Will there be a tie-in with AK and the DLC campaigns?

[Zhivago]

It would be fun to play an ultimate battle from 1939 to 1945 all over the European and AK theater, with DLC campaigns included. Is this going to be possible somehow?

[Xitax]

Considering the scope and historicity of the Grand Campaign DLCs along with the same of Afrika Corps, I don't see how this is possible in a sensible way.

[Ballacraine]

Surely there could be some integration to allow import & export core unit OOBs?

Balla.

[Zhivago]

The Grand Campaign that comes with the standard PC game is weak, and frankly, very dated. The DLC's (in my opinion) is what makes Panzer Corps great. If there is no way to do an overall campaign linked in with the DLC's, I would rate that as a major failing of the game, and of the developers of the game.

[Chris10]

Considering the scope and historicity of the Grand Campaign DLCs along with the same of Afrika Corps, I don't see how this is possible in a sensible way.

It is actually possible but this would require 2 cores and a campaign tree with 2 different theatres (europe/east & africa) which have to be pursued simultaneously according to date > play 1-2 scenarios in one theatre then 1-2 scenarios in other...
This requires some major changes to the engine and the way it works and truth is I completely miss the reason why this, in case it would not be done, would constitue a major fail of the game developer...
Saying this is a bit of stretch, to say at least..........

[Zhivago]

I spent $50 bucks on the original PzC game, and have bought all six DLCs (CD ROMs) at $15 bucks a crack. I'll be buying Afrika Corps CD ROM too. With close to $200 invested in this game, I would hope that there would be a way to play all of the scenarios together somehow in one campaign. You don't need to be Steve Jobs to figure this out.

[Ballacraine]

All you would need to do is allow import export of core units.
Branch the campaigns as a choice at the end of a GC.
Either by player choice at DV or arbitrary decision by AI at MV?

Balla.

[El_Condoro]

That would just require some very minor tweaking of the campaign.pzdat for each DLC. The question is whether it would make for good games considering the DLCs are predicated on different assumptions than the ability to take a huge and powerful core from the Eastern Front and use it against the Allies in Africa or western Europe. If the Russians had "allowed" the Germans to take a huge force from the east to the west, or the Germans had decided to do it themselves, the war would have been over quicker and probably all of Germany in the Soviet sphere of influence. The question is how the developers might choose to deal with this question - would core size restrictions be enough? That gets complicated further when each DLC is intended to be playable stand-alone or as part of the GC - players might start with a pre-set core, a core from the Russian DLCs or a core from a Allies-based GC; all would have different issues to deal with. Upshot: it's not as easy as it sounds.

[Ballacraine]

OK. You feel it might unbalance the game to allow full core import?

Instead of having just a default selection of core units, how about 'cherry picking' from your favourites on the import of core units?


I am just looking for some RPG style continuity pinning the chronological progress together.

Balla.

[VPaulus]

That would just require some very minor tweaking of the campaign.pzdat for each DLC. The question is whether it would make for good games considering the DLCs are predicated on different assumptions than the ability to take a huge and powerful core from the Eastern Front and use it against the Allies in Africa or western Europe. If the Russians had "allowed" the Germans to take a huge force from the east to the west, or the Germans had decided to do it themselves, the war would have been over quicker and probably all of Germany in the Soviet sphere of influence. The question is how the developers might choose to deal with this question - would core size restrictions be enough? That gets complicated further when each DLC is intended to be playable stand-alone or as part of the GC - players might start with a pre-set core, a core from the Russian DLCs or a core from a Allies-based GC; all would have different issues to deal with. Upshot: it's not as easy as it sounds.

+1
Besides not everybody has and will have all the DLC.

[El_Condoro]

OK. You feel it might unbalance the game to allow full core import?
Instead of having just a default selection of core units, how about 'cherry picking' from your favourites on the import of core units?
I am just looking for some RPG style continuity pinning the chronological progress together.
Balla.

What you're suggesting can be done now with some simple changes, as I said above. The cherry picking you mention could be done by importing the whole DLC core and having a small core size e.g. you bring in 30 core units from the east DLCs but have to choose 15 for the Africa or west one. Those things are easy but for the developers they have to consider all their customers, including those who don't have the DLCs, as VPaulus mentions. There will be a solution - my point is just that it won't be a simple solution.

