Campaigns vs Skirmish: What Makes a Strategy Game Campaign Worth Playing? (ep.107)

Prompted by the mixed reviews for Ashes of the Singularity II and its short campaign, Al, Drexy and Adam debate whether campaigns or skirmishes matter more in strategy games. They also argue over what a campaign actually is, and whether grand strategy and 4X games have one at all.

https://criticalmovespodcast.com/listen

This episode asks a deceptively simple question: should a strategy game invest in a campaign or in skirmish play? Starting from complaints about the ten mission campaign in Ashes of the Singularity II, the hosts disagree about whether a campaign has to be a set of scripted missions or can be an emergent story such as a Total War or Civilization playthrough. They discuss what makes a campaign good, including tutorials, lore, consequences and the ability to change the rules, and why skirmishes tend to be forgettable. The conversation closes on the economics of campaigns and DLC, why developers of RTS games lean on stories while 4X and grand strategy developers sell factions, and a split verdict that Al invites listeners to settle.

<a href="https://rss.com/podcasts/criticalmoves/3317322/">Campaigns vs Skirmish: What Makes a Strategy Game | RSS.com</a>

Critical Moves Podcast: Episode 107 Show Notes

Episode Title: Campaigns Versus Skirmishes in Strategy Games
Hosts: Al, Drexy, Adam
Episode Length: ~60 minutes

Episode Summary

Al is joined by Drexy and Adam to debate whether campaigns or skirmishes are more important in strategy games, a topic that came up when Drexy read the reviews for Ashes of the Singularity II. The hosts disagree about the very definition of a campaign, with Drexy and Adam treating it as authored story missions and Al arguing that an emergent playthrough in a 4X or Total War game counts too. They look at what makes campaigns memorable, why skirmishes blur together, how DLC and development costs shape what developers choose to build, and whether Stardock was wrong to ship a short campaign when most RTS players prefer single player.

Welcome and Today’s Topic

Al welcomes Drexy and Adam, with some banter about who is the most attractive host, and explains that the episode will cover campaigns versus skirmishing in strategy games generally, not only RTS.

What Prompted It: Ashes of the Singularity II

Drexy explains that Ashes of the Singularity II had just launched to mixed reviews, and that a common complaint was the length of its campaign, which has only ten missions. He says he likes campaigns because, done well, they introduce a game’s mechanics, though he accepts that replay value is limited unless there are alternate routes or a different campaign for each faction. Al agrees that a good campaign matters, but warns that a campaign which is just a list of skirmish missions with a cutscene in between is not enough.

Stardock’s AI Statement and the Voice Acting Claims

Al notes that many of the mixed reviews probably relate to the use of AI, but says he does not want to dwell on a subject the show has covered extensively. He reads Stardock’s statement: AI was used for post processing and animation on art made by human artists, some cutscenes use human made 3D assets composited with AI, and a few minor characters and unit notifications use stock ElevenLabs voices. Drexy adds that players accused the voice acting of being entirely AI generated even though Stardock named the actors used. The hosts agree the campaign length is not the only reason for the negative reception.

Why Campaigns Work: Tutorials and Lore

Adam argues that a good campaign is always a plus, because a bad one gets ignored and a good one raises the standing of the whole game. He cites the Age of Empires II campaigns, which taught him history while showing off quirky things the engine could do, and says tutorials are one of a campaign’s main jobs. Drexy adds that strong lore gives campaigns memorable moments, naming Warcraft, and thinks Ashes did not lean into its lore enough. Al mentions that Stronghold campaigns drop cutscenes entirely and consist of a growing series of harder missions.

What Counts as a Campaign?

The hosts split on the definition. Drexy and Adam describe a campaign as a developer made story in a set order, usually with scripted events and fixed objectives, which Drexy contrasts with a skirmish as a sandbox. Al argues that a Civilization or Total War playthrough is also a campaign, where the player writes the story as they go. Drexy says that makes campaigns more like board games, and that Crusader Kings is an emergent story generator rather than a campaign. The hosts agree to disagree, with Al noting that no single definition will satisfy everyone.

Total War, Auto Resolve and the Skirmish Question

Al points out that many Total War players use auto resolve, which he reads as evidence that people prefer playing the campaign layer to skirmish style battles. Drexy and Adam note that Total War: Warhammer has scripted campaigns for each leader as well as the huge Immortal Empires map, and that many players ignore the former. Al says his playthroughs of Empire Total War as Prussia or Britain are a campaign, while Drexy says the story is not written by the developers. The usual debate about whether Total War is an RTS comes up again.

One Sitting or Save and Resume?

Adam proposes a practical divider: something you can finish in one sitting is a skirmish, while something you save and return to over days is a campaign, as with long Civilization V or VI games. He adds that speed matters, calling Warhammer 40,000: Gladius a skirmish style game because it plays so much faster than a Civilization game. Drexy disagrees and says a campaign is about the story, not the speed.

Consequences and Persistent Squads

Al says the campaigns he loves have consequences, giving the examples of Dawn of War II, where squads level up and carry their wargear forward, Battlesector, XCOM with its permadeath, and Homeworld, where a lost ship stays lost. He wonders whether too much punishment is fair, since one wrong decision can stop you finishing a mission. Drexy adds that a good campaign should start gently, introduce mechanics, reward victories with stronger units and then test what you have learned, noting that some wargames model attrition rather than a story.

Campaigns as Tutorials: Warcraft III and Original War

The hosts agree that campaigns are good tutorials as long as they are not only tutorial, and Adam says one of the best examples is Warcraft III, where almost every mission introduces a new unit, how to use it, what it counters and its weakness. He also recommends Original War, a lesser known game that is almost entirely story, where a unit lost in an early mission is gone for the last one, and he notes its skirmish mode felt much less interesting because the mechanics are simple.

