DLC Roadmap?

[Retributarr]

"Kerensky!!"... Listen to "adiekmann"... what he says merits... deliberative consideration!.

[Scrapulous]

Seems like there might be a problem in the later war when these Axis nations get knocked out of the war. Italy is gone as early as 1943 in a historical campaign. What happens to your sub CORE then? Just deleted? I imagine that would be quite aggravating and would only encourage players to stick with forces that are permanent CORE, not temporary CORE, which means back to Germany.

Maybe I'm miscommunicating. How I see it working is, for example:

• German core functions as we see it today. You have a certain number of deployable core slots determined by the scenario.
• Italian core is separate. On scenarios where you have access to Italian units, you have two simultaneous cores: German and Italian. German deployable core is, for the sake of example, 50, and Italian is 25. You cannot add Italian units to a German core and vice versa. Choosing to ignore your available Italian core means ignoring 1/3 of your potential strength.
• This also opens up the possibility of having scenarios that use only the Italian core, which provides more opportunity for exploring lesser-known battles.
• What happens to your Italian core after the historical surrender? Well, if it goes away, that's fairly realistic. The whole proposal is more realistic, really. Germany didn't have the luxury of eschewing its allies, and if the feature were built this way, the player wouldn't really, either. There are other options, though. You could give the player the option to spend prestige (or commendation points, in an AO situation) to absorb some of the Italian units into their own core. Give them a certain amount of captured Italian materiel and allow them to pay a premium to keep some of their experienced units. It's not a flawless idea, but it does mitigate the potential frustration of losing your Italian core.
• But the Italian core wouldn't be available on every mission anyway, so one would expect the player to be used to the Italian core coming and going by '43 in any event.

I also don't see this necessarily replacing the Allied control functionality. A Spanish core wouldn't make sense, and there are other "Axis Minors," to use HoI parlance, that I hope to see benefiting from the SCW mechanics.

[adiekmann]

Seems like there might be a problem in the later war when these Axis nations get knocked out of the war. Italy is gone as early as 1943 in a historical campaign. What happens to your sub CORE then? Just deleted? I imagine that would be quite aggravating and would only encourage players to stick with forces that are permanent CORE, not temporary CORE, which means back to Germany.

Maybe I'm miscommunicating. How I see it working is, for example:

• German core functions as we see it today. You have a certain number of deployable core slots determined by the scenario.
• Italian core is separate. On scenarios where you have access to Italian units, you have two simultaneous cores: German and Italian. German deployable core is, for the sake of example, 50, and Italian is 25. You cannot add Italian units to a German core and vice versa. Choosing to ignore your available Italian core means ignoring 1/3 of your potential strength.
• This also opens up the possibility of having scenarios that use only the Italian core, which provides more opportunity for exploring lesser-known battles.
• What happens to your Italian core after the historical surrender? Well, if it goes away, that's fairly realistic. The whole proposal is more realistic, really. Germany didn't have the luxury of eschewing its allies, and if the feature were built this way, the player wouldn't really, either. There are other options, though. You could give the player the option to spend prestige (or commendation points, in an AO situation) to absorb some of the Italian units into their own core. Give them a certain amount of captured Italian materiel and allow them to pay a premium to keep some of their experienced units. It's not a flawless idea, but it does mitigate the potential frustration of losing your Italian core.
• But the Italian core wouldn't be available on every mission anyway, so one would expect the player to be used to the Italian core coming and going by '43 in any event.

I also don't see this necessarily replacing the Allied control functionality. A Spanish core wouldn't make sense, and there are other "Axis Minors," to use HoI parlance, that I hope to see benefiting from the SCW mechanics.

I think simultaneous cores for both nations would go a LONG way in making this campaign - and let's face it, it would be a stand alone game really because of its length - truly awesome and a classic! However, I worry that the resources (time and money) to develop this might exceed what's worth it to the developer.

One of my favorite mod campaigns ages ago for PG2 was a DAK campaign. It features much of this. However, the game engine did not allow for any of this. So, what he did is he laid down some "game rules" in his Readme after DL to keep your core's size and composition closer to historical levels. These were to bring historical balance to your core, or "Dream Team" as I remember him calling it. Of course, there was no game mechanic to prevent you from doing whatever you want. However, it was too easy if you did because he designed it to follow his "rules."

Of course one can sort of still do that, but it would be of course better if it was built that way from the start.

