AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

[Kerensky]

The jist of the comments isn't so much the quantity of scenarios, but how they were distributed. As feedback goes.... I'll take that any day over being accused of copying old content, or having produced an entire campaign of 5 scenarios that is just overall too short.

I have read those prior posts for days now and do not get it. What is wrong to do something what is a bit apart from mainstream? I have enjoyed the SCW battles and I am now enjoying the battles around the Saar. It might be not completely right, seen from historical perspective, but does it count if it is enjoying ? I understand that not all can enjoy it that way, expecting more the main and huge battles. But remember, we are just starting in 1939. The main battles will follow later. @ Kerensky: I am right?
Since I had the first battle in Spain in PG2 I was eager to play it again, looking for some mods in PC1. Now I got it and it was a good feeling when I took over my core to 1939. Of course knowing this core will be developing throughout this dlc and maybe I will not use my prototype tanks any longer. And yes, I am up now to change them against new core units. What is the issue if there might be enough dlcs coming and bringing up the classical battles together with some new - like Forbach which i have started this morning, really.enjoying the mechanics of how it could bring up 3rd and 4th army against each other?
Working at a publishing house I know about the needles of good sales numbers of course and I think it could be a good idea to talk about the plans for future dlcs and the expectations. If I remember right, there is a special threat about it in the forum.
@ Kerensky again, would it be possible to just give some ideas about the next dlcs? Maybe this helps to make also the mainstream players getting a hint of what is coming next.
As turnbased games are a niche only nowadays I am really wondering why there is not more constructive support here. So I am asking the question of questions: Who is enjoying the so far dlcs? And who would buy propably the next ones?

Yup, Bzura is the most important battle of the Polish campaign, and gets due recognition. Warsaw is also a gigantic battle, in the spirit of the original Grand Campaign, but with a heck of new layout to accommodate new supply and encirclement systems of Panzer Corps 2.

And everyone is free to post their wishlists for content... and while we're always reading, I would caution that while ideas and suggestions are fantastic, the effort involved to convert an idea to a real, complete, and awesome project is enormous by comparison.

But the fact that people are even entertaining that a project as ridiculous in size as a Grand Campaign needs more content... well there are certainly worse problems in the world to have.

And let's not forget the crowd who want non-German content, they're being entirely left out in the cold regardless of extra Polish scenarios or not. While I certainly am eager to continue the Grand Campaign, I would not object to seeing a separately produced Allied campaign of some capacity. It would be very neat to look at something produced by someone else both as a comparison and because it will undoubtably have its own distinct flavor. I think by now people have noticed my flavor is distinctly heavy in use of vehicles and tanks and armored units.

[Linai]

Who are you to judge me?
With those 30 posts you wrote here, you are just a miserable troll in my eyes who wants to shine in the discussion but has nothing meaningful to say. Nevertheless, you and Retributar made me realize what kind of **** is going on here.
I don't want anything to do with you. BYE

theyre voice = 1 paying customer
your voice = 1 paying customer

[kondi754]

[quote=kondi754 post_id=874536 time=1598217798 user_id=109282


Who are you to judge me?
With those 30 posts you wrote here, you are just a miserable troll in my eyes who wants to shine in the discussion but has nothing meaningful to say. Nevertheless, you and Retributar made me realize what kind of **** is going on here.
I don't want anything to do with you. BYE


theyre voice = 1 paying customer
your voice = 1 paying customer

You know what, I also know another truth because I deal with sales myself - one satisfied customer makes that 2-5 customers who will also buy this product, 1 dissatisfied customer can cause you to lose 100 potential customers

[Kerensky]

I'll certainly buy all the DLCs. They are what, about 15 dollars apiece, spread over at least a couple of years. Heck my old lady and I had my sister and her husband over yesterday and I spent over 60 dollars on pizza and cannoli. Lol

As nice as that sentiment is, video games are outrageously competitive because there are so many, and most at such low costs. Some full games clock it under $15. So we'll see what future Axis Operations run at. Spanish Civil War really did have an inflated production cost with all those new models after all.

[Turtler]

i`d love to see more burma road like content. burma road is one of the best campaigns in oob because its not the usual poland-norway-france-soviet uniton-normandy crap we have been playing for decades now. the spanish civil war dlc was great.

Fair. I mean, I have affection for that 'crap", and am generally more of an ETO nut (ironic given my family history IRL), but yah Burma and the East Asia Land War in general get overlooked a lot. And while I can SORT of see why given how low tech, grueling, and usually indecisive it was, it is still a shame.

i think the british could get more love tbh,

Agreed.

not a lot of british content out there and they fought a lot.

Not sure where you get this idea. In most of the games I've played (and I have a LOOOOOT, like well over a hundred) the British usually get one of the key slots in the war (albeit not so much in the Pacific). Whether it's RUSE, Combat Wings, or the like. In general I mostly see them get shafted if the game is either A: Pacific War (and even then not always), or B: if the game gets chopped down to something like "Teh BIg Three" of US/Germany/Soviets.

