Slitherine

monkspider wrote:I have to say that I would be pretty disappointed if the Afrika expansion *didn't* tie into the main game.

I didn't say it wouldn't or shouldn't.

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.

Molve wrote:

monkspider wrote:I have to say that I would be pretty disappointed if the Afrika expansion *didn't* tie into the main game.

I didn't say it wouldn't or shouldn't.

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.

Well, I am not sure I see things quite the same way Herr Molve. I do agree with your fundamental premise that the game is too light on content in the 42-43 period, although I wouldn't' go so far as to call this a bug. And personally, I have no problem with them charging for an Afrika expansion, my main concern was that Kerensky's quote seemed to indicate that it was unlikely that it would be tied into the main campaign and I felt that this was unfortunate. You do raise some good points though sir.

You guys, you're killing me. lol

I guess this is why Iain tells me to stop with these little tidbits.
So, better to wait for concrete material to discuss because I don't want to misinform people or give anyone the wrong idea, which seems to be happening unfortunately.

Ah, sorry to get you in trouble.

Well, hopefully Iain can make a firm announcement about what to expect with the Afrika content soon!

It's my own fault, it's just very exciting to be working on amazing content, but hard not be able to discuss it openly.

Kerensky wrote:It's my own fault, it's just very exciting to be working on amazing content, but hard not be able to discuss it openly.

You need to get a cat. You can tell them anything and they always keep a secret.

Finished the 39 campaign in Field Marshall this weekend.

Apart from what as already been mentioned here, I found the USA scenarios too different.
The East one was hard, not only because of the necessary disembark but also because the american air force was a menace.
The Midwest scenario was too easy, the largest difficuty I found was the Missisipi. The american composition of ground forces was too unbalanced, too many hard targets. Had 5 Ju-87G...
The East scenario could use a better american air force. Didnt feel threatened by it at all.

Now, to Rommel...