost every community in Germany had members taken away to concentration camps, as early as 1935. Between 1933 and 1945 more than 3 million Germans had been in concentration camps or prison, not to mention those many that were summarily killed.

 

And through all the hundreds of thousands of prisoners amply available from innumerable labour camps, detention centers and correctional facilities, on both sides, discretely but incessantly this NKVD and Gestapo group searched for something in peculiar.

 

State records, prison records, everywhere their special authority and thinly veiled menace had doors wide open and nearly unquestioning access granted.

 

- "Perhaps if I knew what it is you are looking for I could further assist?"

- "Perhaps... there is reason we should be looking at you?" *scrutinising pause, unwavering gaze*

 

*embarrassed nervousness*

- "I didn't mean to intrude in..."

*cut short*

- "Just as well for you we thought the same, then. Now; there is much work to be done. May I suggest you let us do it?"

 

No justification is needed, none given.

 

None whatsoever, certainly, to have five or six of them hammering on your door before dawn tomorrow and requesting you accompany them, while faced by the disbelieving, terrified stare of your wife and the cries of your young son. "Matters of the state..." the only litany required.

 

No. You don't want to ask any questions.

 

The absurd intrusion and unapologetic violation of all rights this would represent today was well instituted in both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, only to be worsened by the facilitating war-time circumstances.

 

The ability to turn you into something nameless, faceless, gaunt, fearful, void, thrown away somewhere where you don't have to be looked at, is not only a possibility - it is easy and a rather quick process.

 

Once marked an "enemy of the state" no one wants to have anything to do with you for fear of suffering the same fate. You have no friends - only real people have friends. You're not a person anymore, but part of a senseless, uniform mass, in all the same dreariness; same clothes, same baldness, same blank face...

 

Yet, some among the perpetrators of this dehumanising transformation saw farther, saw more. They saw an opportunity.

 

They were going to pick prisoners for their appearance, then for their background, later on to personal impression. Ever narrowing and narrowing...

 

When they were confident they had found someone suitable there was extraction.

 

Records were confiscated, "lost", the chosen relocated over time, several times, until only they knew who those individuals were, finally placing them in a select few "abandoned" underground restricted access compounds.

 

Slowly, but surely, they were gathered.

 

Once at those locations, though kept apart from each other, they were uncharacteristically well treated, well housed, well clothed, well nourished. Books were made available to stave off the long hours spent in the confines. A simple exercise routine was established twice a day to restore basic or improved physical fitness.

 

Observations remaining satisfactory, the next, more demanding stage in preparation followed.

 

At which point The Replacements were finally a reality!!

 

These people, whose prevailing selection traits were their great physical resemblance with quietly competent, very efficient, blindly obedient key figures in the oppressive Nazi and Stalinist regimes, were gradually replacing their true counterparts!

 

I do believe - if you had the patience to read this far - that the proverbial cat is, at last, almost entirely out of the bag.

 

So, who were the prisoners aboard the Russian craft? Some of those very replaced loyalists (Stalinist and Nazi officials, officers, camp overseers, etc)

 

Being flown out of the way, to the literal middle of nowhere, under some of the harshest possible conditions from which they were certain (indeed assured) never to be heard of or emerge from ever again. A taste of their own medicine. Oh, joy!

 

Taking Germany as a factual example of internal counter-movements, the most important centre of opposition to the regime within the state apparatus was in the intelligence services, whose clandestine operations offered an excellent cover for political organisation. The key figure here was Colonel Hans Oster, head of the Military Intelligence Office from 1938, and a convinced anti-Nazi as early as 1934.

 

He was protected by the Abwehr chief, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. Oster was able to build up an extensive clandestine network of potential resisters in the Army and the intelligence services. (as per Wikipedia)

 

And there you have it...fact and fiction thrown in the blender.

 

 

2.) How can an uninformed and initially uninvolved co-pilot become a center figure in the plot? How can he move from the sidelines onto the center stage?

 

As luck would have it our protagonist is thrown right in the middle of it all by virtue of being the nephew of one of the prisoners. Or is he?...

 

We can play it differently here as desired:

- he recognizes the prisoner as his uncle, but decides the best he can do is side with Gestapo and NKVD to better insure he can turn the tables when the time is right. Along the way he finds the truth is altogether another, and if these people escape his real uncle's life is in danger!...

- he recognizes the prisoner as his uncle, so lining up with the prisoners and aiding in their escape as best he can. By the time he realises his mistake he has little chance but to fight through to stay alive, because no one is likely going to give him any quarters after what he has just done (turning on superiors, or siding with the enemy, as far as the others can tell in view of his actions). If only he could undo this mistake!...