[Rudankort]

Our approach is simple: we connect campaigns where it makes sense, and don't connect them where it does not. Grand Campaign is special in many ways: it takes historical approach to the flow of the war (for the most part, anyway), it has its own, very different scale, it has a different exp growth rate, awards rate and heroes rate, you can have more elite units than normal etc. For now the only thing we are considering is to connect existing DLCs with western ones. This poses some interesting questions, because we want the action on the West to be smaller in scale than in the east, with less units in the core and maybe smaller maps. This would be a much welcome change in the character of this campaign, compared to Eastern Front. Also, western campaign will likely require a different core composition. Eastern front was more about epic tank battles, while in the west the focus could shift towards infantry and fighting against enemy's very strong air presense. Additional difficulties arise if we allow the player to switch between East and West every year.

There are no plans to connect GC to AK campaign. Not only it is very difficult to do in a meaningful way, but also, I think that starting from scratch can be refreshing sometimes. Attaching to your core is fine, but it can become boring to play every single campaign with it, especially if it is strong and takes away all the challenge from the game. In Africa we have added some novelties, like mixed german and italian core, and we want people to try this instead of playing the same units again and again. We believe that AK campaign is quite long and varied, and can hold its ground as a completely separate, independent entity.

In theory, we could extend Grand Campaign to include some Africa action in 1941-1942, but at this point I cannot tell if this will ever happen or not.

[VPaulus]

In theory, we could extend Grand Campaign to include some Africa action in 1941-1942

That would be the right approach.

[Ballacraine]

Our approach is simple: we connect campaigns where it makes sense, and don't connect them where it does not. Grand Campaign is special in many ways: it takes historical approach to the flow of the war (for the most part, anyway), it has its own, very different scale, it has a different exp growth rate, awards rate and heroes rate, you can have more elite units than normal etc. For now the only thing we are considering is to connect existing DLCs with western ones. This poses some interesting questions, because we want the action on the West to be smaller in scale than in the east, with less units in the core and maybe smaller maps. This would be a much welcome change in the character of this campaign, compared to Eastern Front. Also, western campaign will likely require a different core composition. Eastern front was more about epic tank battles, while in the west the focus could shift towards infantry and fighting against enemy's very strong air presense. Additional difficulties arise if we allow the player to switch between East and West every year.

I don't think switching between East & West year on year is either viable, or desirable.

Import core if viable at the commencement of the earliest East or West GC only.

Balla.

[Zhivago]

Our approach is simple: we connect campaigns where it makes sense, and don't connect them where it does not. Grand Campaign is special in many ways: it takes historical approach to the flow of the war (for the most part, anyway), it has its own, very different scale, it has a different exp growth rate, awards rate and heroes rate, you can have more elite units than normal etc. For now the only thing we are considering is to connect existing DLCs with western ones. This poses some interesting questions, because we want the action on the West to be smaller in scale than in the east, with less units in the core and maybe smaller maps. This would be a much welcome change in the character of this campaign, compared to Eastern Front. Also, western campaign will likely require a different core composition. Eastern front was more about epic tank battles, while in the west the focus could shift towards infantry and fighting against enemy's very strong air presense. Additional difficulties arise if we allow the player to switch between East and West every year.

There are no plans to connect GC to AK campaign. Not only it is very difficult to do in a meaningful way, but also, I think that starting from scratch can be refreshing sometimes. Attaching to your core is fine, but it can become boring to play every single campaign with it, especially if it is strong and takes away all the challenge from the game. In Africa we have added some novelties, like mixed german and italian core, and we want people to try this instead of playing the same units again and again. We believe that AK campaign is quite long and varied, and can hold its ground as a completely separate, independent entity.

In theory, we could extend Grand Campaign to include some Africa action in 1941-1942, but at this point I cannot tell if this will ever happen or not.

I cannot understand why it would be an issue to create a campaign tree that included all of the scenarios that a player owned. Why create DLC campaign content that cannot be integrated with the larger game???

If someone only owned the original PzC game and AK, then those would be the only scenarios available on the campaign tree. A player, like myself, who has shelled out $20 bucks a crack (with shipping) for the CD ROM versions of all six DLC games should have a campaign tree that allows me to fight on the Eastern Front in 1941, or to go fight in AK. It is unconscionable that the developers of this game would not create a plan to include all of the content into one playable format. If anything, creating a campaign tree that could be fleshed out with the purchase of additional scenarios would seem to be to be a way to get more people to buy DLC content. The more content a player pays for, the more options he/she should have.

I think this needs a serious re-think by the devs of the game, even if it took a new, separate DLC to link all of the content together into an Ultimate Campaign, it should be done.

