What we'd like to see in DLC AO40 and 41...

[wecker]

Kerensky, after AO40 is released, do you think you'll do this again in some way or form for the upcoming AO DLCs?



So I feel now's a good lull time for players and developers both. The game is running as smooth as it's ever been running after many patches and improvements, nothing really requires ultra urgent attention. When it comes time to spin back up and deliver meaty and interesting updates that will bring back old players for more action they like and also try to scoop up new ones too... only a matter of time I'm sure.

Yes - it is a nice quite time, but...

Corona sends it`s 2nd wave against the world, so it would be nice to have a new DLC latest arriving for Christmas time.
And no - there is a reason to make the sound better. It is too "weak", so people keep on complaining about it.

Otherwise I am very content and don`t regret buying the ganme in advance with Field Marshal edition.

Keep on.
Cheers

[adiekmann]

I for one would like to see a pole for future directions of the DLCs. Do we want to see an AO41 next, or do we want to see an Afrika Corps, or Allied Operations next. Each could also include poles for what we would like to see in each of these options.

I would like to see an option to play an Africa Campaign but as either the Axis or Allies. That is, the same basic set of scenarios but with some unique scenarios for each to allow for recharge of prestige or special missions. Each scenario could also be slightly different in regards to victory objectives based on whether it is part of the Allied or Axis campaign.

I too would love to see an Afrika Corps, but I have to say I am not wild about the idea of switching gears and the next DLC being an Allied campaign or something similar. One of my favorite aspects of the game (whole series really) is the core that you build up and continue to use. If we were to have an Allied DLC, for example, this would interrupt the continued use of that core. For me, that would be a downer.

And as much as I like an Afrika campaign, your core after 1940 would be just too big to import. A proper DAK campaign, as has been opinioned already here by many, should begin with only Italian units in 1940 and then bring in a select number of your 1940 German core in early 1941 like what happened historically. I envision it to be similar to that which was done in PC1's 1942/43 WEST GC where you could only choose a fraction of your units from GC 41.

Now, could there be some creative side missions in an otherwise Eastern Front campaign? Sure. I can easier see a scenario, for instance, where after a big map battle on the Eastern front (like Winter/Moscow 41) where you are sent back to France for "rest and refitting" and you have a small map where you have to deal with partisan activity, or a British Commando raid. This is just an example. It could be something else or somewhere else. A little side job as it were and then you are again back in the thick of things on the Eastern front.

So, yes, on the whole though, I would like the next DLCs to follow the same general path of of the War against the Soviets to Berlin like the GC did in PC. After that, however, anything is game.

[nono hard et heavy]

Hello Kerensky.
I confess that I am more active on the Panzer Corps 1 forum. The reason: mods. I participate (at my humble level) in some mods. On Oob, I also participated in the creation of skins (always at my humble level). These things are easy to do. What's a bit off-putting on PZC 2 is that nothing is simple. I take the creation of other camouflages as an example. I don't know how to do it. I asked the question on the forum: more than 100 views but no answer.
Nevertheless, I think we should let a year go by at PZC 2 before people bring in new scenarios, new campaigns. How long before mods (DMP, ...) appeared on PZC 1?
The game's mechanisms and the choice of DLCs are very good ideas, Even if they are not universally accepted. It would have been a pity that PZC 2 was a copy/paste of PZC 1 but with better graphics.
Afterwards, will the developers take into account the opinion, the choices of the players? I'm 56 years old and I've only been able to check this on rare occasions and for a few games.
I wish PZC 2 the same long and rich life as PZC 1.
Greetings from France.
Bruno

[BaronVonWalrus]

Late to the party as I haven't been on the forum for a while......if the vote remains open, my bets are:

5B, 5C and 5E.

Loads of scope for campaigning in the Baltics / Leningrad / Finnish border area - cutting off the arctic convoy lifelines to Murmansk (and maybe Archangelsk?) and a full-on assault at Leningrad?

[Kerensky]

Late to the party as I haven't been on the forum for a while......if the vote remains open, my bets are:

5B, 5C and 5E.

Loads of scope for campaigning in the Baltics / Leningrad / Finnish border area - cutting off the arctic convoy lifelines to Murmansk (and maybe Archangelsk?) and a full-on assault at Leningrad?

