Individual Scenarios

[Xerkis]

Can’t play individual scenarios from the DLCs…. Well, not without the player moving things around on their own. Something most of us “can” do; but really shouldn’t “have to” do (in my opinion)

Will this not be a feature?

[Kerensky]

Well the scenarios are designed for campaign play. They are functional for single scenario use, but that is not their purpose.

It's the same logic to the 10 special purpose MP maps. They are designed to be multiplayer maps, not to be single play VS AI maps.

To 'activate' these maps for single scenario use, something they were not specifically designed for but they can handle, manual user action is required.

In the future, it would ideal to have maps expressly designed to be single play scenarios, but they will most likely follow the same rules. That is, to make them 'multiplayer' maps, manual action is required.

There really is no such thing as 'all purpose' content. A map that is part of a campaign, playable as Axis OR Allies against the AI, and playable as Axis OR Allies against another human player is not possible to create. Well, it is possible, but I guarantee it won't be very good.
The amount of triggers, scripts, unit placement, and AI settings required to make a good campaign are completely destroyed when a player takes control.

[Xerkis]

But Sir, how is this true when the original campaign is both playable in the campaign and as single scenarios? If they are balanced as such or not is somewhat beside the point – it is the precedence that has been set by the release of PzC’s original content.

[Xitax]

I thought the maps were already designed to also be played as a single scenario - I mean you picked them and they were set up to play - were they not?

But they should be. Count my vote also for the option to play that way. I frequently play that way.

[Horseman]

But Sir, how is this true when the original campaign is both playable in the campaign and as single scenarios? If they are balanced as such or not is somewhat beside the point – it is the precedence that has been set by the release of PzC’s original content.

I think waht Kerensky is trying to say is that with the scripting and Triggers used in the new style campaign they really wouldn't make good scenarios as stand alone.

Playing as the allies in most maps will see you starved of prestige and having no say in "new builds" as you get whats scripted to appear.

I like this new style for the campaign as it stops the AI building junk and wasting prestige and I do kind of see his point on why they wouldn't make good stand alone scenarios and certainly not good multiplayer maps

EDIT: And I posted without making a point.....IF they were included as stand alone maps by default I suspect there would be many shouts of "the game is broken...in XYZ scenario I have no prestige etc." So are probably better left out especially as we all know how easy it would be to add them in ourselves!

[Xerkis]

But Sir, how is this true when the original campaign is both playable in the campaign and as single scenarios? If they are balanced as such or not is somewhat beside the point – it is the precedence that has been set by the release of PzC’s original content.

I think waht Kerensky is trying to say is that with the scripting and Triggers used in the new style campaign they really wouldn't make good scenarios as stand alone.

Playing as the allies in most maps will see you starved of prestige and having no say in "new builds" as you get whats scripted to appear.

I like this new style for the campaign as it stops the AI building junk and wasting prestige and I do kind of see his point on why they wouldn't make good stand alone scenarios and certainly not good multiplayer maps

EDIT: And I posted without making a point.....IF they were included as stand alone maps by default I suspect there would be many shouts of "the game is broken...in XYZ scenario I have no prestige etc." So are probably better left out especially as we all know how easy it would be to add them in ourselves!

I understand what you and Kerensky are saying – but my statement and question still stands.
Being able to play the scenarios that make up the campaigns are expected to be able to be played on an individual case as well. This is because this is how the core PzC was designed.

If they are balanced or not or designed or not to be played in this way, that should be left up to the buyer / player if they feel it so. The option to play them as individual scenarios should still be given and let the player decide if they want to or not.

[Horseman]

But Sir, how is this true when the original campaign is both playable in the campaign and as single scenarios? If they are balanced as such or not is somewhat beside the point – it is the precedence that has been set by the release of PzC’s original content.

I think waht Kerensky is trying to say is that with the scripting and Triggers used in the new style campaign they really wouldn't make good scenarios as stand alone.