[adiekmann]

Seems like there might be a problem in the later war when these Axis nations get knocked out of the war. Italy is gone as early as 1943 in a historical campaign. What happens to your sub CORE then? Just deleted? I imagine that would be quite aggravating and would only encourage players to stick with forces that are permanent CORE, not temporary CORE, which means back to Germany.

Maybe I'm miscommunicating. How I see it working is, for example:

• What happens to your Italian core after the historical surrender? Well, if it goes away, that's fairly realistic. The whole proposal is more realistic, really. Germany didn't have the luxury of eschewing its allies, and if the feature were built this way, the player wouldn't really, either. There are other options, though. You could give the player the option to spend prestige (or commendation points, in an AO situation) to absorb some of the Italian units into their own core. Give them a certain amount of captured Italian materiel and allow them to pay a premium to keep some of their experienced units. It's not a flawless idea, but it does mitigate the potential frustration of losing your Italian core.

I considered this too when I asked myself the same question. Or, you convert them to German units but the keep their heroes and experience. Perhaps a situation where you only have a few you choose to continue the war with the Germans, and so you must choose which ones.

[Rhaeg]

Seems like there might be a problem in the later war when these Axis nations get knocked out of the war. Italy is gone as early as 1943 in a historical campaign. What happens to your sub CORE then? Just deleted? I imagine that would be quite aggravating and would only encourage players to stick with forces that are permanent CORE, not temporary CORE, which means back to Germany.

Maybe I'm miscommunicating. How I see it working is, for example:

• German core functions as we see it today. You have a certain number of deployable core slots determined by the scenario.
• Italian core is separate. On scenarios where you have access to Italian units, you have two simultaneous cores: German and Italian. German deployable core is, for the sake of example, 50, and Italian is 25. You cannot add Italian units to a German core and vice versa. Choosing to ignore your available Italian core means ignoring 1/3 of your potential strength.
• This also opens up the possibility of having scenarios that use only the Italian core, which provides more opportunity for exploring lesser-known battles.
• What happens to your Italian core after the historical surrender? Well, if it goes away, that's fairly realistic. The whole proposal is more realistic, really. Germany didn't have the luxury of eschewing its allies, and if the feature were built this way, the player wouldn't really, either. There are other options, though. You could give the player the option to spend prestige (or commendation points, in an AO situation) to absorb some of the Italian units into their own core. Give them a certain amount of captured Italian materiel and allow them to pay a premium to keep some of their experienced units. It's not a flawless idea, but it does mitigate the potential frustration of losing your Italian core.
• But the Italian core wouldn't be available on every mission anyway, so one would expect the player to be used to the Italian core coming and going by '43 in any event.

I also don't see this necessarily replacing the Allied control functionality. A Spanish core wouldn't make sense, and there are other "Axis Minors," to use HoI parlance, that I hope to see benefiting from the SCW mechanics.

100% what Scrapulous said (only I don't see the Allied AI system as being appropriate to control "Axis Minor" forces that fought under German command). The Italian surrender is not an argument against the use of the multiple core system, you can handle that event in any way you want. If you think Italian troops should no longer show up in scenarios on the side of the player, then they simply won't be used anymore. There's an end to everything, even your German core force won't be endlessly used in a never-ending war. At some point it's just over

It's about the scenarios in which you were able to control that core force. The multiple core system doesn't bite you, ever. If you use an Axis nation in only one scenario in the campaign the system would be the same as the current aux force system and you'd simply get no benefit from it (also no negative btw). If you use an Axis nation in only two scenarios you'd get some mild benefit from it: you get to carry your troops from that nation over from one scenario to that other one. The more times an Axis nation will be used in the campaign, the more you get out of a multiple core system. That's why to me it would be a must in a North African campaign in which Italian troops fought alongside the Germans for the entirety of the conflict (and even before the Germans arrived, as was mentioned in this thread already by adiekmann). It would already have shined if it were around in the SCW campaign as there would have been no reason at all to use Italian aux forces over an Italian core.

[Kiane]

That Gothic Line scenario doesn't have a single Italian unit on it. It's all German enemies.
I'm not convinced a puppet government propped up by Germany constitutes still being considered 'Italy'.

That's like saying you can keep playing with a French CORE after the 1940 surrender, because Vichy France/Free France exists.

Regardless, the fact that you would now need to 'transform' your sub-CORE into something else is adding more technical issues to the problem.
Imagine being on the Eastern Front and investing heavily into your sub-CORE of Italians, only for 1943 to roll around and then gg Italians on the Eastern Front?

