more complex campaign paths

[Mountaineer]

PC is turning out to be a great game, I really think it is correcting many of the old glitches of PG and PG2. However, one area that does not seem resolved is the lack of scenarios within a campaign. If you look at all the work done over the years to mod PG and PG2, you get a feeling for what gamers want.

For example, as I finished crushing the Allies in Sicily/Italy in 1943, my next sceanrio was D Day 1944. Seems that my units sat idle for a year. What would have been great for a DV would be another shot to defend in the east. If I had gotten a MV then I would have to defend agains the follow up Allied landings in Italy. I need to build more prestige, add core units, and get back into the fight.

There is real opportunity here to make this a more dynamic operational level wargame. It will be fantastic if there is an Allied Campaign embedded in future upgrades vs selling an entirely new game.

On to some other issues:

I find it difficult to work with the low # of core units. I feel overwhelmed by the Allies, even as early as Barbarossa you see far more Soviet aircraft than you can afford with the prestige and core unit limitations. Plus, you are unable to develop your unit's experience in those earlier scenarios to help you dea with being outnumbered then and later. My core units have less experience than newly formed Soviet and American units. More sceanrios and larger core unit allocations would help that.

I also would like to see the addition of unit HQs. One for your Army Group HQs and the option to purchase more Army level HQs. You should need 1 before you hit France and have 3-4 by the end of the war. They should affect supply status and unit morale, but not be debilitating in their absence. This may be "too hard to do" at this stage, but useful for later development.

All units should be able to take objectives. Once a city is clear of units if a mechanized AA drove in I think the populace and partisans would scurry and you could declare it your own. You should also be able to drive through as you surge forward and the city turn over.

Recon units should be able to resupply or strengthen if they have movement points left and have not engaged in combat.

Paratroops should not be automatically loaded on aircraft.

I like the fact SS units cannot be purchased, just awarded. Makes the game more dynamic.

There is no record of wins and casualties. You can only see it in unit records unless I am mistaken.

The scale of the hexes seems to fluctuate. If it were standard, I could see some units getting a larger range, especially since the icon of a tank or AA unit represents so much more, it is a formation. Later updated units covered more territory and had more range.

This is an good game that moves beyond PG but still has a few of the old limitations. I think some of the ideas players have had over the years and what we see in some of the new games would make it exceptional. Thanks for the opportunity to let me offer ideas.

[Razz1]

I find it difficult to work with the low # of core units. I feel overwhelmed by the Allies, even as early as Barbarossa you see far more Soviet aircraft than you can afford with the prestige and core unit limitations. Plus, you are unable to develop your unit's experience in those earlier scenarios to help you dea with being outnumbered then and later. My core units have less experience than newly formed Soviet and American units. More sceanrios and larger core unit allocations would help that.

A mix of units is your friend. You don't need as many air units as the AI. AA helps allot in Barbarossa.
You have to expect to be attacked from the air and suffer losses. Just move accordingly and you will be okay.

[IainMcNeil]

I'm sure modders will add the extra complexity but we're aiming at the wider market and not everyone wants campaigns that take forvever to complete.

We could add a grognard expansion which filles out the campaign with more maps but thats also a lot more work and reources are limited so we'll probably have to see how thigns go. Maybe a combination of modders and dev team can generate something more dynamic. If you have ideas for missing scenarios please go ahead and start building them

[VPaulus]

I'm sure modders will add the extra complexity but we're aiming at the wider market and not everyone wants campaigns that take forvever to complete.

We could add a grognard expansion which filles out the campaign with more maps but thats also a lot more work and reources are limited so we'll probably have to see how thigns go. Maybe a combination of modders and dev team can generate something more dynamic. If you have ideas for missing scenarios please go ahead and start building them

This reminds me OFP/ArmA. The basic scenario, the frame is the game. Then the modders complement it.
Hopefully, though not at the same scale, the same same will end up happening with PzC.

[grabbysnatch]

I am in the process tw in Spainorking on a scenario spain, using the Falcon lenario/early campaigngion etc. Would be a good early training scenario if i can fit it in with my workload at the mo. I am also working on a western scenario to pad out the campaign structure. I am just at early research and prep stage at present, but will continue working on them. I think this is the future longevity of the game.

[VPaulus]

I think this is the future longevity of the game.

Amongst future expansions from Slitherine (like North Africa), I fully agree.
There are reasons to be a little optimistic, how this game will evolve.

[Steelslayer]

this game will be great to make larger campaigns, the possibilities to create will be great. The fact that the unit size is abstracted means that you could make an entire campaign within the context of Reg, battalions or even company or platoon level. I would love to work on some stuff over the summer, but have little experience in this area but if anyone is interested in doing some work together, please let me know.