Could there be more? Certainly. But still.

i have a 1912 cavaly saber from a military cross winner guy who fought in palestine to put down the arab uprising, north africa, italy and THEN normandy landings and finally got an MC in 1945. thats one helluva ww2 carreer and shows that bririth soldiers had their fair share of misery in this war too.

Damn. That's awesome indeed, and reminds me of some of those "Old Timers". Some of which are famous like Adrian Carton de Wiart, others not so much. The British certainly had a storied military history over the centuries- and particularly this era-, and I do think they were the crucial lynchpin of the Grand Alliance.

btw about historical realities: germany had no chance to win the war. it had no resources, inferior economy, inferior army, had no valuable allies, no vision just got into the war really because they didnt expect the franco-british team declare war on them, they were unable to adopt to changing enemy tactics, they had a retarded leader. historical reality is that they were extremely lucky at the beginning and thats it, the soviet union itself was more than enough to beat the shxt out of them.

I disagree on multiple levels. I think that it was always UNLIKELY that the Axis would win the war, but hardly no chance.

First and foremost, they certainly didn't have "no vision". Especially if you look at stuff like the Hossbach Memorandum or Mein Kampf. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/hossbach.asp

I think if anything, while their vision was in a lot of ways limited or partial (for instance, "What happens after we reach the A-A line in the East?" "Uhhh....") it was generally pretty broad and complex, involving war with massive militarization, a restructuring of the European economy, and wars with almost all the other Great Powers and lots of minor ones. To say nothing of decades long plans for things like the transformation of the Reich's economy and agrarian settlement in the East.

So if anything, their problem was probably that their vision was Too Broad and led them to overreach massively.

Secondly: the idea that they had an "inferior army" beggars belief if you compare it to almost every other military on the planet in 1937. Sure, it was flawed in a lot of ways that would be disastrous later on (like the lack of a long range strategic bomber) but in light of limitations it was quite formidable. Especially if you compare it to-say- the Yugoslav Army or even the Soviet one (probably the largest on Earth and built for world conquest in line with Lenin's dream, and still unable to get stuff like radios).

Thirdly: Most evidence I have seen is that Hitler and the OKW did in fact expect the Anglo-French to declare war on them sooner or later (and were somewhat surprised they waited as long as they did), particularly by Poland. Hitler indeed gave them a speech to that effect in spring 1939 a few months before the kickoff of Case White and the start of this boondoggle.

Fourthly: While the Axis WERE quite lucky in a lot of ways (in particular not many people expected the West to fall as rapidly as it did in 1940, the Japanese were extremely effective in 1941-2, of course Barbarossa was a big derp for the Soviets), the Wehrmacht was also legitimately quite good (especially for its time) in combined arms warfare and Bewegunskrieg. They also had the luxury of being able to largely pick their fights against countries and governments that didn't want a fight and generally were unprepared for it materially, morally, or both (including an inexplicably naive/trusting Stalin in 1941).

Fifthly: the idea that the Soviets alone were enough to beat up the Germans is probably best countered by how they likely came closer to defeat than anyone realized, especially when we talk about the internal food situation and demographics. The "Infinite Soviet Hordes" was always a propaganda staple, and the degree to which Soviet farming (which was never the most effective) was caving under the weight of losing so much of the Black Earth regions and also having so many able bodied men sent off to war. No, "Just Take Moscow" wouldn't have put an end to Soviet resistance even if it did miraculously lead to the collapse of an organized Soviet government (doubtful at best), but it certainly would make the A-A Line something halfway to reality and cripple conventional resistance.

It also ignores the lessons of WWI, where the combination of German tactical and strategic victories along with clever divide and conquer politics had shattered an empire with far more resources, an at least surface level military more on par with its rivals, and so on. And that was with millions of military age people tied up in other fronts against the Western Allies and working in the factories.

The Axis actually winning WWII was always going to be rather unlikely, but I think assuming they could never have done so is dangerously complacent.

[Kerensky]

And i would agree with people who wants more Polish scenarios. I really love early days/months of war in the Poland and France.

Every Panzer General game starts in Poland, and the original Grand Campaign was overloaded with Poland.

But I get the feeling that isn't actually the heart of the matter. People still want more 'Poland' because they keep seeing Poland being treated as an extension of the tutorial. It's the first missions of every campaign, and is duly dumbed down and small enough to accommodate brand new players.

Considering in Axis Operations, Poland is the middle of the second campaign, and Bzura is second in size only to Ebro, and Warsaw is still ahead... well as I said, it's a fine complaint to have compared to other complaints that could have been leveled at the content.