Your "sub-core" could just stick with you out of personal loyalty, even when their country exits the war (one brings to mind the French SS division). You could reduce the sub-core slots substantially in order to represent the effect it would realistically have. Perhaps it is something you could spend commendation points on.

[dalfrede]

A compromise on the Dual Core that people are asking for comes from US Corps use of special Aux units.
They were special captured units that only lasted until the end of that DLC.

A specific Aux core could be used for the DLCs, but may not continue for the entire linked campaign.
It would have to stated ahead of time on the time limits of these Aux forces are.
Otherwise there will be a lot of complaints.
Actually there will be complaints no matter what you do.

Having Italians in your core in '45 doesn't make much since but using Italians in '41, Hungarians in '42 et al might be interesting.
One might even allow the player to pick which Aux ally he has for a DLC.
I am not sure how difficult picking your ally would be, but it would allow everyone their choice.

[Retributarr]

The "Italians" had a good number of troops in Russia [Operation Barbarossa]… so what historically happened to them???. If they continued after Italy surrendered to the Allies in 1943... then why could you not maintain a separate "Italian" core until at least they historically were no longer a functioning entity?. Does any of this make sense?.

On the 'Ahistorical-Side'... if the 'Italians' could no longer be supplied with Italian-Equipment and resources… then perhaps they could be given some German-Equipment as well as much captured equipment as could be spared... just a thought!.

[Kerensky]

Sounds pretty dangerous, and unwieldy.

One of my biggest criticism of OOB was the over-complexity of multi-nation management.
I remember this scenario with CORE Japanese, AUX Japanese, and Other Japanese. And separate slot and currency management. It's 100% the exact when I quit playing that particular campaign.



Spanish Civil War was already pushing it with AUX Italians and AI Spanish, but at least there it wasn't overlapping.

If you have sub-CORE Italians or Romanians, and then encounter Italian or Romanian AUX or AI Allies (as mission objective units especially)... what a mess, that's too much.

German CORE keeps it simple and straight forward and no need for complex rules or exceptions when Axis minor nations get knocked out of the war.
Then Axis friendly units not under play control (such as minor nations) left to AUX and AI ally status keeps a nice and clean separation between player assets and other assets. It's something that also came up in Spanish Civil War. Spanish giving you resources from captures, but also taking away your resources to repair, was a line being crossed that many players were just not comfortable with.

[Rhaeg]

The complexity of this system is easily managed by the scenario designer himself.

If you have sub-CORE Italians or Romanians, and then encounter Italian or Romanian AUX or AI Allies (as mission objective units especially)... what a mess, that's too much.

If you think such a scenario would be too complicated then avoid it and don't use more than 2 cores maximum.

German CORE keeps it simple and straight forward and no need for complex rules or exceptions when Axis minor nations get knocked out of the war.

I don't see any complex rules being added by managing 2 cores instead of one. Which complex rules would those be? And what is complex about not using a certain core when you feel it's not appropriate? That's just a choice in your scenario design, the same as deciding to put in aux forces or not.
Also, in SCW you already had separate slots for your core force and your aux Italians. Would adding a separate prestige pool and making the units go over from one scenario to the other really have blown our brains? Where we really at the borderline between manageable and unmanageable complexity? The addition of those 2 things (prestige pool and keeping units) would have made the Italians so much more fun to play with.

Then Axis friendly units not under play control (such as minor nations) left to AUX and AI ally status keeps a nice and clean separation between player assets and other assets.

Yeah, this is what I'm afraid of: controlling troops that should fall under your command by using the Allied AI system.

Look, I can see where this is going: I thought I had given 2 very good reasons for introducing a multiple core system and I also think that if it has any downside at all (maybe complexity) that is easily manageable. But we don't seem to be seeing that implemented any time soon and of course there is no rule that states that multiple cores have to be done. I do hope then that if you ever revisit the North African theatre you will think of some other way to make the Italian presence there meaningful. The role Italy played there was too big to let them be a meaningless sideshow with canon fodder units. I played the PC1 Afrikorps dlc, the one from OoB and I started the missions there in the PC2 campaign. IMO OoB did it best by far and PC2 was the worst by far. In case of the latter: the German force I started with was huge (as if half the German army got sent to Libya), the Italian starting number so small in comparison they might as well have been left out completely, there was no incentive for me to get more Italians and I couldn't care less if they died in a scenario. I hope you agree at least that in that theatre of war there are 2 Axis nations that should be represented well.