[Zhivago]

Our approach is simple: we connect campaigns where it makes sense, and don't connect them where it does not. Grand Campaign is special in many ways: it takes historical approach to the flow of the war (for the most part, anyway), it has its own, very different scale, it has a different exp growth rate, awards rate and heroes rate, you can have more elite units than normal etc. For now the only thing we are considering is to connect existing DLCs with western ones. This poses some interesting questions, because we want the action on the West to be smaller in scale than in the east, with less units in the core and maybe smaller maps. This would be a much welcome change in the character of this campaign, compared to Eastern Front. Also, western campaign will likely require a different core composition. Eastern front was more about epic tank battles, while in the west the focus could shift towards infantry and fighting against enemy's very strong air presense. Additional difficulties arise if we allow the player to switch between East and West every year.

I don't think switching between East & West year on year is either viable, or desirable.

Import core if viable at the commencement of the earliest East or West GC only.

Balla.

How would this be an issue? In early 1941, you either make the decision to continue fighting on mainland Europe, or to fight in Afrika. If you choose to fight in Afrika, then you stay there until some pre-determined point. November 42? Kursk? During the battle of Kursk, when the Allies invaded Sicily and the boot of Italy, Hitler pulled units off the Eastern Front to deal with the new threat. The Germans rotated units back and forth between the East and West fronts throughout the war, depending on what offensives were being carried out. Being able to switch back and forth at pre-determined points on an overall campaign tree should be a no-brainer.

Essentially, there are two, or three, Panzer Corps games now. One is the original PzC with its content. The second consists of the six DLCs now available, which although they can be played together, cannot be played with AK. Then there is AK, which is another stand-alone game that is not playable with any of the six DLCs, or with the original PzC. It just does not make sense to me that these games are not all tied into together.

[VPaulus]

Grand Campaign is special in many ways: it takes historical approach to the flow of the war (for the most part, anyway), it has its own, very different scale, it has a different exp growth rate, awards rate and heroes rate, you can have more elite units than normal etc.

[Rudankort]

I think this needs a serious re-think by the devs of the game, even if it took a new, separate DLC to link all of the content together into an Ultimate Campaign, it should be done.

In a sense, Grand Campaign is exactly the same concept which you call "Ultimate Campaign": at least in theory, in the end it could unite all german operations in WW2. But this does not mean, we should not release any content outside of GC concept. OK, you can argue that Africa should be part of GC, but next in line are campaigns for western allies and russians. How are we supposed to link them with existing content?

[Kerensky]

Taking a step back for a moment, let's remember that not all players are created equal.

Some of our players enjoy the mega-campaign environment that the Grand Campaign DLC provides, but some also prefer smaller and shorter campaigns. This could be for monetary reasons (Zhivago mentioned buying a boxed copy of all existing content costs upwards of $200, though I do want to remind everyone that buying the full 7 DLC campaigns as DLCs only costs $35) or it could just be a play style preference where some people don't want to stick with the same CORE for scenario after scenario and campaign after campaign. They like to experience a particular design, play it out, and then try another, different campaign style and set up.

Point is, we have to do our best to make content for all of our players to enjoy(this includes multiplayer content BTW, which is a whole different story!). So some content is set up as a linked Mega-Campaign, and other content is set up to be short and sweet.

As El_Condoro has pointed out though, for anyone who really wants to put all content together (you can even set it up so that the tutorial campaign is a pre-campaign for the Vanilla game or DLC39 BTW) those tools are all freely available for our players to make use of at their pleasure.

All this requires is opening a few GUID and campaign.pzdat files with any text editor and syncing up the GUID parameters.

[Zhivago]

I think this needs a serious re-think by the devs of the game, even if it took a new, separate DLC to link all of the content together into an Ultimate Campaign, it should be done.

In a sense, Grand Campaign is exactly the same concept which you call "Ultimate Campaign": at least in theory, in the end it could unite all german operations in WW2. But this does not mean, we should not release any content outside of GC concept. OK, you can argue that Africa should be part of GC, but next in line are campaigns for western allies and russians. How are we supposed to link them with existing content?

You are the developer, I am the customer. You need to figure that out, or find someone else that does. I am an idea man. Don't get me wrong, I love the game--I just want it to be the best it can be. If I were at the controls on the development of this game, I would have a Spanish Civil War DLC with the German Condor League, and play it all the way through 1945, with a what-if fictional 1946 DLC for players that have stopped the Russian and Allied advances in 1945. The DLC 1946 would have experimental German and Allied weapons, and would also envision a US-Russian conflict after the Germans are defeated, like Gen. Patton was clamoring for. Think BIG! If you make it we will BUY it. You have a lot of talented modders and devs around here--I am sure you could figure this out.