AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

[Kerensky]

I think if you had found a way to include not only the Saar Offensive but also all of the major offensives in Poland I would have given this dlc a 10/10. As a player I don't really care if it doesn't make sense that we're in the west and suddenly in the east, all I want is some awesome scenarios.

While I certainly understand this position, I kind of feel that thinking is what got us here in the first place. Almost every WW2 game out there boils down to the biggest and most important events. Poland, Dday, Stalingrad, Kursk. If that's what we focused on... well here comes the complaints of the Nth WW2 game covering the same battles for the thousandth time.

There was a conscious effort to not do that, but perhaps it did go too far? Getting to go to Finland was was opportunity to be fighting in the snow, and fighting against Soviet units. More Poland means more Polish Cav, weak biplanes, and little TKS Tankettes to obliterate. If anything, Finland is equivalent to Spoils of War... which saying that out loud, I see why some people take such issue with it. I remember many people were very, VERY unhappy with Spoils of War. While other players were amazed at 'woah this is new, I've never fought Early War Soviets with my Early War Germans!' There are players who enjoy mixing things up with new locations and new enemies.

I would be legitimately curious to see how more players felt about this particular issue.

The last thing Panzer Corps 2 DLC content needs is to be a clone of Panzer Corps DLC content (1939 all Poland again?!)
I suspect had we done that, there might be some players who really like it, but in that alternate reality the forum would still be hopping with complaints.

Instead of 'controversial scenario tree' it would be 'why are you re-selling the same old content in your new game' or 'I already own DLC 1939 that is all Poland, why do I need to buy it again'.

[Darthkenson]

G'day. I have the FM edition so I have had the 2nd DLC pack for a bit now. I am puzzled by the scenario which virtually forces a player to hand over Polish POW's and civilians to Einsatzgruppen E <and we all know what happened then>

I find it odd since all SS Combat troops were pulled from PC II yet here we are with the murder squads? And we lose 75% of our supplies for the scenario if we refuse? Maybe a representation of the complications of being a Wehrmacht General in such a regime but really guys?

I am NOT outraged or any of that. Just curious.
Great game lads!

[Kerensky]

G'day. I have the FM edition so I have had the 2nd DLC pack for a bit now. I am puzzled by the scenario which virtually forces a player to hand over Polish POW's and civilians to Einsatzgruppen E <and we all know what happened then>

I find it odd since all SS Combat troops were pulled from PC II yet here we are with the murder squads? And we lose 75% of our supplies for the scenario if we refuse? Maybe a representation of the complications of being a Wehrmacht General in such a regime but really guys?

I am NOT outraged or any of that. Just curious.
Great game lads!

It's very much a prestige sink, with a sticky historical nod wrapping around it. It's not a given to submit to their demands though, it does return a chunk of Commendation Points for noble efforts.

[IceSerpent]

While I certainly understand this position, I kind of feel that thinking is what got us here in the first place. Almost every WW2 game out there boils down to the biggest and most important events. Poland, Dday, Stalingrad, Kursk. If that's what we focused on... well here comes the complaints of the Nth WW2 game covering the same battles for the thousandth time.

There was a conscious effort to not do that, but perhaps it did go too far? Getting to go to Finland was was opportunity to be fighting in the snow, and fighting against Soviet units. More Poland means more Polish Cav, weak biplanes, and little TKS Tankettes to obliterate. If anything, Finland is equivalent to Spoils of War... which saying that out loud, I see why some people take such issue with it. I remember many people were very, VERY unhappy with Spoils of War. While other players were amazed at 'woah this is new, I've never fought Early War Soviets with my Early War Germans!' There are players who enjoy mixing things up with new locations and new enemies.

I would be legitimately curious to see how more players felt about this particular issue.

I think that unhistorical content is not a problem, it's optional anyway. Same with "teleporting" from one front line to another, at least for me. Heck, I usually change the script to get rid of "forks" anyway - the more scenarios, the more fun.

Maybe a good solution would be to use smaller parts of major battles as scenarios instead of a single big map. Possibly with multiple such scenarios per battle. This might fulfill the idea of covering events / details that are usually omitted while still keeping those major events in game.

