Having participated in the designing of games I can tell you that there is a very fine line between being scripted to a boring re-hash of history vs an interesting presentation of choices in a historical atmosphere that can change an outcome based upon the players skill. The latter is what the DLC has done to a better degree,I might add, that the main campagin.
In fact the DLC has a better tactical/situational approach and is an incrementally better "game" than the main campagin.....and it is because of this that there needs to be--at some point--an intergration of the two methodolgies.
DLC and the Art vs the Science of Historically Based Games
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Thanks.... I think 
Though personally, I consider the integration of these ideas to be the option to link more campaigns together.
You don't play a Kursk "scenario" you play a whole Kursk "campaign".
And based on the outcome of that Kursk "campaign" you either go to a fictional Moscow/London/USA "campaign" or go to a historical Dnieper, Korsun Pocket, Bagration "campaign".
Though personally, I consider the integration of these ideas to be the option to link more campaigns together.
You don't play a Kursk "scenario" you play a whole Kursk "campaign".
And based on the outcome of that Kursk "campaign" you either go to a fictional Moscow/London/USA "campaign" or go to a historical Dnieper, Korsun Pocket, Bagration "campaign".
Don't mis-understand me you all do deserve thanks as well as continued support in your efforts because after all is said and done , Slitherine is in the entertainment bussiness .
I ,for one, have had many hours of gaming entertainment playing these games and raise this issue as someone who is happy with your work and wish to see it progress
I ,for one, have had many hours of gaming entertainment playing these games and raise this issue as someone who is happy with your work and wish to see it progress
Re: DLC and the Art vs the Science of Historically Based Gam
I also think the fact that the DLCs offer more scenarios in any given period of time to contribute to the feeling they're better. The main campaign tree simply was too sparse. In contrast, each DLC offers roughly the same number of scenarios per theatre in a single year as the main campaign offered for the entire war on both theatres.doc99 wrote:Having participated in the designing of games I can tell you that there is a very fine line between being scripted to a boring re-hash of history vs an interesting presentation of choices in a historical atmosphere that can change an outcome based upon the players skill. The latter is what the DLC has done to a better degree,I might add, that the main campagin.
In fact the DLC has a better tactical/situational approach and is an incrementally better "game" than the main campagin.....and it is because of this that there needs to be--at some point--an intergration of the two methodolgies.
I think Molve has said it well as to the depth of the DLC giving the sense of an an improved tactical /situational sense to the game due to the numbers of battles in the DLC giving the player a sense of 'campaging"
Also few games of this scope gives the satisfaction of performing an encirclement or "hammer and anvil" manuver as the DLCs.
However I also agree with a previous post about the morphing of TKSs at a critcial point that seems out of context with the known historical record but for the tactician who has kept a reserve [usually a Ju87] it can result in a gratifying "gaming" moment
Also few games of this scope gives the satisfaction of performing an encirclement or "hammer and anvil" manuver as the DLCs.
However I also agree with a previous post about the morphing of TKSs at a critcial point that seems out of context with the known historical record but for the tactician who has kept a reserve [usually a Ju87] it can result in a gratifying "gaming" moment
The good thing about the DLCs is that when focusing on tactical, smaller scale scenarios with highly customizable objectives (instead of a pseudo-operational scale where all it's about is getting all of the hexes), it is actually easier to give a consistent difficulty for the player while keeping a reasonable sense of historical realism. Want to give a challenge to the player during the 39 DLC ? Focus on the first stage of the battle of the Bzura, where there was a local and temporary advantage to the Polish troops, make it a scenario, and voila, you got a challenging highlight to the DLC campaign, in the midst of easier scenarios.
On the other hand there has been quite a lot of (not entirely unjustified) negative feedback about the sudden jump in difficulty in the "core destroying" scenarios of the late war like Balaton or Bagration - the germans got trounced historically, yet it is disappointing for a player to lose a carefully nurtured core to the rigors of absolute realism. I assume that a different approach will be possible with the DLC scenarios : focusing on hard (harder than the earlier DLCs, obviously), but reasonable objectives to keep your core in an orderly retreat in the middle of the german debacle.
On the other hand there has been quite a lot of (not entirely unjustified) negative feedback about the sudden jump in difficulty in the "core destroying" scenarios of the late war like Balaton or Bagration - the germans got trounced historically, yet it is disappointing for a player to lose a carefully nurtured core to the rigors of absolute realism. I assume that a different approach will be possible with the DLC scenarios : focusing on hard (harder than the earlier DLCs, obviously), but reasonable objectives to keep your core in an orderly retreat in the middle of the german debacle.