[Retributarr]

And everyone is free to post their wishlists for content... [Ret: Personally I have already done so and will continue to do so without demanding that any of my thoughts on the subject-matter... be followed through-with]

And let's not forget the crowd who want non-German content, they're being entirely left out in the cold regardless of extra Polish scenarios or not. While I certainly am eager to continue the Grand Campaign, I would not object to seeing a separately produced Allied campaign of some capacity. It would be very neat to look at something produced by someone else both as a comparison and because it will undoubtably have its own distinct flavor.

"Kerensky!"... You!... better than 'i' or most of us already know who those prospective enabler-candidates are who would most likely be able to start producing some "Allied-Campaigns" or even an "Italian-Campaign".

You are yourself aware of what is legal or permissible... regarding the boundaries of such an action... so let's leave this matter in your care. What I would ask is that if someone or someone's step up to participate in this venture... that they be guided by 'Oversight' as well as by the 'Direct-Assistance' of your 'Development-Group'... to produce a first-class entre' for these 'Forum-User-Campaigns'.

[Kerensky]

So if anything, their problem was probably that their vision was Too Broad and led them to overreach massively.

In all my research to build content, there is something I find really gets lost to 20/20 hindsight of knowing how history actually turned out. Everyone can easily say to invade Russia was moronic beyond comprehension... but that's only because it's obvious after the fact. And it wasn't so obvious to the millions of Russians who lost their lives turning the tide of the Eastern Front.

If the 1940 gamble to attack through the Ardennes was a failure, we'd look back in history and say that was the moment Germany overreached and thus totally failed WW2 at.

But you know, the original German plan to attack the Low Countries was very WW1 minded. OKW expected it to take years, and cost hundreds of thousands of German soldiers. Estimates to take over Poland were also originally much more pessimistic, they didn't plan for it to be under in just a single month.

So if anything, I'd say the Germans caught the same Victory Disease that would later affect the Japanese. They won their opening gambits so decisively, it fed into both culture's mindset of being the Master Race... which made them really think they were invincible, and fuck it they could do whatever the heck they wanted, they were going to win.

Thus leading to trying to take on a country the size of Russia with less than 6 months before winter despite not having dealt with Britain, or advancing across the entire Pacific Ocean in every direction simultaneously, from China to Burma to India to Australia to Midway to the Aleutians all at once.

[Kerensky]

Fun fact, this is partially why the Stefan Wagner character exists.

It's so much extra work to research proper appearances and rank and writing a person instead of just bland purely factual briefings and debriefings.
Because that historical knowledge flavors the content in so many ways, unintentionally or not. I find very often it's kind of damaging to the gameplay experience, and it is a huge contributor to players encountering that 'been there done that' feeling from 'omg yet another WWII game'. I mean, if you are being historically accurate to the D-Day landings... it should play out like everyone else who also made a historically accurate D-Day landing, ya know?

I needed a perspective of someone in the moment, who doesn't have the perspective of historical knowledge we all have. While it doesn't bring historical accuracy to the content (that's an entirely different struggle) it carries with it much needed historical authenticity.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that is exactly why Panzer Corps is one of the biggest titles in its niche genre, but I would like to tell myself such things are contributing factors for why the game draws a particularly passionate crowd to it. There are some threads were a few people already wrote some fan fiction of Stefan and Ana Sofia... that's just neat. lol

[naughtybalrog]

Loving the entire campaign especially France! Kinda bored with starting in Poland; therefore, kudos to the team for giving us something new.

Kondi754 sounds like that dude you kept banning from PC1.

[KesaAnna]

Kondi754 sounds like that dude you kept banning from PC1.

Again , what he says sounds to me , if round - about and circuitous , more complimentary than anything else.

I didn't much care for the original grand campaign myself.

But one thing I really did like was that , if I remember correctly , in the French campaign THE PLAYER GOT THE CHOICE to either go to Sedan , or to Dunkirk.

Gimme Dunkirk ! I'll take any opportunity to get another swipe in at the British ! Sedan ? Too many bad memories there for me.

Well , you had the same sort of Choice in Spain.

But then comes the biggie ;

THE PLAYER GOT THE CHOICE to go to North Afrika , or to Russia .

For the record , and future reference , I would be terribly disappointed if in future I had to go to Russia , and could not go to North Afrika instead.

As for this DLC , I'm not so sure that if the player had been given a choice , then everyone would have picked to go to Poland , and the Saar would have been superfluous.

My guess is that at least some of the fan base would be odd ball Bohemian types who won't get with the program , and WOULD HAVE chosen the Saar.

.....

On the other hand , such a fine and fancy choice basically means designing two , whole , different campaigns.

And what I primarily disliked about the original campaign was that Poland was a grand total of two scenarios , and whether you went to Russia or North Afrika , it seemed childishly abbreviated , like the entire campaign was maybe two or three months in real time.

.... So , tack on another SIX MONTHS development to give the players this choice.

What happens then ?