 

In both cases his single knowledge of the exact location of the crash, will play a role as to his understood usefulness to either side and his own survival early on.

 

 

3.) To avoid the flawed, overused, biblical "good" vs. "evil" type of approach that so many RPGs succumb to - what would be the best way to "justify" the pursuit, in your opinion, for it to feel "right" to be the hunter in this case?

 

Given the above I trust this has been answered. At the heart of things is a great conspiracy to overthrow power, simple loyalty to family ties, and survival...

 

 

4.) Taiga... East of the Ural Mountains? - to me that means Siberia. If so - Why Siberia? Where were they being transported? Did you have any particular location in mind (geographically speaking)?

 

The site of the crash might in effect be somewhere in the northern Ural mountains, on the southern reaches of the Virgin Komi Forests.

 

The prisoners' final destination would be the infamously well known Kolyma prison camp in the polar region of far north-eastern Siberia.

 

And while I do realise Siberia is generally regarded as a stereotype, the reasons it was used by the Stalinist regime were very practical indeed: seclusion and harsh weather which allowed for absolute impunity and almost impossible escape.

 

The purpose of the transportation is evident: removal to an isolated location for imprisonment and, most likely, covert extermination after thorough interrogation. In either case no one would ever know or hear of them again.

 

5.) Timeline? From June, 1941...to ??? How long would it take them to get out of "there"?

 

Anytime from the end of October 41, to early November 41. In a brutally war-ravaged Europe I'd say 5 months of dogged persecution would be no small feat, and quite epic enough.

 

Regarding Night1/Day2, etc, my idea was to give a more detailed daily account in situations that merit it(having the player "live" them in gameplay), while making necessarily larger jumps across what would have been less eventful periods of travel time, for instance, where a journal account would sufficiently fill in any overt gaps. "Night 55 - arrival to Kirov. Upon sighting it, it almost seems unbelievable..." *cut to player-controlled sequence once more*

 

 

6.) Which brings up another question: Where would the "hunted" be heading to escape? Some specific country or location?

 

Given what we now know of our captives they would have at least some trustworthy contacts of their own they might try once a sizeable populational center is reached (namely the NKVD side at first).

 

There's great latitude regarding a final destination.

 

I've come to realise, however, that, even with detours, a westward direction would almost invariably be favoured.

 

As crazy as they are as extraction points, I've considered somewhere in the vicinity of St. Petersburg/Leningrad or Helsinki.

 

During World War II, Leningrad was besieged by Nazi Germany and co-belligerent Finland. The siege lasted 872 days from September 1941 to January 1944. The Siege of Leningrad was one of the longest, most destructive, and most lethal sieges of major cities in modern history (as per Wikipedia). However, the confusion surrounding it and Nazi numeric superiority might give our friends some leeway.

 

Helsinki too would be a case of going where no one would think the escapees might ever go, presumably one for surrender over death. Or, perhaps even there they had, unsuspectingly, aid and contacts...

 

 

7.) What would make NKVD and Gestapo officers stick together? Why would they need each other even after the news of the June 22 events become known to them?

 

You know the answer by now - the subversive conduct of the Gestapo/NKVD group responsible for The Replacements is the equivalent of high treason. The outbreak of war between the two countries, if it changes anything, it can only be for the worse!

 

Disclosure of the names of those involved to either Hitlerian or Stalinist loyalists would mean death upon return, and not a pleasant one. If they succeed at stopping the fugitives, however, it's another story to discretely reconnect in earnest with their network on home soil.

 

::

 

I do hope I've managed to make at least some sense out of the plot I envisioned, Blunter. Blimey! - looks like the Devil's in the details it is...

[FullAuto]

1) C is a good one, just as cliched as the rest but a personal favourite of mine. F's probably the best for getting the playerfamiliar and involved the quickest. G would be nice, but this wouldn't 'test' well, I think. Most people need to be told where to go, what to do, when to do it. Only a small minority of gamers like to figure this stuff out. Or perhaps games ATM are really talking down to people, because a lot of devs think gamers are stupid?

 

2) C. You'll get hardcore completionists who require D, but most people will be satisfied with B. Action doesn't need to be immediate, I prefer a build-up, but the trend is towards getting to the action straight away (usually as a flashback, *puke*).

