I know that you've raised these questions more than once, but before release I did not have time to answer in-depth. I'm a bit more free now, so here goes. My approach to these issues and my line of thinking are as follows.
The most important problem with DV/MV approach, a fundamental one, is that it looks like a system with three possible outcomes, but in reality for most players it still works like:
DV = one and only real victory
any other outcome = defeat
To give you an illustration, this is Panzer Corps achievement statistics:
https://steamcommunity.com/stats/268400/achievements
On a Roll
Win a campaign with all decisive victories. Difficulty Colonel or higher.
9.3%
Great Colonel
Win a campaign on Colonel difficulty
8.9%
The number of people who won with all DVs is larger than the number of people who won a campaign on the default Colonel difficulty (which the vast majority of players pick).
If we go a little deeper, there are people who won on other levels: Field Marshal (2.4%), Rommel (0.7%), Guderian and Manstein (both 0.5%) and General (no data in Steam statistics, but according to
this poll we can very roughly estimate it as 2.4/47*35=1.8% ).
So, at the very least, the percent of people who go for all DVs is 9.3/(8.9+2.4+0.7+0.5+0.5+1.8 ) = 9.3/14,8 = 63%. But of course, most likely there is a lot of overlap between people finishing on various difficulties, and this number will be even bigger. Perhaps something like 2/3 or even 3/4 of all players. It's a clear majority.
For all these people, DV/MV system creates several problems. First problem is, by going for DV all the time they can miss a lot of campaign content, and in case of PG/PzC in particular, this forced all these people to go along the shortest, least historical and arguably least interesting campaign branch of all. Second problem is, it unnecessarily complicates campaign structure and victory conditions. It is simply redundant in most cases.
Second point. In Panzer Corps you can actually have very different conditions for DV/MV. It's not "finish early" only. But there are only two things which these different outcomes can drive. It's prestige reward and next scenario (campaign branch). If you look at Panzer Corps campaigns as a whole (not only vanilla campaign), you will see that there are much more linear sections than branches. On these sections prestige reward is the only difference between outcomes. (And this aspect IS important for players. I remember how people discovered that a few MVs in PzC vanilla campaign gave more prestige than DVs, there was a big trouble on the forum).
This is where my critique (which you quoted) comes into play. As a measure of success rewarded with prestige, DV/MV system is extremely crude and binary, and adding more and more grades of victory (like PG2 did) is not really a good solution. So instead, Panzer Corps 2 has a system which does the same, but in a more sophisticated way. Each additional turn before deadline matters, and each additional turn gives more reward than the previos one (so it's exponential rather than linear growth). At the same time, we avoid the trap of calling it "DV" (see above). In my opinion, this system is better, but it does not mean that it's already perfect. For example, on highest difficulties we might need to increase the reward, to compensate lower base value of prestige per turn. But I'm now talking about concepts, not numbers.
Finally, there is campaign branching. Frankly, this part changed the least, compared to previous games. Both PG and PzC had two possible ways of branching (based on previous outcomes or on player choice). And even paying prestige for some choices is not unheard of (Sea Lion vs. Sea Lion Plus choice in PG comes to mind). In Panzer Corps 2 my approach is to offer an explicit choice to the player at every junction, simply because I believe that it is extremely awkward to force a player to deliberately take an MV/loss in order to explore the branch he wants (e. g. historical as opposed to fictional). I've also tried to disconnect branch choice from previous outcomes as much as possible, to avoid the same trap of most players seeing just one campaign branch.
But of course, it is also strange to ask the player if he wants to win the war or not, so there are preconditions for selecting "ultimate victory" branch. In this regard Panzer Corps 2 follows the classical tradition of "change the history if you are good enough". So yes, in a way we still use DV/MV system. But we use it only where it is needed and unavoidable (in 3 scenarios out of 61 - Gazala, Moscow and Stalingrad), without complicating campaign tree and victory conditions where it's not necessary.
Now to your questions.
NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:31 am
In which way is the creation of a minor/major victory system based on the capturing of additional hexes within the same time limit better than the previous system based on turns?
I don't have a strong preference between these two victory conditions. Both in PzC and PzC2 victory conditions can be anything which scenario designer wants (in PzC2 more so because of the more advanced scripting system). We might well see victory conditions based on time again in the future.
NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:31 am
In which way is the introduction of a minimum number of prestige thats required for victory/defeat better than a minor/major victory system based on turns. Especially given that the prestige cost is hidden?
Prestige gate is a separate topic (it can be removed from the campaign without changing other design considerations which I explained above) and it is controversial in its own right. I added prestige gates as an integral measure of player's efficiency in the course of entire campaign, as opposed to efficiency on some very local and limited sections of it. Another idea was to make it a prestige sink. We know very well from experience that better players accumulate more prestige, not only because of capturing flags, forcing surrenders and finishing missions faster, but also because of taking less losses and making better purchase and upgrade decisions. Prestige gate is a very generic method to cut off weaker players and let stronger ones proceed. And I believe that it is actually quite precise and fair.
Note also that prestige gates depend on difficulty level. On Major prestige gate does not exist. On Colonel (default difficulty) it's a "symbolic" 1000 prestige which most players will be able to afford. It only becomes steeper on top difficulties, where, yes, I expect the players to show consistently efficient play, battle after battle, in order to win the war.
NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:31 am
I'm at Stalingrad, with 10 prestige less than the required amount. Or i missed 1 of the extra objectives in that mission. So i'm forced to take the losing path (although this is hidden information when it comes to prestige). How is that system better than a system where you miss out on the victory campaign path because you were 1 turn too slow?
Isn't the introduction of a prestige limit also "extremely artificial"? Why is finishing Stalingrad with 5000 extra prestige worthy of victory and 4990 isn't? Doesn't that motivate players to "linger and harvest prestige"?
It's a game and any approach can be criticized as artificial and unrealistic. But I would argue that:
- The situation which you describe (4990 vs 5000 prestige) is MUCH less likely. Players who pick adequate difficulty usually swim in prestige by the time prestige gate arrives. Snowballing of prestige is a pretty fundamental thing in this kind of games, and with the concept of prestige gates we acknowledge and embrace this fact.
- You can earn extra prestige anywhere you want in the course of the campaign, it's a very open-ended requirement. You can barely win some harder battles, and compensate for it elsewhere. At the same time, this requirement forces you to stay focused on efficiency at all times.
- In this situation which you describe you can proceed by selling/downgrading one unit in your army, which actually makes this prestige barrier quite "soft" and "fuzzy" instead of "hard". Downgrading your army will not work only if you are WAY below the limit, in which case you probably deserve your defeat.
NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:31 am
Aren't we punished more under this system for failing to take 1 objective and never having the opportunity to see a victory ever again, unlike the previous games which gave you multiple opportunities to come out victorious?
This is also a completely separate question which is related to campaign design rather than the fundamental issue of victory grades. I mentioned above that in my opinion all-DV path in PG and PzC was the shortest, least historical and arguably least interesting of all. It was our deliberate decision to NOT provide such campaign paths in PzC2. Even if we did not change anything else and DVs/MVs continued to happily exist, we would still find ways to exclude this branch from the campaign (like GC does).
Each campaign is created with certain design goals in mind. Some of our design goals for Panzer Corps 2 vanilla campaign were to provide lots of possible paths, which were all balanced in terms of length, with scenarios evenly distributed across years, and with not too many fictional battles. Because of these design goals, we delayed historical/fictional branch as much as possible. For example, we had Sea Lion '40 in our plans for a very long time (because it's such an iconic what if), but ultimately scrapped it, because it either makes the campaign too short, or too lopsided (too much early war content, too little late war content), or too heavy on fictional battles. We twisted it this and that way, but it just did not fit. Yes, campaign design is about compromises.
I don't want to go into campaign design issues too much here. Vanilla campaign is what it is. It's not going to change. It's different to how we approached PzC vanilla campaign, and this was our deliberate decision. Some people like it, others don't. Wehrmacht campaign is in no way representative of campaigns which we'll create next (like PzC vanilla was in no way representative of what came in GC).
NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:31 am
Would it be better to be more transparent about the "victory" path conditions from the start of the campaign, like the old major/minor victory system which always showed the criteria needed for success?
It's a question of presentation and UI. I agree that we probably don't explain campaign logic of the new vanilla campaign well enough (but then again, past games did not explain it well either, try to play PG without campaign trees created by fans). Releasing this game was a mammoth effort, and in pre-release crunch such things get overlooked. Fortunately, it's easy to fix in patches. Once again, this has nothing to do with fundamental design decisions which we've taken and which I've explained above.