" Hey ! Hello ?! I bought this game a year ago ! Where are my goodies ?! What are you jerks doing over there ?! "

[Turtler]

In all my research to build content, there is something I find really gets lost to 20/20 hindsight of knowing how history actually turned out.

Agreed there. I think gaming in more sandbox things (where the AI has more flexibility) HELPS with that, but it is still endemic.

Heck, honestly I think part of the problem is that hindsight isn't even 20/20, as I'll touch on soon. So it's not only that we are used to looking back at history playing out in a certain way, we don't even factor in all the history that played out. Which leads us to ignore a lot.

Everyone can easily say to invade Russia was moronic beyond comprehension... but that's only because it's obvious after the fact. And it wasn't so obvious to the millions of Russians who lost their lives turning the tide of the Eastern Front.

Well, I will still argue that (from the murderous and insane POV of an expansionist, totalitarian German empire like that of WWI and especially WWII) invading European Russia made a lot of sense and I will play a lot of devil's advocate for the concept, even if obviously not the mass murder, ideology, or even the military performance. By early 1941 at the latest (and probably well before that) It had become incredibly clear that the Third Reich and buddies needed the resources of the European USSR- especially oil and agricultural goods- to continue waging the war, especially in the face of an Atlantic Charter alliance that was building up.

That means that you either needed to form a full alliance with Uncle Joe to trade for what you wanted, or you needed to invade and squash him and take what you want. The NSDAP's murderous hatred for Bolsheviks and Eastern Slavs needs little explanation, and "Living Space" in the East had been a part of the Party's "thinking" from the beginning and wider Pan German thought for longer than that, but it was coupled by Molotov overplaying his hand in negotiations to get the Soviets into the Axis in late 1940. Which resulted in Hitler going into a rage out that made him believe that even a further temporary alliance with the Soviets was off the table. Which left one option.

And it was an option that made sense. For all the talk of Napoleon or Karl of Sweden or the like, people forget that just decades earlier the Central Powers had defeated and shattered Russia, winning the Eastern Front. And vast amounts of the OKW and Party leadership (among others) were old enough to have remembered it. And were also well aware of the Soviet attempts to recover from the purges and expand/modernize their military... in part because of spying and in part from cooperation.

So it made sense to try and emulate Ludendorff and Hindenburg by striking East, before the Soviets were ready or the resources completely ran out.

What went wrong is complicated and I could go on for years- and a lot of it came from actively pushing people towards the Soviet state rather than prying them away from it-, but the logic makes sense.

If the 1940 gamble to attack through the Ardennes was a failure, we'd look back in history and say that was the moment Germany overreached and thus totally failed WW2 at.

Sure. And Churchill said something similar in his memoirs about WWI and the Battle of the Marne.

But you know, the original German plan to attack the Low Countries was very WW1 minded. OKW expected it to take years, and cost hundreds of thousands of German soldiers. Estimates to take over Poland were also originally much more pessimistic, they didn't plan for it to be under in just a single month.

Indeed, and it's also that I note that for all of the justifiable derision Hitler gets, his support of Guderian and a lot of the more "revolutionary" military thinkers for Sickle Cut helped prove decisive.

So if anything, I'd say the Germans caught the same Victory Disease that would later affect the Japanese. They won their opening gambits so decisively, it fed into both culture's mindset of being the Master Race... which made them really think they were invincible, and fuck it they could do whatever the heck they wanted, they were going to win.

Thus leading to trying to take on a country the size of Russia with less than 6 months before winter despite not having dealt with Britain, or advancing across the entire Pacific Ocean in every direction simultaneously, from China to Burma to India to Australia to Midway to the Aleutians all at once.

Agreed indeed. But with the Eastern Campaign- in contrast to say the Japanese in the Pacific, where it's very fair to say they hadn't attempted anything half as ambitious- the Germans knew they had won the Eastern Front of WWI, even if they didn't quite understand how or why.

Fun fact, this is partially why the Stefan Wagner character exists.....

Fair indeed, and as someone who also does a fair amount of writing (both professionally and for fiction and roleplay) I also often come into this kind of stuff.

There are some threads were a few people already wrote some fan fiction of Stefan and Ana Sofia... that's just neat. lol

Indeed. To be honest, I am kind of surprised there isn't more jealousy over trying to go with the Player General with AS...but ey.

Every Panzer General game starts in Poland, and the original Grand Campaign was overloaded with Poland.

Eh, I want my GCs to be loaded. Even overloaded. Of course I am biased, but there's that.

And there's certainly more of an argument to overload it up with Poland than to overload it with Saar. Which goes back to I think proportions and railroading. If there was a branch choice for Saar or Poland, I wouldn't have a problem. Five missions out of 20? Also probably wouldn't have it. But the combination of the railroading along with giving this thing almost equal billing to the main combat operations strikes me as off.