 

3) It depends on the feel you want your game to have. If you're going for a very macho, almost shoot 'em up experience, then go for lots of weak enemies, in the typical Hollywood style where one bullet is enough to kill one enemy, but it takes multiple bullets to kill a hero. If you want it to be more realistic than each enemy should be a challenge, this adds a lot more tension and is my favourite. Or you could have a combination, with say, enemy special forces being a challenge, but normal enemy soldiers being cannon fodder. That way you have tense battles, then some stress-relieving blasts as you wade through piles of enemies.

 

But if you do use cannon fodder, you have to use lots of them. I think a lot of devs forget this, and they build up to using lots of enemies. At the start you fight half a dozen, which is no challenge at all. Then it increases, until you're fighting waves of the buggers. It should be like that from the very start, shooting and grenading dozens, with a bit of random AI thrown in to keep it fresh, and increasing the numbers to ridiculous levels (or changing some other factor) to increase the difficulty.

 

4) A is probably the best and most realistic. It makes sense, and anyone who complains that there are lots of enemies when they've entered an enemy base needs to be taken outside and shot.

 

5) D. There should be some shared XP, for achieving objectives, but most of it should be awarded for actions. That way you can redress any imbalances, and if there are characters you don't like, you can let them fall behind.

 

6) All of them...? Branching plots is a good one, but too often they become just different ways to achieve the same objectives. The plot needs to actually branch, not just be a little offshoot of the 'main' plot, and the characters in them need to be fleshed out. Too often there's the main plot, with one or two little branches staffed with cardboard cutout characters. It's like the good vs evil choice in games. Too often the evil choice isn't actually evil, it's just a bit petty or spiteful. If there's not going to be any real moral choice (and I think morality is rarely as simple as good vs evil anyway), don't put that decision in there.

 

7) I think H&S did well without them. I think their occurrence should be tied to the plot. Using H&S as an example, REs could have been Allied patrols, which grew more frequent/stronger the more destruction you caused. I think D is used to artificially pad out games, you're running around in the pissing wilderness hoping that Rare Bad Guy is going to show up, and killing hundreds of Common Bad Guys and getting really bored and frustrated. Works for WOW, though!

 

8) Difficult one. It doesn't need to be emotionally charged at all, for me. Games have left me totally inured to melodrama, I have no interest in saving the world, the damsel in distress, getting revenge, whatever. It's all been done thousands of times before in an effort to interest the player. I am very, very jaded though. The plot itself

is hardly ever interesting, what was the best game plot of 2009, for instance? Games typically use very cliched stories, and rely on the interaction to involve the player. Characters are still a source of interest and involvement for me though. Good characterisation, well-written dialogue, these things are still very rare (and not just in games) and I bet devs can easily find some up-and-coming relatively unknown writer to do them for a pittance.

 

9) I think the player should be able to work out some of the consequences (good and bad) of the choices beforehand. And when some stuff happens that the player couldn't have forseen, then it needs to be mentioned, e.g. one of the party saying "Crap, did this happen because we killed General Failure?"/pointed out in a document that x has happened because of y/etc so the player can make that link and know what that decision leads to. You don't have to be so obvious about it, I think some subtlety might be good, but then you risk people who are not paying attention missing it. E, if I had to pick one. Being sent on a suicide mission would be ace! That 'reveal', when my team turned up and it was all Butch and Sundance, would be fantastic.

 

10) Unless you're going to sink a massive amount of time and money into developing a game like Oblivion, where you can just totally ignore the main quest if you want, it has to be fairly linear. The plot itself being linear is not something I really have a problem with, because if it's a good story it's something I'll want to experience again. If there are multiple ways to complete objectives (e.g. Kill officer x, so you can: all-out assault, stealth, plant explosives, poison his food at his favourite restaurant/takeaway, snipe him from long range, etc) this will keep me coming back. I want to try doing it every different way, and I'm always rubbish at one or two of them, but the trying is great fun.

 

11) I don't think so. It depends on what you mean. I think there should be consequences for your actions, so if your boss gives you a job and you shoot him, then of course you should then be hunted by your colleagues. However, what if you shoot your boss with a silenced weapon and go out and say "My God, he's been killed!" and then his replacement (who is heavily guarded at all times, so you can't repeat the hilarity) tells you to go find your boss' killer, and then the pressure's really on you to pin it on someone, or set the enemy up as having done it. I think if the player's just being an idiot, then punishment is deserved. Otherwise, simple failure is usually enough.