Nope, not too late yet. But there is a good chance that this little game will be wrapping up soon, so if anyone still has bets or votes to place, now is the time!
We're currently sitting at a TIE for the top two, so I might have to break out a tie breaker indeed.

[Retributarr]

Nope, not too late yet. But there is a good chance that this little game will be wrapping up soon, so if anyone still has bets or votes to place, now is the time!
We're currently sitting at a TIE for the top two, so I might have to break out a tie breaker indeed.

Query!... if two of the 'Scenario/Campaign' selections... 'Are-That-Close'... can consideration be possibly given to doing both of them?... with the most popular one being presented first?.

[Kerensky]

Query!... if two of the 'Scenario/Campaign' selections... 'Are-That-Close'... can consideration be possibly given to doing both of them?... with the most popular one being presented first?.

Whoever said the top picks aren't already both coming?
Or they could both not be coming. That would be a shocking twist.

[adiekmann]

Late to the party as I haven't been on the forum for a while......if the vote remains open, my bets are:

5B, 5C and 5E.

Loads of scope for campaigning in the Baltics / Leningrad / Finnish border area - cutting off the arctic convoy lifelines to Murmansk (and maybe Archangelsk?) and a full-on assault at Leningrad?

Nope, not too late yet. But there is a good chance that this little game will be wrapping up soon, so if anyone still has bets or votes to place, now is the time!
We're currently sitting at a TIE for the top two, so I might have to break out a tie breaker indeed.

Oh boy! That probably means that some sort of announcement or "dev diary" for AO40 is round the corner! And here I was worried that we were going to have to wait until December for it...

[Retributarr]

Discussing "Retreat"... Discussing "Surrender":

Many times on during the war in the 'West'... as well as the 'Eastern-Front'... armies retreated and sometimes, especially in Russia... they surrendered.

I would like to propose that an "Option" be made available to accommodate 'Retreat' situations as well as 'Surrender' contingencies... for those who would be interested in exploring this venue'... in their 'Campaigning'. This would make the Game more interesting and exciting.

As to how this exactly would be 'Triggered' or put into some kind of working order... is yet to be determined.

I would venture or begin or start-off by offering this suggestion... is that when the 'casualty-count' or field losses reach a specified 'Breaking-Point'... that then the combat-effectiveness begins to reduce... then more-so as the situation deteriorates... until a 'Route' is finally put into play.

At this point or juncture... the affected enemy would now be 'less able' to defend itself and also therefore more likely to surrender as separate units or as a whole local-area combat-group entity.

This 'Idea' of fighting at full-strength and 'competency-level capability' to the last man is not 'Realistic'. It does not reflect 'Reality'. So!... that is why i am proposing this added feature to be implemented into the Game.

[adiekmann]

Discussing "Retreat"... Discussing "Surrender":

Many times on during the war in the 'West'... as well as the 'Eastern-Front'... armies retreated and sometimes, especially in Russia... they surrendered.

I would like to propose that an "Option" be made available to accommodate 'Retreat' situations as well as 'Surrender' contingencies... for those who would be interested in exploring this venue'... in their 'Campaigning'. This would make the Game more interesting and exciting.

As to how this exactly would be 'Triggered' or put into some kind of working order... is yet to be determined.

I would venture or begin or start-off by offering this suggestion... is that when the 'casualty-count' or field losses reach a specified 'Breaking-Point'... that then the combat-effectiveness begins to reduce... then more-so as the situation deteriorates... until a 'Route' is finally put into play.

At this point or juncture... the affected enemy would now be 'less able' to defend itself and also therefore more likely to surrender as separate units or as a whole local-area combat-group entity.

This 'Idea' of fighting at full-strength and 'competency-level capability' to the last man is not 'Realistic'. It does not reflect 'Reality'. So!... that is why i am proposing this added feature to be implemented into the Game.

But Retribtarr, don't we have that already? When a unit is surrounded, more and more of its strength points move into suppression (blue). Once a sufficient number of them (or all) reach blue, then the wimpiest of units attacking will cause it to surrender, no?