[Retributarr]

Kerensky [/b]post_id=875667 time=1598654427 user_id=21456]
I would be legitimately curious to see how more players felt about this particular issue.

Maybe a good solution would be to use smaller parts of major battles as scenarios instead of a single big map. Possibly with multiple such scenarios per battle. This might fulfill the idea of covering events / details that are usually omitted while still keeping those major events in game.

"IceSerpent"... What an 'Original-Idea!'... even though I did touch on that subject matter myself. I vote that this 'Concept'... needs serious investigation.

[Morrodar]

I think if you had found a way to include not only the Saar Offensive but also all of the major offensives in Poland I would have given this dlc a 10/10. As a player I don't really care if it doesn't make sense that we're in the west and suddenly in the east, all I want is some awesome scenarios.

While I certainly understand this position, I kind of feel that thinking is what got us here in the first place. Almost every WW2 game out there boils down to the biggest and most important events. Poland, Dday, Stalingrad, Kursk. If that's what we focused on... well here comes the complaints of the Nth WW2 game covering the same battles for the thousandth time.

There was a conscious effort to not do that, but perhaps it did go too far? Getting to go to Finland was was opportunity to be fighting in the snow, and fighting against Soviet units. More Poland means more Polish Cav, weak biplanes, and little TKS Tankettes to obliterate. If anything, Finland is equivalent to Spoils of War... which saying that out loud, I see why some people take such issue with it. I remember many people were very, VERY unhappy with Spoils of War. While other players were amazed at 'woah this is new, I've never fought Early War Soviets with my Early War Germans!' There are players who enjoy mixing things up with new locations and new enemies.

I would be legitimately curious to see how more players felt about this particular issue.

The last thing Panzer Corps 2 DLC content needs is to be a clone of Panzer Corps DLC content (1939 all Poland again?!)
I suspect had we done that, there might be some players who really like it, but in that alternate reality the forum would still be hopping with complaints.

Instead of 'controversial scenario tree' it would be 'why are you re-selling the same old content in your new game' or 'I already own DLC 1939 that is all Poland, why do I need to buy it again'.

I understand. It's a blurry line between innovation and repetitiveness. But there are so many things that are new in Panzer Corps 2. Like the customized commander, new system for captured equipment(Katyusha rocket launchers ), new visuals and new gameplay mechanics. I probably forgot quite a few in that list. But you are also trying to tell a story and bypassing important battles just confuses me. It pulls me out of the action and makes me ask myself; what happened at Mlawa etc. That is what was so great about SCW, it felt like the story was one continuing arc and that the player was at the center of most important events. My intention is not to dramatize and complain, AO 39' was enjoyable, but it does feel incomplete. I also want to make it clear that I don't mind ahistorical scenarios, I actually hope that AO Sealion will one day be made. IceSerpent had a good idea. Breakdown the major battles into multiple scenarios. Hope it gets considered.

[Retributarr]

I would be legitimately curious to see how more players felt about this particular issue.

The last thing Panzer Corps 2 DLC content needs is to be a clone of Panzer Corps DLC content (1939 all Poland again?!)

But you are also trying to tell a story and bypassing important battles just confuses me. It pulls me out of the action and makes me ask myself; what happened at Mlawa etc. That is what was so great about SCW, it felt like the story was one continuing arc and that the player was at the center of most important events. My intention is not to dramatize and complain, AO 39' was enjoyable, but it does feel incomplete. I also want to make it clear that I don't mind ahistorical scenarios, I actually hope that AO Sealion will one day be made. IceSerpent had a good idea. Breakdown the major battles into multiple scenarios. Hope it gets considered.

"Morrodar!" You say it... like it is!... "Bravo!"... your take on this issue... is exactly the way that I also see it!.

[Rockety]

I enjoyed the content, both scw and ao 39. I agree with the devs that you cannot please everyone and they went with the not so known area of the war. It was refreshing for me to be honest. However, I wouldnt ignore the arguments made by players, maybe fine tuning known - less known battles or the possibilty to choose paths should be considered in next Dlcs. All in all, thanks for work and effort !