 

12) It depends on what you're going for. If it's a viable option, then that's good, but it's a lot of additional work. Most of these actions (unless you can 'false flag' them using enemy uniforms and weapons to make people think the enemy did it) are just the player being a bit of a knob, and don't need to be accomodated.

 

13) I think it should be possible, but unlikely, depending upon the extent of the offence. Giving money for a minor boo-boo is fine, especially if the faction is criminal or otherwise wants to avoid involving the law. Accomplishing a big objective, or a lot of small ones, in a short time, should go a long way to redeeming you. Going to jail, and then carrying out quests there would be fantastic, a new environment to explore, your party versus/working for the other established gangs, even recruiting people, working towards your release or escape, it'd be a great little break from the main quest, which is often something lofty and noble (even if done for practical/pragamtic reasons). You've gone from saving the world to making sure you don't get raped in the showers and no-one steals your food.

 

14) All of the above, but if I had to pick oen it would be B.

 

15) C. Random, hidden locations.

 

16) Should be small enough to get to know everyone in it well, each character's foibles and sayings. Once you pass ten I think it starts to go, and once you're past twenty it's mostly gone, with only the odd character being memorable. Bear in mind that I'm talking about squad size, not the total size of your force (akin to JA2, where you could have up to 18 mercs, but only six to a team). I'd say a maximum of eight in the party.

 

17) Yes. Characters, when done well, are great, and I really empathise with them, laugh at their jokes even if they're bad, enjoy their quirks and excuse their weaknesses.

 

18) A base of some sort should exist, definitely, but it should also be vulnerable. However, depending on the player's actions, it should also be difficult for the enemy to take it, even if the player's party isn't there (recruiting militia like in H&S/JA2, increasing the size of the garrison, obtaining extra weaponry (machine guns, mortars) and defenses (mines, either home-made, purchased or retrieved from the enemy, barbed wire, booby-traps, pillboxes, etc). Having to establish a temporary base that's not safe is VERY cool when it comes to commando operations, it keeps the baseline tension higher, and suppose just a small enemy patrol wandered into it? Okay, they're no match for you, but did you kill them all? Are you sure? Do you have to spend time and energy relocating? Or do you post a sentry and just bugger off at top speed with all you can carry when a company of infantry with tanks turns up?

 

19) D. You won't offend anyone using real names and locations. No, honest, you won't. I'd be chuffed if my town appeared in a game featuring zombies or Nazis or aliens or terrorists. You're not going to upset me with the thought that my fellow inhabitants could be aliens/terrorists etc, nor are you implying that such an attack is going to happen, or you wish it would happen. A map is only necessary if you can navigate it. For the commando ops-type scenario, you need to dodge enemy patrols, avoid leading pursuit back to your temporary base, use terrain and cover, hide among houses, or woods, set up ambushes and traps on trials and paths, etc. If you're just going A to B, you don't need a map.

[Kaije]

I'll add a few thoughts for ya Blunter, albeit a bit late.

 

1.) How would you want the scenario to start?

~ E & F sound the least interesting, but I can overlook a cheesy or cliche premise if the overall plot is well developed.

 

2.) How immediate should the "action" be? How much feedback does a story need to keep the

player informed of what is going on?

~ My preference is A. I've a sharp memory and I like to use it, but ultimately I'm indifferent as long as the feedback doesn't become an inconvience (wading through redundancy, etc.).

 

3.) What should the "odds" be against the opposition?

~ A and B. From a stats standpoint the enemy should match up well with the player, but quantity used to help offset the lack of quality A.I. (if that makes sense).

 

4.)How should the odds change along the plot progression?

~ A with a splash of C.

 

5.) How gradual should the character progression be? Experience rewards distribution?

~ B, D, and A. B for the base distribution system, then compliment with D. I'm not too fond of A providing experience points, just items or special missions.

 

6.) What should be the primary source of unique experience every time you play a campaign?

~ D. There should be some randomness built into the individual missions though. Not just through variants, but within the script as well.

 

7.) Should there be random encounters(RE)? What would be the role of REs? (H&S didn't have them)

~ E, but depends on the scenario. Could be used to ambush or harass the player. Silent Storm didn't really have random encounters either though, they were basically optional encounters. Sentinels had that hidden option, but it was poorly implemented IMHO.

 

8.) How emotionally charged does the plot need to be? Please, elaborate...

~ It doesn't. I too, am tired of the melodrama...

 

9.) What kind of choices would benefit the scenario best, in your opinion?

~ At least a few instances of all the above would make me happy.

 

10.) How rigid should the plot line be, in your opinion?

~ C.

