Old Gripe about Campaigns

[Yogi the Great]

Played Sandstorm campaign once so far, at least it does seem to change a bit depending on how you did in the previous scenario

But Panzerkrieg which I'm playing through now goes back to the same old problem. No matter how well you do in a scenario the next scenario on the same line treats you like the historical result is what happened.

Scenarios are pretty good individually but as before it is a bit frustrating to find that you never gained the territory, kept your own units strong and killed a lot of enemy just to find out it really doesn't matter as the campaign goes on.

Just a little griping on my part, I have been enjoying the two new DLC purchases.

[13obo]

Sandstorm is the first dlc where performance on previous missions impacts future mission progression. You won't find the same in any other previous DLC but perhaps in a future one!

[bebro]

Played Sandstorm campaign once so far, at least it does seem to change a bit depending on how you did in the previous scenario

But Panzerkrieg which I'm playing through now goes back to the same old problem. No matter how well you do in a scenario the next scenario on the same line treats you like the historical result is what happened.

What exactly do you mean - chances to get ahistorical outcomes a la win (=take) Moscow 1941, or win Stalingrad 1942 decisively so Axis in not driven back into strategic defensive 42/43?

It's not like we're fundamentally opposed to ahistorical developments, but in a longer series of campaigns (BK/PK/X) we don't want to start too early with this, as there are enough (and famous) historical battles to cover, and if you go into this too early things get way less plausible. To give one example, there's not much of a point for a Soviet winter offensive vs. the Rzhev salient in early 1942 (=1st scn PK) when you seized the Moscow region for good in Dec 1941 in BK.

[Andy2012]

@bebro: So you are saying there may be a DLC covering a ton of "what if" missions, tied together in a campaign? Cool idea!

[cutydt02]

At least you can change the fate a bit. Ex: you can win winter storm to rescue 6th army for kursk.
And i didnt see the battle of leningrad, will it appear in soviet campaign ?

[bebro]

@bebro: So you are saying there may be a DLC covering a ton of "what if" missions, tied together in a campaign? Cool idea!

I'm answering with a clear yes and no. It mostly depends on the exact definition of "a ton"...

[Igor1941]

@bebro: So you are saying there may be a DLC covering a ton of "what if" missions, tied together in a campaign? Cool idea!

In vain. It would be more sales, but your business, your sadness)))

[Andy2012]

I'm answering with a clear yes and no. It mostly depends on the exact definition of "a ton"...

I actually meant a fully fictional campaign, starting with a German victory maybe in Moscow 1941. Kind of like Panzercorps did back then. Could be a shorter campaign, but why not? Would sell. You do like money, do you?

[WarHomer]

Played Sandstorm campaign once so far, at least it does seem to change a bit depending on how you did in the previous scenario

But Panzerkrieg which I'm playing through now goes back to the same old problem. No matter how well you do in a scenario the next scenario on the same line treats you like the historical result is what happened.

Scenarios are pretty good individually but as before it is a bit frustrating to find that you never gained the territory, kept your own units strong and killed a lot of enemy just to find out it really doesn't matter as the campaign goes on.

Just a little griping on my part, I have been enjoying the two new DLC purchases.

+1 and the Sandstorm DLC didnt quite do it for me. Still too fixed. I overwhelmingly defeated the Brits and took Egypt, but still only got to defeat the US invasion (and only in a few short/smallish missions). Never really got to play with my good Italian (and german) units/equipment.

[kondi754]

I have the opposite.
I put Sandstrom on the shelf and don't play at all because it is too far from historical events.
Instead, I sit and create new camouflages - great fun.
I agree with one that if the developers allow the Germans to easily get Egypt, we shouldn't go back to Tunisia, but get Palestine, Iraq and Iran.
Missions in Tunisia - only if the player lost at El Alamein.
I evaluate the campaign itself highly, and don't say anything about the level of difficulty - I have asked many times to introduce new (more difficult) levels ...

[Igor1941]

I agree with one that if the developers allow the Germans to easily get Egypt, we shouldn't go back to Tunisia, but get Palestine, Iraq and Iran.
Missions in Tunisia - only if the player lost at El Alamein.