[Retributarr]

Rockety post[/b]_id=875944 time=1598806820 user_id=46397]
I enjoyed the content, both scw and ao 39. I agree with the devs that you cannot please everyone and they went with the not so known area of the war. It was refreshing for me to be honest. However, I wouldnt ignore the arguments made by players, maybe fine tuning known - less known battles or the possibilty to choose paths should be considered in next Dlcs. All in all, thanks for work and effort !

I agree with your comment... "Rockety"… especially about "fine tuning known - less known battles or the possibilty to choose paths".

Maybe???... some full scale 'Battles' could be broken-down into separate scenarios... of the Main-Battle... but not all of them. For example!... 'The Battle for France' could have a small number of separate scenarios... where-as... in other instances... that would not be practical.

"Lesser-Known-Battles"... such as the "Saar-Offensive" and "Denmark"... I think are 'Welcomed'... and even a 'Relief' to have... even though they may or may not be delivered in their best depicted presentation.

This kind of 'Juggling-Mix'... of conflict interactions... creates excitement and suspense of the "Unknown"... in that historical timeline. "Immersion"... is "Rocketed/Rockety" to new highs!.

[Kerensky]

I understand. It's a blurry line between innovation and repetitiveness. But there are so many things that are new in Panzer Corps 2. Like the customized commander, new system for captured equipment(Katyusha rocket launchers ), new visuals and new gameplay mechanics. I probably forgot quite a few in that list. But you are also trying to tell a story and bypassing important battles just confuses me. It pulls me out of the action and makes me ask myself; what happened at Mlawa etc. That is what was so great about SCW, it felt like the story was one continuing arc and that the player was at the center of most important events. My intention is not to dramatize and complain, AO 39' was enjoyable, but it does feel incomplete. I also want to make it clear that I don't mind ahistorical scenarios, I actually hope that AO Sealion will one day be made. IceSerpent had a good idea. Breakdown the major battles into multiple scenarios. Hope it gets considered.

While it's great to hear that you recognize all the new features, even potentially too many new features, probably the most consistent, repeated piece of negative feedback is that the game 'changes graphics but gameplay is too similar'.
Fighting that perception is an ongoing battle.

[IceSerpent]

While it's great to hear that you recognize all the new features, even potentially too many new features, probably the most consistent, repeated piece of negative feedback is that the game 'changes graphics but gameplay is too similar'.
Fighting that perception is an ongoing battle.

Isn't gameplay supposed to be similar? If it was vastly different, the game wouldn't be Panzer Corps any longer. I mean, that similarity is kind of the whole point of making a sequel for anything.

[Retributarr]

probably the most consistent, repeated piece of negative feedback is that the game 'changes graphics but gameplay is too similar'.

Isn't gameplay supposed to be similar? If it was vastly different, the game wouldn't be Panzer Corps any longer. I mean, that similarity is kind of the whole point of making a sequel for anything.

The Panzer Corps Game wouldn't be the same or recognizable if it is too divergent from its roots or former familiar game-play mode. It needs to be similar... but-yet!... at the same time, "Not the same!"... the Major-Battles all need to be fully represented... altogether with hopefully... the inclusion of a dash of spice [SCW-Saar-Denmark-Etc.] added here and there... into the Game-Mix so as to add some additional flavouring as a "Story-Line-Development" and additionally as a "Game-Immersion-Enhancement!".

This "Dash of Spice"... could or should be an inclusion of scenarios depicting situations that have real relevance to the main thrust or effort of the Game... and that are interactive, or in other words... assist in helping to develop or explain the Main-Story-Line... to also work in conjunction with, or act as an enhancement... game-wise by integrating these scenario add-on's as seamlessly as is possible into the main Campaign conflicts... in effect!... making a... more fully "over-all explanatory sense" of the whole entire effort.