But I get the feeling that isn't actually the heart of the matter. People still want more 'Poland' because they keep seeing Poland being treated as an extension of the tutorial. It's the first missions of every campaign, and is duly dumbed down and small enough to accommodate brand new players.

I'm not sure what the heck makes ya think that. I mean, I think that logic can stand for old school Panzer General, the standard campaign (for both PC and PC 2), and maaaybe the first two or so missions in the GC 1939. But beyond that? Not really. And honestly it feels rather presumptuous to assume that the heart of the matter comes largely down to "Players want moar tutorial." Which- unintended or not- seems a bit demeaning.

For starters, all the GCs/AOs came out well after the vanilla campaign was done and dusted, meaning that a lot of players will go all the way to ruin or redemption before even stepping into the first scenario of a GC/AO. And that's after a tutorial campaign. And I don't know about you, but GC39 will *MESS YOU UP* if you make mistakes near the mid run or are hyper aggressive (like me) such as taking on the big Polish doomstacks that effectively served the role the bunkers do in this.

In addition, there's even less grounding for this since as you yourself pointed out....

Considering in Axis Operations, Poland is the middle of the second campaign, and Bzura is second in size only to Ebro, and Warsaw is still ahead...

And honestly, if anything I'd argue the game leans too far on assuming new players entering in to '39 have already done the SCW, both in narrative (such as having the player be the former commander of the CL, with characters from there that the player is expected to know), and with one HEEECKK of a demandingly unconventional (not necessarily extremely hard since you can always shoot and blast your way through it, but demanding) scenario in the form of Czechoslovakia right out the gate.

So frankly I think it's not only wrong to assume that the average player would expect the second leg of a grand campaign to be a "tutorial" just because it's set in Poland, but I think it's very clear that you and the other devs did not consider it in design (as shown by the narrative elements, the game design of Czechoslovakia, etc). And that's all well and good, but it does irk me to have this of all things proposed as "the heart of the matter" when no line of evidence really supports such an argument, and probably hasn't since old school PC1.

[Turtler]

Again , what he says sounds to me , if round - about and circuitous , more complimentary than anything else.

I didn't much care for the original grand campaign myself.

But one thing I really did like was that , if I remember correctly , in the French campaign THE PLAYER GOT THE CHOICE to either go to Sedan , or to Dunkirk.

Gimme Dunkirk ! I'll take any opportunity to get another swipe in at the British ! Sedan ? Too many bad memories there for me.

Well , you had the same sort of Choice in Spain.

But then comes the biggie ;

THE PLAYER GOT THE CHOICE to go to North Afrika , or to Russia .

For the record , and future reference , I would be terribly disappointed if in future I had to go to Russia , and could not go to North Afrika instead.

This is again why I think it's important, and why I was in favor of the choice to go either East or West. And not just because of gameplay preferences (especially the chance to let rip after being constrained to greater or lesser degrees for about 1 AO Campaign- sans the first and last scenarios of SCW but adding the first one of 1939) but also from a story perspective. The transition's jarring, and again it makes me ask if we had decided to slip some kosher salt into Hitler's veggies.

More choice, in my experience with campaigns, is rarely going to cause much resentment. Sure, it is more work. And if you get into some things that are so deep the player can and might start resenting you for giving them too many choices and not enough direction, but that's raaarely going to be the problem in PG/PC style game, at least in terms of overall campaign structure (now, I'm sure there are going to be people who get angry about being able to bash their heads against the extradurable fortifications or 20 strength doomstacks, but that's a matter with them clashing with the scenario layout, not the Layout of Scenarios).

As for this DLC , I'm not so sure that if the player had been given a choice , then everyone would have picked to go to Poland , and the Saar would have been superfluous.

My guess is that at least some of the fan base would be odd ball Bohemian types who won't get with the program , and WOULD HAVE chosen the Saar.

I think this is the wrong way of looking at it, except for maybe in the first choice.

But the thing is,

A: Most people will want to play through this content multiple times and find stuff they missed. Indeed, learning about the Easter Egg in the first mission of the SCW was enough to encourage me to go back and check for it.

and

B: For those not playing Ironman, it'd make sense to save just before the choice and then do it.

So sooner or later, a lot of people- probably most, ideally everybody but THAT isn't going to happen- are going to play both routes and see which one they like better. Much like in campaigns past. And as is shown out of the gate with the PC2 vanilla campaign.

And just because I and a bunch of others want to rip and tear after spending a lot of time pent up in the first round doesn't mean that will be the case the second time around.

On the other hand , such a fine and fancy choice basically means designing two , whole , different campaigns.

I think you're overstating things. Yes, it would be more work, more cost, and more hassle for the devs. But that doesn't mean it would be the case. And again, it's worth noting that even the main branch of the SCW campaign temporarily comes back to one with the Republican Counterattack (G-Damned Abraham Lincoln Bttl....).

