Valkyria Chronicles (PS3) Game Discussion

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Originally Posted by kk2extreme

im debating whether to get this game or not, the anime is pretty good so far, should i get it right away or let the anime finish first

Well if you like the anime then yes go and buy the game. I guess you'll have to decide which you want to see through to the ending first, the anime or game. Of course you could always play the game and watch the anime at the same time.

[kujoe]

Originally Posted by kk2extreme

im debating whether to get this game or not, the anime is pretty good so far, should i get it right away or let the anime finish first

[HashiriyaR32]

Since we're talking about mid-mission saving....I've only done it once since I had to shut off the system.

[lightbringer]

Considering that most maps and skirmishes (even on hard mode) can be done in one or two turns, you don't really have to save (especially when using fully decked out and max-levelled characters), but it does save time. On some missions, like Flower of the Battlefield, saving can save you a lot of time and frustration (lame pun intended) if you want A-rank.

Having said that, I usually only save excessively when aiming for A-rank on a difficult map or hard skirmish (and since I have them all now, it doesn't matter anymore). I never found this to spoil my fun or anything, so to each his own. Plus, my time is more precious to me, so I'd rather not waste it retracing my steps. For regular play I usually don't save, since the game is pretty easy normally - except for a few maps like the aforementioned Flower of the Battlefield or perhaps chapter 17, you'd have to try really hard to get your people killed or not get done in 20 turns.

Originally Posted by Shiroth

I'm not letting people die just because i don't save. I'll have you know that no one dies when i play. If they do, then i'll restart a mission. I love this cast, and i'm not going to let one of them die on me.

I know that feeling, wouldn't want to lose anyone either when I play. However, they do come back once you start a new game using your saved data, and at least two medals depend on getting characters killed.

[JagdPanther]

I think there's only one medal which requires someone to completely die. The two secret characters just require you to let them be evacuated during a mission.

[grylsyjaeger]

Originally Posted by JagdPanther

I think there's only one medal which requires someone to completely die. The two secret characters just require you to let them be evacuated during a mission.

Exactly.

Spoiler for Hidden Characters:

Karl and Oscar don't have to die. You only need to have their final potentials - Headlight Deer and Coward respectively - unlocked and they just need to be shot to the ground.

Then just send someone to tag them or finish the mission in less than three turns to save them. After that Lynn and Emile should appear in your troop listings. Varrot will inform you of New Recruits.

But to get the Splintered Horn medal someone has to actually die in battle. Personally I chose Theold because he was an arse.

[lightbringer]

I see, thought they actually had to die. Learn something new every day Well, there is also some fun in seeing some characters' dying lines, so it wasn't all a waste

[Kagedanji]

Originally Posted by fallschirmjager

Spoiler for Hidden Characters:

Personally I chose Theold because he was an arse.

Theold was awesome. I had to choose Dallas, only cause she was conveniently next to the Lupus. Though, I've heard of people making worse sacrifices in missions, like sending away almost every great female unit in one go.

Spoiler for T-T:

Included Lynn, Wendy, Marina, and several others. That player was an idiot.

[Tak]

So I am curious. What is everyone's playing style, and what perks do you guys prefer?

Personally, my emphasis had always been placed on snipers. They are an integral part of my platoon, and I cannot live without them.

- Tak

[Solecs]

I tend to use snipers more as well, especially Marina after she got her "Ultimate Accuracy" potential. If only she had "Undodgeable shot" as well, alas. After them I focused on scouts, then lancers, and finally shocktroopers and engineers.

As for my play style, my normal strategy was to get as many one shot kills as I could with my snipers and then drive my scouts up followed by shocktroopers. The scouts would usually find cover somewhere and I'd use the grenade launcher to blow enemies out of cover to pick off with my snipers. Also, I always tried to work my lancers around behind tanks to hit the radiators (well, that is before I got Audrey and her "Ultimate anti-Armor"). The only other trick I used was not fully deploying at the beginning of the map so that I could call up reserves right after getting to bases.

For potentials, I like all the "Ultimates" obviously. I also prefered perks that gave accuracy and defense boosts more than increased damage, since I was usually going for headshots anyway.

[kalbron]

For my first play through I tended towards using primarily scouts with sniper backup.