[adiekmann]

I think that unhistorical content is not a problem, it's optional anyway. Same with "teleporting" from one front line to another, at least for me. Heck, I usually change the script to get rid of "forks" anyway - the more scenarios, the more fun.
[/quote]

My feelings on the matter exactly!! I have always (even in PC1) looked at optional paths as, "Aww, but I want to play as many scenarios as possible!" rather than, "Oh boy I get to choose!"

I never understood why someone would NOT want to play optional scenarios. "Would you like to skirmish with the Russians?" Hell yeah! Even if I thought it was ahistorical or what not, it is still from a gaming point of view an opportunity to garner additional rewards, experience, etc. for your core.

[Kerensky]

Isn't gameplay supposed to be similar? If it was vastly different, the game wouldn't be Panzer Corps any longer. I mean, that similarity is kind of the whole point of making a sequel for anything.

Too little change is it's own problem though. It's why people complain about annual game franchises that crank out $70 games every year, and they barely change at all, but publishers want full AAA price for basically the same product all over again.
https://www.pcgamer.com/madden-nfl-21-h ... etacritic/

[Retributarr]

Isn't gameplay supposed to be similar? If it was vastly different, the game wouldn't be Panzer Corps any longer. I mean, that similarity is kind of the whole point of making a sequel for anything.

Too little change is it's own problem though. [Ret: Whattt???... there now is a whole-host of additional elements in the Game that were not there before!... That-alone now 'Makes-The-Game-Different'... players want to 'Re-Play_Re-visit' their old-Game with these new innovations and game-play concepts... which 'you/we' already now have!!!. So!!!... "Cheer Up Chum" "Don't Be So Glum" "Have A Caramel From Kraft!." Its time to re-evaluate your position/stance on this issue!.] It's why people complain about annual game franchises that crank out $70 games every year, and they barely change at all, but publishers want full AAA price for basically the same product all over again.
https://www.pcgamer.com/madden-nfl-21-h ... etacritic/

[IceSerpent]

Too little change is it's own problem though. It's why people complain about annual game franchises that crank out $70 games every year, and they barely change at all, but publishers want full AAA price for basically the same product all over again.
https://www.pcgamer.com/madden-nfl-21-h ... etacritic/

I think a better metric would be whether people are willing to pay for it or not. I've seen very good games get "mixed" reviews on Steam and absolutely crappy ones (in my opinion) get "positive" rating there. Sometimes for reasons that make absolutely no sense to me.

Regarding the changes, I think they have to make the game better - objectively better, not merely changing things for the sake of changing things. I've looked at reviews for Madden NFL 21, and most complaints seem to be about the game being as glitchy and clunky as the previous iterations. In other words, it's not about the lack of change in general, but about not fixing the issues.

[kondi754]

Too little change is it's own problem though. It's why people complain about annual game franchises that crank out $70 games every year, and they barely change at all, but publishers want full AAA price for basically the same product all over again.
https://www.pcgamer.com/madden-nfl-21-h ... etacritic/

I think a better metric would be whether people are willing to pay for it or not. I've seen very good games get "mixed" reviews on Steam and absolutely crappy ones (in my opinion) get "positive" rating there. Sometimes for reasons that make absolutely no sense to me.

Regarding the changes, I think they have to make the game better - objectively better, not merely changing things for the sake of changing things. I've looked at reviews for Madden NFL 21, and most complaints seem to be about the game being as glitchy and clunky as the previous iterations. In other words, it's not about the lack of change in general, but about not fixing the issues.

I think that Steam ratings are a complex topic
There are people of all ages and different PC skills
Example: the specs of the game's minimum requirements say Win10 OS, but someone has Win7 on their PC, so he gives a negative rating on Steam because he thinks the game is bugged because it won't run on his hardware.
But in fact, I've noticed that most of the negative reviews on Steam are due to a large amount of bugs in the game, or frustration from the high hardware requirements of the game, or even because the difficulty level is too high. There are very few negative ratings because of the content of the game, and even fewer substantive justifications.

Of course, I'm now referring to games that I find very good.