Similar here, especially if we assume they would have to compromise and make-say- 2 or 3 scenarios apiece for both Saar and Early Poland rather than 5 for Saar and 0 for Poland, before both ultimately reunite at the Bzura.

And what I primarily disliked about the original campaign was that Poland was a grand total of two scenarios , and whether you went to Russia or North Afrika , it seemed childishly abbreviated , like the entire campaign was maybe two or three months in real time.

Well, to each their own but it felt to me like the branches of the campaign were decently fleshed out.

.... So , tack on another SIX MONTHS development to give the players this choice.

What happens then ?

" Hey ! Hello ?! I bought this game a year ago ! Where are my goodies ?! What are you jerks doing over there ?! "

Again, you're assuming that we demand 5 missions apiece for both Early Poland and the Saar, and that this fanbase (of all things) is impatient. The former strikes me as false, especially since even a lot of the people who liked the Saar campaign felt that 5 was excessive, and particularly since TBS tends to attract people who- if not exactly Navy Seal Snipers in terms of patience- are at least prepared to wait for quite some time compared to normal.

[KesaAnna]

My guess is that at least some of the fan base would be odd ball Bohemian types who won't get with the program , and WOULD HAVE chosen the Saar.

I think this is the wrong way of looking at it, except for maybe in the first choice.

My guess is that some people might describe me as an odd ball Bohemian who won't get with the program , and that the polite and fuzzy version of what they would say . And they might have a point ?

So that's a kind of tongue - in - cheek - sort of thing.

A: Most people will want to play through this content multiple times and find stuff they missed. Indeed, learning about the Easter Egg in the first mission of the SCW was enough to encourage me to go back and check for it.

Of course.

As an aside , lol , I suspected the Easter Egg in the first SCW scenario might include more Russian 203mm 1931 howitzers.

So then that scenario became ;

-- The scenario itself .

-- Two days intense thought devoted to the question , " How do I get my hands on that cache ?! " And then an elaborate Byzantine plot to effect that end.

On the other hand , such a fine and fancy choice basically means designing two , whole , different campaigns.

I think you're overstating things. Yes, it would be more work, more cost, and more hassle for the devs. But that doesn't mean it would be the case.

[/quote]

Granted , probably a bit of hyperbole there ?

Otherwise approaching the question out of my own experience.

I'm not a program designer or an IT - type person , no.

But , as I have alluded to elsewhere , I have fashioned what is already a respectably large visual AAR around this game.

Granted , I'm alone , don't have a budget per - se , and I'm not getting paid. But the amount of work involved is much more than I suspect it would appear. Indeed , it's massive.

For example , and this is just a list , it's not visuals , every air unit I have in my core so far has a name , and a little story behind that name.

Fighter units ; Hannah , Nancy , Betty , Cleo de Merode , Gloria , and Cirque.

Tac Bombers ; Jolanthe , Mephisto , and Dolly

Strat bombers ; Marie Claire and Anne Marie.

They all have logos , and stories behind the logos. The scale of this game is a bit broad and vague ; Do your units represent companies or regiments ? Apparently neither , or both.

So , after a lot of thought and research , and my German isn't fluent , I cobbled together and settled on an organization I named , " SturmFliegerGruppe " Wildschwein " " . SturmFliegerGruppe Wildschwein likewise has a logo. Indeed , it has a regimental flag too.

Well , to push on to my point --- I want to whip up a picture of an aircraft in the name , logo , and colors I have picked out.

I do an internet image search for a Bf 109 . Not any image will do . Just as a practical matter , many images of a Bf 109 , for one reason or another , simply wouldn't be suitable for my purposes. Anyway , I find one , and I use that.

Now , nine times out of ten , that image is someone else's copyright.

Or , maybe that's not a problem , BUT THIS IS THE AXIS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Good luck trying to explain to someone that you did not spend 20 or 30 hours of your time to insult them , or because you hate their guts.

Yes , I have the skills to draw up my own Bf 109 .

But , then , you might as well say , heck , just tack on another month of work , for one picture !

The smallest things would never get done !

So ; Lots and lots and lots and lots of work. And I can't even show it off .

So , my guess , based on my experience , these are the scales .

[brumleek]

Hello all.

That is one heated discussion you created here . My simple opinion:

I really like the Saar offensive for pure challenge reasons. As much as I would like to see more maps from Poland invasion, I found the opposition strong in numbers but weak in force (as opposed to first DLC). Good old Pz. 38(t)s are just rampaging through Poland without a sweat and the only thing that can give them run for their money is a cavalry swarm. Almost every piece of equipment in Axis lineup is superior to Poland counterparts and unit experience together with Hero collection from the first DLC are just widening the gap. In several Saar scenarios I was more or less matched because French tanks and air force are no joke and I liked it that way. I understand that some people would prefer to see major conflict sites but I'm happy to leave this matter to modding community. Also I'm happy to be able to "collect" different enemy equipment from different sides and be able to choose what units will fit presented situation the best.