100%

[Admiral_Horthy]

Well.... I have the same feeling... BUT. Thinking it over, I agree the developer's point of view on making the most fun out of it and most big battles possible.

While it's VERY frustrating having beaten back from Stalingrad... it still fit's in the "storyline" to get Harkov, and Kursk, where Manstein's brilliance could have closed the war in the East. Stalingrad was a bitter victory, which was tragic from both sides full of lost hopes and great mistakes.
So, if not a victory achieved at Stalingrad, but a more swift Harkov and follow up with an even earlier "fast and furious" Kursk (even without Panthers) could have been the prize for our performance and a better bargain position for an armistice on the Eastern front.

AS for North Africa, it was good this way, the Yanks would have attacked either way, and a backhand slap on them was quite a joy - but yeah, maybe I would have been happy to grab the Middle-East the final prize to close the line.

[Yogi the Great]

Had to laugh and just put this up one more time. So worked hard breaking the encircled 6th army at Stalingrad. Message about supplies rushing in and I was victorious for the scenario.

Of course then advance for the next and Stalingrad was a disaster, apparently I never actually got there and was back facing more Soviet offenses. As I started - you really can't call these "Campaigns" a campaign and victory means nothing in a scenario except personal satisfaction that will soon be taken away.

[bebro]

In Dec 42 the 6th Army was hardly in fighting shape anymore. So even if the relief in Op. Winterstorm was successful it's difficult to imagine this as a glorious victory...

[Yogi the Great]

Didn't say it was glorious. But at the end of the game scenario the 6th army was still fighting well and Stalingrad on the west side of the river was fully and strongly in German hands. Many Soviet units had been destroyed and their offensive efforts failed elsewhere as well. Not saying the final end result of the war would have been different either. Sure the war would go on and more Soviets would keep coming perhaps only the length of the war would change a bit. Just saying you may as treat all the scenarios as single separate battles as it does not matter how you do as the next one will revert without consideration to how the former battle went. Why fight it as a campaign when nothing you do will really change anything for any future scenario?

[bebro]

One of the most fun elements since SSI times is the core army getting bigger and more experienced in a campaign. I doubt any of the games like SSI's or PzC would be that popular if this point is taken out.

[Mercutio]

I always liked the idea of battles being somewhat in order. You lose, you go back to the previous battle (Kiev, Smolensk, whatever) except the enemy gets more points now. If you win, you move on. Even if it is ahistorical, like Sea Lion. You lose, it goes back again. This gives you the option of going balls to the wall, but if you fail, you get a chance to regroup and the enemy is even stronger. You have to fight your way back again to get a second try. Even more awesome would be losing can drop you farther and farther back from victory. Of course, this is limited as otherwise you get into the "what crazy weapons could the axis have come up with?" so there is that. However, I would doubt you had the RP to buy them from losing so much. I think the player would throw in the towel by then.

[Admiral_Horthy]

The real victorious result of Stalingrad that is unspoken of.. The evacuation of the entire Caucasus front, of more than a million men. The failure of the soviets was the inability to cut the way through to Rostov, while seven entire armies were held back in the siege of Stalingrad against the already disabled and dying remains of the 6th Army. This is how a strategic failure is blown up by the commie propaganda as a war-winning victory. (and nothing is mentioned about the even bigger defeat against the Center happened at the same time)

[Yogi the Great]

Yeah I know many of you don't care if a campaign makes sense but I finally played stopping the Russians from getting Kharkov (or even near it) meeting each and every primary and secondary objectives to find there is still another scenario which starts off due to your retreat tactics after Stalingrad (which as said I didn't lose either) you have lost Kharkov and beyond etc. Once again so much for an actual campaign scenario it is just connected scenarios your results have already been determined for you and ignored if you don't happen to follow them.

[Erik2]

Campaigns are fairly linear in nature.
Different ie Stalingrad outcomes may be set up to branch to specific next-scenarios, but doing this for most scenarios in a campaign would lead to a rat-nest of branches and would multiple the work-load for the designer.
And many of those alternate scenarios would only be played if the player had a certain outcome in the previous one.
So from a designer point of view, a multi-branching campaign takes a lot of work to create wityh relatively low pay-off.
Anyway, that is my experience dabbling a bit with custom campaign-designing.