Are Skirmishes Memorable?

Al asks everyone to name a memorable skirmish match. None can, and the hosts agree that skirmishes tend to blur together. Al says he enjoyed comp stomps in Command & Conquer: Generals Zero Hour, such as turtling against several hard AI opponents, but that none stuck in his memory, whereas campaigns carry emotion and let you be the main character in an epic story. Adam adds that a campaign is memorable partly because of the challenge of finally beating a mission after several attempts.

Skirmish as Multiplayer Practice

Drexy says skirmish feels to him either like training for multiplayer or multiplayer without playing multiplayer, something of a cop out. Al agrees that it is mostly for people who are interested in a game’s multiplayer side but do not want to play against humans.

Authors Can Change the Rules

Adam says one of the biggest strengths of a campaign is that the developers can twist the rules, such as locking out particular units, dropping a super boss from the sky or setting an unusual objective, which keeps the player surprised in a way skirmishes cannot because they usually start in the same way. He gives Heroes of Might and Magic as an example, where the campaigns are sets of story missions with a persistent hero, and the hosts agree this fits the definition of a campaign.

Why RTS Games Lean on Campaigns and 4X Games Do Not

Drexy argues that 4X and grand strategy games descend from board games, which rarely have storylines, while RTS games grew out of computer games, which always had stories. Al notes that grand strategy games could have a story and that this is largely a historical difference, and the hosts again debate whether Total War is a grand strategy game, an RTS or a hybrid.

Stellaris and Optional Narrative

The hosts use Stellaris to show a middle path. Narrative events such as the precursor storylines and the story steps that open up special systems are optional, so players can follow them or ignore them. Drexy and Al agree that this differs from a campaign, where you must go through the story, though Al says he has shared memorable moments from his own games.

Do Campaigns Make You Better at Skirmish or Multiplayer?

Drexy says the usual route is to play the campaign and then move on to skirmish, though many players are satisfied with the campaign alone, and he mentions that he recorded a full Battlesector campaign playthrough on the channel that attracted very few viewers.

Beyond All Reason’s Campaign

Drexy points out that Beyond All Reason, a heavily multiplayer focused game, is now adding a campaign, which suggests that even players of competitive games want scripted missions. Al notes that Beyond All Reason descends from Total Annihilation, which had a good campaign before it developed a multiplayer scene.

Why Supreme Commander’s Campaign Endures

Asked why he keeps replaying Supreme Commander’s campaign, Al says it comes down to scale and variety. Missions rarely end with just destroying the enemy commander: in Forged Alliance you might repair a station, after which the map and unit cap expand and new attacks arrive, then escort civilian trucks, and so on. The huge toolbox also lets him approach the same mission with air power one time and artillery and superweapons the next, and he contrasts this with Red Alert missions that are often just skirmishes in disguise.

Should Stardock Have Made a Bigger Campaign?

Drexy asks whether Stardock made a mistake with a short campaign. Adam says developers who want single players should do a proper campaign or leave it for DLC, and that a short campaign that people finish in a couple of hours will be forgotten. Al says it is too early to judge a game one day after release, but that if pressed he would say yes, because research cited by Stardock’s own Brad Wardell suggests around 95 percent of RTS players prefer single player. One host adds a passing recommendation to wait for Sanctuary: Shattered Sun instead.

Single Player Majority or Multiplayer Whales?

Adam puts on a tin foil hat and argues that although most RTS players are single player, the whales who spend money on skins, units and DLC are multiplayer players, so developers favour them, citing Company of Heroes 3’s weaker single player missions. Al and Drexy disagree, arguing that RTS players do not buy cosmetics in the same way as players of shooters or RPGs, and that Company of Heroes 3’s problem was a cheap cosmetic route in place of story missions.

DLC Economics and the Cost of Campaigns

The hosts note that most DLC for the big strategy series adds factions rather than campaigns, for instance Total War: Warhammer, Civilization and Paradox games, and that Battlesector’s DLC has largely added races for skirmish and multiplayer. They agree that campaigns cost money because they need mission design, scripting, voice actors and a writer, which is why Beyond All Reason can be free to play but is charging for its campaign. Adam adds that developers often promise campaign missions for new factions later. Drexy points out that 4X and grand strategy developers can sell DLC cheaply and repeatedly, which may be one reason those genres overtook RTS, and the question is left for the audience.

Final Positions

Al says campaigns make games mean something and that an emergent playthrough in a 4X, grand strategy or turn based game is a campaign to him. Drexy says he wants a story campaign in every genre except 4X, where he is happy making his own adventure. Adam says he agrees with Al but has moved a little towards Drexy, and that story is an important part of a campaign. Al thanks Adam, who is unwell, and Drexy, and invites listeners to answer the question about why 4X took over from RTS in the comments or on Discord.

Contact & Links

Episode Verdict

This is a lively argument that never settles its central definition, which turns out to be the most interesting part. Al’s insistence that an emergent Total War or Civilization playthrough counts as a campaign sits against Drexy’s tighter view that a campaign is authored story, and the hosts are honest enough to leave it unresolved. The memorable skirmish challenge, where nobody can name one, is the strongest moment of the episode, and Al’s breakdown of how Supreme Commander keeps expanding a single mission shows what a campaign can do beyond a string of skirmishes. The discussion of why DLC favours factions over campaigns adds useful commercial context, even if Adam’s whales theory is rejected by the others. The Ashes of the Singularity II material is handled fairly, as a game barely a day old that cannot be judged on its campaign alone.