I'm currently starting Wlodawa scenario from AO 1939 and so far I really enjoyed a new content very much. Especially the plot behind the big commendation points gain decision - well played Devs! I just miss the Nemesis mechanic in this DLC - I suppose there is none, right?

Also I'm happy that Verdeja tank form the first DLC is still an incredible play maker in this DLC. It is the one single machine from the first DLC that I did not upgraded (or in this case downgraded).

[wecker]

Hello,

reading this discussion here is very interesting and encourages me to also state my opinion.

I understand everybody who is not content or suprised by the DLCs. I also like to read statements like "Kondis" - they keep the discussion going. I would be sad if such people leave the forum.

Saying that I enjoyed playing the SCW a lot - although it was a pain to fight it through (miserable tanks, fighters, etc. you name it). I enjoyed also the story telling although it was very hard to read some sentences because they depict the point of view of the spanish nationalists and Legion Condor. I also strongly support the idea of importing my core force to 1939. And here the problem starts somehow...

Everybody is accustomed to the polish campaign. So starting with the elimination of Czechoslovakia or "Rest-Tschechei" as they called it was a very nice suprise. Even the order not to kill an enemy unit was a very good and tempting move. I had to replay it 3 times to achieve it (some Czechs tried to kill themselves attacking my forces with 1 strength point - this was not very realistic in my opinion and angered me a lot). I also was sadened that I could not reach all objectives simultaniously. That would have been great - so I had to choose one Bonus option.

I would have preferred the next mission to be something like Gleiwitz on a grander scale or the attack an Danzig and the fighting on the Westerplatte. That is an iconic fight. After that you could get an urgent call - oh the French are attacking! You are ordered to switch your forces to the western Front and fight the scenarios in the Saar.

Saying that I enjoyed all Saar scenarios and played them many times to reach all objectives. Especially the Forest scenario was hell, but I succeeded in reaching all targets bonuses. Forbach was a fun engagement and defending the Siegfried line is AWESOME. I really had tough adrenalin-driven fights there. This was the highlight of the Saar-Mini-campaign.

5 scenarios in the Saar may seem too much in comparison to Poland - so it would have been an option to make a branch - either go West or stay in Poland - reuniting the campaign at the Bzura. Or simply: make more scenarios per DLC

From that point it was very good. Bzura and Lvov were very PG-like and an immense joy to play. Blitzkrieg at it`s best.

I only had a lot to think about the "Operational Group E" and the issue of "civilians". Everybody knows what it is meant, so you could have left the original german term "Einsatzgruppe", "jewish population" and polish Intelligentsia. There have been documented protests of Wehrmacht officers seeing these crimes being committed. It is historically well established. So it was a pleasure to loose 2/3s of my prestige to not hand the civilians over for the "Sonderbehandlung". I think you could stress that point on in the future. Did you have a choice as a german commander or not? A morally highly disturbing question for a player. Dare I say to ask you to implement things like the Warsaw uprising into the campaign? Maybe even "civilian icons" on the field? Loosing prestige when you kill them?

Seeing the discussion "why did Germany loose" - well. We know what happened, we know the ideology of "Lebensraum im Osten", the concept of the slavic "Untermensch" and so on. Millions of soviet POWs were taken by the Germans in 1941. Many people cheered the coming of the Germans seeing them as liberators from soviet rule (no reason to deny that - look at the pictures and reports. Especially in the baltic states and in the Ukraine). The so-called "Wlassow Army" ROA (Russkaya Osvoboditelnaya Armiya) is a seperate and highly political topic. You could bring them in for the last fights for Prague as an historical example.

I would like to see some volunteers from Estland, Lettland, Litauen and Ukraine joining the core force later on. Not to mention further "Osttruppen" or western volunteers aka Divisions Nordmark, Charlemagne and so on. You already implemented Division Azul. Just remember the "SchuMa-(Schutzmannschaft) Batallions" in the Baltics or Batallion Nachtigall - ukrainian volunteers going into Lvov 1941. Implementing this would be very critical and even more controversial - many of these volunteers committed war crimes and participated in the "Endlösung" of the jewish population. Our captain (when will he be promoted?) would had to make some tough decisions...

But back to operations:

Would it make sense not to go year by year but to concentrate in geographic campaigns?

I mean including Denmark 1940 into the AO of 1939 is a certain...brake of logic.

So Denmark as the first scenario of 1940 followed by Norway with at least 3 or even 4 scenarios in the campaign would havebeen ok. After that you would need let`s say about 10 to 15 scenarios dealing with the western front. Sichelschnitt, Sedan, Eben Emael, Arras, Dunkirk, the Fall of Paris, chasing to the south and returning to the Maginot Line...So also highly proposed: two seperate branches.

Not to mention the oportunity to invade England in an early SeaLion when you accomplish Dunkirk with all bonuses.