Then I realised how much more fun and efficient it was (after getting raped on EX-Hard) to move as an actual squad. Throw in the VB F 2(g) and my transition to utilising multiple shocktroopers with sniper, engineer, Alicia and Ultimate Anti-Tank lancer support was complete.

I also found that Largo was much more useful with a mortar lance than a normal one simply due to the fact that you really do need lancers to kill tanks in 1 or 2 shots, and he always needs at least 3.

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

My playing style usually consists of getting all the ranks involved. I think its more enjoyable to use the entire squad in a fight instead of favoring just one or two units.

[kujoe]

I use a mix of different units as well, but I use engineers the least. In most missions, I don't use them at all.

Snipers are also an integral part of my offense and usually my first move involves them. Snipers go first (usually, to take out enemy snipers if the chance arises), then the rest follows through.

Of course, when enemy tanks are involved, the efficacy of snipers goes down a bit in favor of anti-tank lancers. Outside giving orders, Welkin usually makes the last action in a turn or I won't move him at all.

[Tak]

This game seriously need a multiplayer mode so we can play it online. Its a shame that it did not have it.

- Tak

[kalbron]

Eh, I think only co-op would really work, otherwise it basically turns into a game of "who gets the first turn".

Unless, of course, most of the maps were like the... Naggair Plains? Those WW1 trenches.

[spawnofthejudge]

Originally Posted by kalbron

Eh, I think only co-op would really work...

I want a co-op mode. Really badly.

Though competitive multiplayer might work if you cut into the CP significantly.

[Tak]

If they want to make competitive modes, SEGA can easily just shorten the CPs to 1/2 or even more, like 1/4 their original size and include maps specifically for competitive mode. That way, it could work.

Also a co-op mode would be nice. On the other hand, I have found that I use the tanks a lot less than I do infantry during the game. If WWII doctrine was to have infantry support assaulting tanks, I was clearly breaking that rule.

. . . . . EDIT:

*Sigh*

Well this sucks, I just found out today that the Valkyria BEST edition now on sale in Japan comes with all the addons without additional purchase necessary.

This news made me very unhappy.

- Tak

[kujoe]

I think it would be fun to have co-op DLCs.

Say for example, each player is given a small number of units for a squad while your friend is also playing as another commanding officer with his own. In one co-op mission, both players have to execute a joint operation where two squads have to work together in order to be successful.

Of course, turns would probably have to be tweaked a bit, hence why I suggest having a small squad for each player. Perhaps the maximum number of units is limited to around half of the max in single player or something... and probably less than that would even be better. Another idea that could possibly work is that each player has his own mission objective(s), thereby keeping the turns flexible for each player. For example, player 1 has to cause a diversion by attacking the base in a completely different area while player 2 has to pull off a rescue attempt in another part of the map.

I'm not sure how it'll all work under these mechanics, but it's a nice thing to think about at least.

[Chrono Helix]

Originally Posted by Tak

Also a co-op mode would be nice. On the other hand, I have found that I use the tanks a lot less than I do infantry during the game. If WWII doctrine was to have infantry support assaulting tanks, I was clearly breaking that rule.

I'd say that's because of the rank system in the game that encourages rushing. As well as the fact that once you lose Edelweiss it's game over.

[spawnofthejudge]

Originally Posted by kujoe

I think it would be fun to have co-op DLCs.

Say for example, each player is given a small number of units for a squad while your friend is also playing as another commanding officer with his own. In one co-op mission, both players have to execute a joint operation where two squads have to work together in order to be successful.

Of course, turns would probably have to be tweaked a bit, hence why I suggest having a small squad for each player. Perhaps the maximum number of units is limited to around half of the max in single player or something... and probably less than that would even be better. Another idea that could possibly work is that each player has his own mission objective(s), thereby keeping the turns flexible for each player. For example, player 1 has to cause a diversion by attacking the base in a completely different area while player 2 has to pull off a rescue attempt in another part of the map.

I'm not sure how it'll all work under these mechanics, but it's a nice thing to think about at least.

Max, as I understand it, is eight infantry and two tanks. Easy math is to halve it. If the map in question was big enough, could probably get away with having five or six infantry a side, but definitely only one tank per player.

A siege might be a lot of fun (and action for four players if they surround the target city/location!), and introduces coop/competitive play. Like, the player who manages to break the enemy line and get in on his side first wins?