 

11) Does the player need to be "punished" for not following the plot line?

~ I think so.

 

12.) How flexible does the plot need to be to accomodate the "rogue" playstyle?

~ It doesn't.

 

13.) Should there be a way to "redeem" the player after they critically deviated from the

plot line?

~ After critically deviating? No. B or C could be viable options for unintentional mishaps or failing a tough mission though.

 

14.) What do you think the role of secondary missions/side quests should be?

~ Any or all the above would entertain me.

 

15.) Easter Eggs (Very rare items, unavailable through regular means)? Where should they be?

~ D. I'll always appreciate a bit of randomness.

 

16.) What is the "optimal" number of squad members, in your opinion? Why?

~ Six with the seventh spot left open for temporary members.

 

17.) Should the party members have different personalities (requires a lot more

programming)?

~ Character development is a must.

 

18.) Does the idea of a base (safe haven) appeal to you?

~ C or D. I'm a pack-rat and need a place to stash my extra kit.

 

19.) How does the global map help your immersion? Does a scenario need a map?

~ E, depends on the scope of the scenario. If the campaign covers a great deal of real estate, then yes. If the action takes place in just a few cities, then probably not.

[BlunterII]

Thank you, folks. Very interesting thoughts!

 

Sorry, I haven't posted any replies in over a year. I would like to assure you

I did read your responses and will definitely consider them in any upcoming

projects (in other words you didn't waste your time )

 

Blunter

[Fireman]

I'd really like a scenario which focuses on the resistance or armed civilians. (Saboteur style, I love that game). This could start with simple missions such as steal some food, gather supplies without getting noticed, steal important documents, blow up supplies, assassinate important Axis/Allies leaders.. I always felt like Silent Storm didn't force you to use your hide skill enough (even though it's surprisingly overpowered). Haven't really thought anything through yet, but there it is ^^. It would make a nice change of pace from Allies vs, Axis. Here's the start I had in mind:

 

It's 1942 (I'm not a historian!) the Axis have occupied your country, France <could be any country>. You have a part-time job working as a postman/woman at a local post office. One day your colleague dissappears, which means that you'll have to go work full-time. A day after the dissappearance of your colleague you continue your work as usual. However, near closing time, a man comes by and leaves a package on the street in front of the post office. You pick up the package and notice that the adress is only a few blocks away. You decide to bring it there yourself. Arriving at the, what seems to be, local pub you get a surprisingly warm welcome and $500,- for delivery. (spoiler; the package contained easy targetable locations of supply caches from the Axis).

 

Not understanding exactly what happened you leave the pub and walk home. As you're walking home you're getting the feeling you're being followed. It doesn't take long before you start running, thinking it has something to do with the $500 you received earlier today. When you run into an alleyway you're surrounded by two gestapo officers. They say that they've been keeping an eye on the post office for the past few weeks, because of suspicious activity. They ask you about the package you delivered earlier; Who gave it to you!? Where did you take it!? What was in the package? Who was it for? How did it get into your hands!

 

Not knowing the answers to these questions the gestapo arrest you and bring you to a nice and comfy interrogation room, and surprise, your colleague is there as well!

Yadiyadiyada.... ESCAPE WITH COLLEAGUE!

Yadyaydayya... COLLEAGUE DRAGS YOU INTO JOINING THE RESISTANCE AS THERE'S NO WAY BACK NOW ANYWAYS!

Yadayyda.. .typical shoot-and-fetch missions, assassinations, basically every mission that was also in Silent Storm, but then, as civilians and the "resistance".

 

As I said my writing is horrible, but I hope you get the idea

 

So how would this work with the questionnaire:

 

1. G. The protagonist is uninvolved in any of the sides until he delivers the package which changes the course of his life completely. He lacks any information about the resistance and about what their plans are. He ends up joining them because he's forced to, as there's no way back now.

 

2. C I'd prefer a diary-type journal in which every discovery the protagonist makes about the resistance or nazis is stored. Reading documents would unlock new information in the journal about locations, which would lead to new sidequests.

 

3 F: Other, As I said above stealth tactics should be emphasized upon. Especially during the first missions the resistance is weak compared to axis, because they do not have anything organized and are unable to get heavy military equipment. At the beginning the axis will be so much stronger than the resistance that you'd have to use stealth tactics to gain more supplies, once you get these supplies, you'll be able to set ambushes so you can take out important Axis leaders, or sabotage supply trucks to never reach their destination. The more supplies you gather the better the odds get, but the difficulty of the enemies stay the same (which is fair). I do like the idea of boss characters with special abilities though.