[Scrapulous]

I finally screwed up my patience and read through this thread. It started ugly and got much more civil. kondi, thanks for returning and giving your impressions after playing partway through the DLC - I didn't expect it based on your first few posts and I think it was a wise and somewhat gracious thing for you to do after the tense exchanges earlier in the thread.

Let me disclose my biases: I have enjoyed both DLCs and have no trouble with the contents of them. Indeed, I like that the franchise is experimenting with innovations to the formula. A total lack of innovation in a game series is a real problem. But innovation comes with the possibility of some disruptive changes and some new features that don't work out. I think that's healthy for a game franchise, and I welcome it.

A lot of the complaints about AO'39 seem to boil down to historicity, as "le lapin" put it, or to realism or immersion. I'm honestly a little surprised. Panzer Corps is not where I come for realism. There is no general who fought in all the battles represented by any Grand Campaign I have seen in either Panzer Corps game. Of course the campaign involves teleporting around and non-historical assumptions. I don't understand the demand for branching campaigns with general choice and a seamless, believable career experience for a general existing the SCW and entering the World War 2 in Europe. The franchise has never provided these things (well, branching campaigns in only the simplest of ways, still quite separate from history).

The other major complaint category seems to be about the partitioning of scenarios. For example, "Five Saar scenarios is too many." I haven't seen any of these folks address Kerensky's point: would it be too many if each Saar scenario was five turns? Isn't the amount of content more important than how many containers that content is divided into? It seems to me that there's more Poland content than there is Saar content, just based on the size of the maps and the amount of time it took to play through. I wouldn't say that they're proportional to the amount of effort expended by the countries involved in the conflicts at those times, but hexaboo clearly articulated my thoughts about that: Panzer Corps has always been very casual about the size and scale of the battles represented, and AO'39 is no different in that regard.

I never played the Panzer General games, so I might be the token noob here, but a lot of the complaints I see in this thread about the current DLCs are very similar to complaints I had about Panzer Corps 1 - but the gameplay was fun and the DLCs made it even better for me. Every time I tried to imagine a solution to the issues I felt, the solution I imagined would have the side effect of making the game less fun for me (either resulting in fewer scenarios to play or really narrowing the scope of battles). So I accepted the limits of the core game design in favor of enjoying some very fun gameplay. I think there are some elements of history that will never be well represented by this franchise, as with all historical games.

[nono hard et heavy]

Good evening to all.
I rarely participate in discussions on PZC 1 PZC 2 and OoB. Maybe because I'm a little bit selfish and I have to translate the text into French (I should have worked more English at school!!!). But I read the different opinions and I allow myself to give my opinion. I agree with Kondi on one point because not everyone has an expandable budget and DLCs can surprise by their orientations. But I'm almost sure that within 6 months, 1 year, a person like Nikki (OoB) will create a mod like "big German campaign" that will enchant everyone with historical scenarios. This has been done for OoB and PZC 1, there is no reason (?) not to do it for PZC 2. Well, it won't be me because I don't know how to do it but there are some good guys on this forum.
I'm happy with the content of the game and the DLCs.
Everyone has the right to give his opinion, negative or positive, it's part of the "game". And everyone has his own vocabulary. I participated with Kondi and others in Skins for OoB and never, even if my work was not as good as his, he never criticized me.
Thank you for listening to me.
Greetings from France.
Bruno

[Retributarr]

Good evening to all.
I rarely participate in discussions on PZC 1 PZC 2 and OoB. Maybe because I'm a little bit selfish and I have to translate the text into French (I should have worked more English at school!!!).

Everyone has the right to give his opinion, negative or positive, it's part of the "game". And everyone has his own vocabulary. I participated with Kondi and others in Skins for OoB and never, even if my work was not as good as his, he never criticized me.
Thank you for listening to me.
Greetings from France.
Bruno

"nono hard et heavy"… Welcome to the "Forum"!... it's great to have your presence here... to have you make a posting in "English",,, even though it's not your "Mother-Tongue"!.

How did you manage to put your post here in the English-Language???. That is some kind of miracle!.

We look forward to hearing much more from you... to help us steer the direction of this PzCr2-Game into the right direction.