No easy tasks for you Kerensky

All in all the AO 1939 is very suprising and it would have been perfect with one scenario less in the Saar, more polish scenarios and leaving Denmark for the AO 1940. At least a branch with "Choose Saar or stay in Poland" would have helped a lot. So the amount of scenarios could be about 20 per DLC in the future. 20 Euros per DLC - I will buy everything you publish

As a colleague said: keep on the controversial work and don`t forget the mainstream

[GUNDOBALDO08]

I'm playing the first Finnish scenario and to my great disappointment there are no Finns !! I apologize to the developers, usually I never criticize their work, but in all honesty I wonder how it is possible to think of recreating the winter war without introducing any Finnish troops? considering also that the "raata road" scenario was perfect for the Finnish ski troops. without Finns the two scenarios are a paradoxical and unhistorical anticipation of the Russo-German clash on which four years of scenarios are already waiting ... I really would like the developers to give us a good reason for not introducing the Finndesi troops !! if it was a resource problem for their creation it would be enough to create the infantry and mountain troops, nothing more !! for me such a gaffe can devalue the entire AO dlc series ... moreover if You call the AXIS operation series you have to value the non-German axis troops certainly not let them take the place of allies even in wars that the Germans do not have never fought ... at this rate we should expect the Germans also in the Pacific?!?

[pipfromslitherine]

I've gotten reports that this thread is a little fraught. Let's keep the profanity and personal attacks out of the thread please. There is no single point of view on a game, everyone wants different things. But we do want to keep the forums a civil place to discuss.

Cheers

Pip

[Plaid]

Instead of a classic French campaign, I propose an attack by Italian forces on France and battles in a very interesting landscape of the Maritime Alps and the French Riviera, it is so new and fresh

Instead of Stalingrad, we will move to Norway to repel the British landing, and for the time of the Battle of Kursk, I propose to transfer our general to Yugoslavia, let him fight Tito's partisans. Never was that either?

Instead of landing in Normandy, a landing in the Pas-de-Calais region, and for the time of the Battle of the Bulge, let us lock our hero in one of the ports on the English Channel, let him command his defense.

The thing is that you should look for new ideas and solutions, but the trick is not to lead to absurdity.

Probably I am minority here, but I will GREATLY like some kind of survival campaign with player stuck in sideshow front with his worse-than-average troops trying to stay alive, while other big generals are losing the war in big battles.
Features can include:
- prestige scarcity
- reduced access to modern weapons
- best units and heroes randomly taken away from player, as they are needed elsewhere. Sometimes they return in damaged state later on, sometimes they are gone forever.
- player randomly given either battered veterans (remnants of destroyed divisions) or freshly formed green troops (these can even receive stats penalties in later years to simulate reducing quality of materials and manpower).
- constant decisions to fulfil objectives, losing troops in process or to retreat losing some kind of "reputation" resource.

Something very different from good old "sweep the map with Tigers and Ferdinands".

[Turtler]

Probably I am minority here, but I will GREATLY like some kind of survival campaign with player stuck in sideshow front with his worse-than-average troops trying to stay alive, while other big generals are losing the war in big battles.
Features can include:
- prestige scarcity
- reduced access to modern weapons
- best units and heroes randomly taken away from player, as they are needed elsewhere. Sometimes they return in damaged state later on, sometimes they are gone forever.
- player randomly given either battered veterans (remnants of destroyed divisions) or freshly formed green troops (these can even receive stats penalties in later years to simulate reducing quality of materials and manpower).
- constant decisions to fulfil objectives, losing troops in process or to retreat losing some kind of "reputation" resource.
, like the fre
Something very different from good old "sweep the map with Tigers and Ferdinands".

I can also agree with that, as someone who has become more involved in game design lately. Indeed, a few campaigns (especially the Rzhev Meatgrinder) seem flat out perfect for that kind of campaign. Ditto the likes of Yugolsavia or the like.

But at the same time I would hope this wouldn't come too much at the expense of the larger battles or the like. That's one reason why I saw K's bit about fighting with the Italians on the Riviera or in Yugoslavia during D-Day hit so close to home. I simultaneously thought A: "Those sound cool, I'd totally play those", and B: "I hope they don't FORCE us to go down those routes at the expense of the big spectaculars."

With Poland I think I felt it particularly acutely both due to how in the meta I was kind of "pent up" and ready to let rip with full command of my forces after going through the SCW + Czechoslovakia, and in game it narratively seemed jarring and not very logical and also diminished the potential for player choice. I can only understand how demanding making more scenarios and arcs would be for the team, but I think it would ultimately be much more fulfilling in the long term, like the frequent East vs. West choices of the GCs after 1941. I figure the ability to choose (whether knowingly in selection screens or unknowingly by differing scenario results or the like) different places to go or scenarios to experience would aid the game's ongevity greatly.