Playing as the allies in most maps will see you starved of prestige and having no say in "new builds" as you get whats scripted to appear.

I like this new style for the campaign as it stops the AI building junk and wasting prestige and I do kind of see his point on why they wouldn't make good stand alone scenarios and certainly not good multiplayer maps

EDIT: And I posted without making a point.....IF they were included as stand alone maps by default I suspect there would be many shouts of "the game is broken...in XYZ scenario I have no prestige etc." So are probably better left out especially as we all know how easy it would be to add them in ourselves!

I understand what you and Kerensky are saying – but my statement and question still stands.
Being able to play the scenarios that make up the campaigns are expected to be able to be played on an individual case as well. This is because this is how the core PzC was designed.

If they are balanced or not or designed or not to be played in this way, that should be left up to the buyer / player if they feel it so. The option to play them as individual scenarios should still be given and let the player decide if they want to or not.

I dont disagree but there would need to be some warning as to the "balance" to avaoid cries of "my game is broken!"

[Xerkis]

I think waht Kerensky is trying to say is that with the scripting and Triggers used in the new style campaign they really wouldn't make good scenarios as stand alone.

Playing as the allies in most maps will see you starved of prestige and having no say in "new builds" as you get whats scripted to appear.

I like this new style for the campaign as it stops the AI building junk and wasting prestige and I do kind of see his point on why they wouldn't make good stand alone scenarios and certainly not good multiplayer maps

EDIT: And I posted without making a point.....IF they were included as stand alone maps by default I suspect there would be many shouts of "the game is broken...in XYZ scenario I have no prestige etc." So are probably better left out especially as we all know how easy it would be to add them in ourselves!

I understand what you and Kerensky are saying – but my statement and question still stands.
Being able to play the scenarios that make up the campaigns are expected to be able to be played on an individual case as well. This is because this is how the core PzC was designed.

If they are balanced or not or designed or not to be played in this way, that should be left up to the buyer / player if they feel it so. The option to play them as individual scenarios should still be given and let the player decide if they want to or not.

I dont disagree but there would need to be some warning as to the "balance" to avaoid cries of "my game is broken!"

Agreed.

But I think those cries will be less than the ones of “hey, why can’t I play the individual scenarios”

[Horseman]

I understand what you and Kerensky are saying – but my statement and question still stands.
Being able to play the scenarios that make up the campaigns are expected to be able to be played on an individual case as well. This is because this is how the core PzC was designed.

If they are balanced or not or designed or not to be played in this way, that should be left up to the buyer / player if they feel it so. The option to play them as individual scenarios should still be given and let the player decide if they want to or not.

I dont disagree but there would need to be some warning as to the "balance" to avaoid cries of "my game is broken!"

Agreed.

But I think those cries will be less than the ones of “hey, why can’t I play the individual scenarios”

You may have a point!

[Kerensky]

It is given, it just requires a little more effort to acquire.

Now if we tried to 'hide' these maps because they are completely broken (no victory triggers, no prestige or units placed down at all) then that's a serious problem. But that's not the case.

They are functional, but not optimal.
So they are available, but not without effort.

Besides, there's a technical aspect you're not considering.
The base campaign maps show up for single play scenarios, but if you notice, simply placing files in the same folders do not show up on the list with them. So... obviously there is more to just moving files around to get them to show up on the scenario list, and how is that going to be solved. What if I buy 1939 and not 1940. What if I have both. What if I have only 1941. This screen will become not only extremely cluttered, but require constant updates and reconfiguration.

[Xitax]

I have an idea; what if the scenarios were listed within "folders" in the scenario screen GUI where you have a Base Game folder and separate folders with DLC or UMC content. This would allow addon campaigns to have their own graphics without getting the interface cluttered with a whole bunch of scenarios.

See rough paintover here:

[Kerensky]

I don't particularly disagree, but I'm not the one you need to convince.

[nikivdd]

Maybe a DLC Scenario pack after all DLC GC's are released?