 

4.A. As I said above, the amount of enemies and the equipment depends on the situation. At first you're outnumbered and underequipped, you'll have to sneak. Once you get some supplies you'll be able to set up ambushes (as random ecnounters) in which you'll have the upperhand. However when taking down an important Axis leader in the middle of a city you'll be outnumbered once again.

 

5. D. Each of the resistance members should receive different reward or XP boosts. Missions which require sabotage should benefit engineers more. Assassinations in cities should benefit snipers/scouts more. Raids should bring more XP to soldier and grenadiers. Medics should receive the same amount of XP each level, though there could be specific tasks for a medic, such as making sure a certain NPC stays alive in a map. For example, rescueing other resistance members who're being "interoggated" and thus bleeding all over the place.

 

6. B+D I've been thinking about this. As I said above I do want different XP rewards for different classes, but I'd like to be able to do all the missions in one playthrough. However the generic missions such as; Get these documents, assassinate him, rescue him, blow up this and that, can be reproduced hundreds of times. So I'm going for the lots of random encounters and the missions varying SLIGHTLY from the other playthroughs. Ofcourse these missions can also be completed in different ways.

 

7.A + C + D. I'd really want the random encounters to influence the main plot or to play a role in the main plot somehow. The goal of the resistance is to weaken the Axis by doing the above mentioned quests. Some random encounters should only be available once, others such as raiding a supply stash, should be available multiple times. The ones with are only available once can be about information gathering which will lead to new side-quest/random encounters. My idea behind this is that if you find Axis documents with a list of lieutenants or supply routes, or supply caches or even a list of targets, that random encounters for these locations become available (assassination, raids, protection on resistance members). This influences the plot by weakening the Axis's army and resources which can make the final battle (I really haven't thought of a final battle yet) easier.

 

8. The main protagonist only joins the resistance because of that single package that his colleague was suppose to deliver. He dragged him into this mess and now he has to keep going or get killed. So the emotional charge will be between the protagonist and his "colleague" who pushed all this crap upon his plate. I don't quite have the background of the protagonist figured out yet (like, how he escaped the interrogation and killed gestapo officers, while he's a POSTMAN, maybe his colleague was trained though).

 

9. E. I like the idea of working yourself up the ladder in an organisation. I'd like the encounters and missions you choose to turn you into a "specialist" which would lead to bigger jobs of the same sort. So it's kind of class-based, except that the class doesn't matter, but the experience of doing certain quests is.

 

10. C. Different RE's will lead to different clues and different locations, but in the end it'll end up in one big showdown (which, as said, I haven't thought of yet).

 

11. Other; As I mentioned before you move up the ladder if you complete certain quests. Well, you move down the ladder if you don't (for example leave an area before the objective is completed) and get stuck with boring missions which require no skill and take reasonably long compared to other quests, while offering almost no reward. Imagine a fun, deliver this package quest, with a huge map and NOTHING happens. You deliver the package and it's finished.

 

12. I was considering a turnpoint in the game, in which you get surrounded by gestapo and have two options: Join them or die. Joining them would mean you take on your old pals from the resistance, by spying on them and their activities, which would in turn lead to many of the resistance dieing, without any of them knowing how the Axis knew they were coming. Eventually this would lead to people turning against eachother and the resistance falling apart with one big shootout. I know this isn't what you ment with the question, but I put it down here anyway.

 

13. E. With the major above plottwist, you could also admit to the resistance that the Axis have hired you to work for them. This would in turn give the resistance a chance to provide false information to the Axis through you. This way you'll remain on the side of the resistance.

 

14. A & E, see above mentions about side-quest.

 

15. B & D Side-quests and some of the unique items from quest rewards in the main plot. This way you'll be rewarded for doing more random encounters but you'll also get the chance to get unique items through the main plot line.

 

16.There is no "optimal" amount of squad members. It all depends on the mission.

 

17. Yes, at least for the main protagonist and the resistance (and your collague). Why? Because the resistance believes in their values and what they're fighting for, our protagonist only knows that he wants to stay alive. This could cause friction between the resistance and him.

 

18.C. Temporary hide-outs as Axis tend to keep an eye out for suspicious activity staying in the same base for too long could cause problems.

 

19 B. Map is essential, especially when doing assassinations and ambushes it'd be wise to know where you're attacking, Are you ambushing someone on a four by four highway or on a dirt road? Makes a difference doesn't it?

 

 

That's all, I hope you enjoy my ideas ^^