[IceSerpent]

The "Italians" had a good number of troops in Russia [Operation Barbarossa]… so what historically happened to them???. If they continued after Italy surrendered to the Allies in 1943... then why could you not maintain a separate "Italian" core until at least they historically were no longer a functioning entity?. Does any of this make sense?.

Bad things happened to them in 1943 during the Stalingrad battle - see "Operation Saturn". After that only a few battalions remained in Russia, I think no more than half a dozen.

[adiekmann]

The complexity of this system is easily managed by the scenario designer himself.

If you have sub-CORE Italians or Romanians, and then encounter Italian or Romanian AUX or AI Allies (as mission objective units especially)... what a mess, that's too much.

If you think such a scenario would be too complicated then avoid it and don't use more than 2 cores maximum.

German CORE keeps it simple and straight forward and no need for complex rules or exceptions when Axis minor nations get knocked out of the war.

I don't see any complex rules being added by managing 2 cores instead of one. Which complex rules would those be? And what is complex about not using a certain core when you feel it's not appropriate? That's just a choice in your scenario design, the same as deciding to put in aux forces or not.
Also, in SCW you already had separate slots for your core force and your aux Italians. Would adding a separate prestige pool and making the units go over from one scenario to the other really have blown our brains? Where we really at the borderline between manageable and unmanageable complexity? The addition of those 2 things (prestige pool and keeping units) would have made the Italians so much more fun to play with.

Then Axis friendly units not under play control (such as minor nations) left to AUX and AI ally status keeps a nice and clean separation between player assets and other assets.

Yeah, this is what I'm afraid of: controlling troops that should fall under your command by using the Allied AI system.

Look, I can see where this is going: I thought I had given 2 very good reasons for introducing a multiple core system and I also think that if it has any downside at all (maybe complexity) that is easily manageable. But we don't seem to be seeing that implemented any time soon and of course there is no rule that states that multiple cores have to be done. I do hope then that if you ever revisit the North African theatre you will think of some other way to make the Italian presence there meaningful. The role Italy played there was too big to let them be a meaningless sideshow with canon fodder units. I played the PC1 Afrikorps dlc, the one from OoB and I started the missions there in the PC2 campaign. IMO OoB did it best by far and PC2 was the worst by far. In case of the latter: the German force I started with was huge (as if half the German army got sent to Libya), the Italian starting number so small in comparison they might as well have been left out completely, there was no incentive for me to get more Italians and I couldn't care less if they died in a scenario. I hope you agree at least that in that theatre of war there are 2 Axis nations that should be represented well.

If writing the code for two player cores and prestige banks proves too difficult, how about one core but there is some sort game mechanic that limits your German core or sets a minimum number or core slots that must be Italian? I mean a player can impose these "rules" himself but there are problems with that. The game or levels should be designed with the knowledge that a significant amount of the player's core is composed of...less than optimal equipment. But at the same time the player will find it extremely difficult or even impossible to achieve a victory without using any Italian units. He/she will simply not have enough units to cover all the battlefield/sky by the last turn.

Then, when Tunisia rolls around, we still have our little ahistorical evacuation from Africa to Sicily where the battle continues. After the capitulation of Italy after that, well, I can foresee several possible options.

1. You just simply lose them like you did in GC 42/43. Or, like I did once I realized that, sold them all off to use their prestige to upgrade my German core forces, or
2. You chose [pick a number] Italian units from your core that choses to continue the war on the Axis side and lose the rest, or
3. Convert (some) of them to German units, or
4. You lose them already with the surrender in Tunisia. Like at 2nd Battle of El Alamein, perhaps the Germans sacrificed their Italian allies to cover their own retreat. Then you continue the war with just your German core, or some of your German core depending on how successfully you conducted the evacuation.
5. Or if you had to "disarm" your former Italian core units with all the prestige and awards that you earned with them... How would that have been for a player surprise?!
I can think of all manner of creative solutions and narratives to how this all could play out.

Perhaps this would be a suitable compromise for all interested parties?

[Scrapulous]

Reading some chatter in a couple of other threads about Polish units led me to think of another feature I'd love: the ability to convert captured equipment into other types. For instance, when light bombers are no longer viable in the war, converting them to heavy fighters. Or turning surplus small tank chassis into the basis for self-propelled guns. This is another area where I wish we could make our core national equipment limited by stockpile, because then you could convert panzer I and II chassis into national SP guns as well, instead of just having the unlimited supply we get now.