I didn't say it wouldn't or shouldn't.monkspider wrote:I have to say that I would be pretty disappointed if the Afrika expansion *didn't* tie into the main game.
My point is that Slitherine should not fix the "too short campaign" bug by a solution that costs money.
A series of Africa scenarios is undeniably new content in many ways, and Slitherine is well within their right to charge us for it.
But that does not change how the *current* campaign still has too large jumps for the campaign mode (prestige, experience, etc) to work well. The campaign you have already paid for. The solution here does not require enormous efforts on the dev's part. They could take in a fan-made scenario (or five). They could create branches of existing scenarios (Kursk A, Kursk B, ...).
Making an Afrika Corps, or an Western Allies Corps, or an Red Army Corps, does not, in my mind, have anything to do with inserting more opportunities for upgrades and gaining experience (i.e. scenarios) in the 1942-1943 range. What we're discussing here has nothing to do with offering new types of terrain, new equipment, new desert camouflage, better AI, changes to the game engine etc. Just "more of the same" to make the current campaign whole, to make it truly work.
Anyone can create user-made scenarios. But only Slitherine can incorporate official changes to the game campaign if we want every customer to experience the improvements.