Yes, I get that it is hard to do to large number of units and it takes time for them to weaken sufficiently to force surrenders, but the mechanic is there. Also, I would point out, there are probably an even greater number of historical examples where said surrounded troops were able to break out of their encirclement. So yes, it should be a difficult thing to achieve to a large group of enemy units. If anything, the AI doesn't try hard enough or at all to end its encirclement whereas a human opponent would make every effort to either relieve or escape the encirclement predicament. WW2 is full of such instances. At Stalingrad, von Paulus stupidly followed Hitler's orders and didn't even try until it was too late.

[Retributarr]

Discussing "Retreat"... Discussing "Surrender":

But Retribtarr, don't we have that already?

I see that I did not make myself very-clear on my description or analysis. Thank's "adiekmann"... for bringing this to my attention.

What I failed to mention or to include... is that... when unit or combined group cohesion is disrupted and the group-force is fragmented due to severe losses in men and equipment... as well as now to include... the dis-orientation by a disruption of 'Command and Control' [Overall-Guidance]... as well as the realization of potential or imminent cut-off or being surrounded... could cause or instil fear and panic... resulting in a less ardent effort to now maintain their combat-capability status... so now as to undermine this once previous determined effort to continue on as before... is no-longer-there!.

This result or thus resulting in an orderly or disorderly retreat... or possibly even surrender... if the units involved are past or beyond bringing back into an orderly cohesive force. This specific consideration is beyond just simply being surrounded and starved out of supplies... where the surrounded force incrementally loses its ability to maintain itself defensively.

That's what I was hoping to get across... but, evidently failed to do sol

[adiekmann]

Discussing "Retreat"... Discussing "Surrender":

But Retribtarr, don't we have that already?

I see that I did not make myself very-clear on my description or analysis. Thank's "adiekmann"... for bringing this to my attention.

What I failed to mention or to include... is that... when unit or combined group cohesion is disrupted and the group-force is fragmented due to severe losses in men and equipment... as well as now to include... the dis-orientation by a disruption of 'Command and Control' [Overall-Guidance]... as well as the realization of potential or imminent cut-off or being surrounded... could cause or instil fear and panic... resulting in a less ardent effort to now maintain their combat-capability status... so now as to undermine this once previous determined effort to continue on as before... is no-longer-there!.

This result or thus resulting in an orderly or disorderly retreat... or possibly even surrender... if the units involved are past or beyond bringing back into an orderly cohesive force. This specific consideration is beyond just simply being surrounded and starved out of supplies... where the surrounded force incrementally loses its ability to maintain itself defensively.

That's what I was hoping to get across... but, evidently failed to do sol

I see. What you seem to be talking about is the unit's morale. This has always absent from games like this, but is a significant factor in a unit's determination to resist and to what degree. However, I think it is beyond this type of game to start including these things into the equation. It would greatly complicate things. Games like this have always factored in "experience," but we know that the stress and circumstances of a unit's position also weighs heavily into its will to keep fighting, flee, or simply give up.

Now, there was/is a series of games that was greatly based on this principle that you propose. It was called "Close Combat" and the first edition of it was back in the late '90s (I think). I enjoyed it greatly, especially it's first sequel, "Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far." You can probably guess which operation it covered. (The first one dealt with the battles directly after the D-Day landings.) But it was a much more tactical game where you controlled squad-sized units made up of individual soldiers that had names and each their own "mental meter" so to speak. They didn't need to be surrounded to elicit a surrender, they did so automatically. Those two that I owned and played back then probably wouldn't even run on a modern system but I haven't checked.

Anyway, I think PC2 is too broad of a game to introduce such mechanics into its gameplay. Plus, that would involve a complete reworking of the game to implement. Compared to PC1, I think they came as close as is possible in a game like this to mimic that which you propose. You come up sometimes with great ideas but not always practical to put into the game. I think I'm guilty of that sometimes too but am unaware of it due to the fact that I know nothing of computer programing and the like. But they are always interesting, Retribtarr!

[scott_mathieson]

Think about in the far East could be interesting maybe 2 dlc worth or maybe 1 dlc as Japanese 1 as American.

For next 1 I'm hoping for conclusion to balance campaign then few weird ones and then swarm into Russia. I think it will be a hard one to balance. How to get the feeling you are sweeping all before you with it still being a challenge