Will there be a tie-in with AK and the DLC campaigns?

[Zhivago]

The ideal would be able to play all of them together and switch between them at any point but the issue is it means they all have to be the same size and scale and difficulty so really limits what we can do and also doesn't fit the history very well. The kind of force you build for an Eastern front is very different to what you would have on Western front as you have very different terrain and opponents and the scale is significantly different.

If we had planned for these from the start it might have been possible but this game has grown due to its success in ways we hadn't expected.

That is an admirable admission (that the devs had not planned things out from the beginning because they did not expect the game to be such a success. You guys have done a lot with the game, and I am sure if the time, money, and customer requests are there, you guys could find a way to tie everything together.

Now that I think about it more, the original, vanilla campaign that came with the Panzer Corps game should not necessarily be included in an ultimate campaign. I think tying the DLC campaigns and the AK games together would make more sense. Although you have stated before that there are no plans to sell the DLCs as a combined set, perhaps creating separate DLC East (complete) and DLC West (complete) box sets (obviously the west sets from 1942 to 1945 are yet to be developed and released) would be the easiest way to create a ultimate/dynamic campaign to bring everything together? If a player owned all the East and West DLCs, plus AK, that player could chose a long-term campaign path by either staying in Europe, or in 1941 branching off to AK as a means to weaken the UK, or as a prelude/accompaniment to Barbarossa/Case Blue.

[Rudankort]

Although you have stated before that there are no plans to sell the DLCs as a combined set, perhaps creating separate DLC East (complete) and DLC West (complete) box sets (obviously the west sets from 1942 to 1945 are yet to be developed and released) would be the easiest way to create a ultimate/dynamic campaign to bring everything together?

Even though in the past such plans did not exist, we might well consider this when all DLCs are finished.

[Zhivago]

Although you have stated before that there are no plans to sell the DLCs as a combined set, perhaps creating separate DLC East (complete) and DLC West (complete) box sets (obviously the west sets from 1942 to 1945 are yet to be developed and released) would be the easiest way to create a ultimate/dynamic campaign to bring everything together?

Even though in the past such plans did not exist, we might well consider this when all DLCs are finished.

I think that DLC box sets would be a good marketing strategy to get players to buy and play all of the DLC content. The AK campaign is set up like an extra-large DLC, so I think that DLC East, DLC West, and the AK campaigns should be easy to tie in together.

[DerTroof]

$.02

I own PC and the DLCs through '44, plan on buying AK and '45. I'm surprised that AK will not be compatible with the GCs, but the explanation makes sense to me. However, I would very much like to see a Western Front GC. And I disagree that it should not be compatible with the East Front GCs in terms of core transfer. Incompatibilities with size of the core could be handled by not allowing SE units to be transfered, and/or limiting the number of units a player can deploy in a particular scenario (forcing some difficult choices). Compatibility between the two GCs does not violate realism, as it was not unheard of for formations to be shuttled between the fronts.

As for importing the PC system to other theatres and even other wars, I'm all for it, but I hope the system stays focused on ground combat, which is what it does best. This is particularly relevant to any Pacific version of the game. I found Pacific General to be a letdown because it depended so much on a clunky naval system. Ditto for Star General, which was essentially a naval game. (Yes I played all the old SSI titles too.) I think I would like to see "Allied General" first.

[boredatwork]

To toss in my 2 cents:

I have no problem with Afrika Korps (or other similar future efforts) being it's own stand alone dynamic campaign.

However I will toss my voice in with Zhivago's that I would like to see an additional GC41 and GC42 set in Africa serving as a bridge between GC40 and GC43-45 west. (ie this is something I wouldn't hesitate to pay for).

As for whether or not to link the GCs, or at least link them at a single point at the end of 1940:

The ideal would be able to play all of them together and switch between them at any point but the issue is it means they all have to be the same size and scale and difficulty so really limits what we can do and also doesn't fit the history very well. The kind of force you build for an Eastern front is very different to what you would have on Western front as you have very different terrain and opponents and the scale is significantly different.

In the original PG you could choose between fronts at several key points in the campaign. The big advantage of doing so is adding replayability to the DLC as a whole: being able to choose between Leningrad OR Kiev added some replayability to the DLC - being able to choose between the east or africa in 1941 then again in 1942 would increase the replayability value of the DLC *without much additional effort* on the part of the development team.

Scale in PG game, as in PzC, is ambiguous so units might approximate anything from Battalions to Divisions depending upon the scenario being played. Consequently in the context of a game (as opposed to a simulation) I see no problem having the **playing pieces** approximate Brigades/Battalions on the eastern front and Battalion/Company sized formations on the western front. The same Tiger that *approximate* a Tiger Battalion at Minsk might just as easily *approximate* a Tiger company at Goodwood. Again I repeat this is a game - as artillery only ever fires 3 hexes regardless of the map scale - I don't see the logic that units can't vary in what they represent from east to west.

Core composition is a bigger issue, however I don't think it's really insurmountable. It's really a question of balance:

That gets complicated further when each DLC is intended to be playable stand-alone or as part of the GC - players might start with a pre-set core, a core from the Russian DLCs or a core from a Allies-based GC; all would have different issues to deal with. Upshot: it's not as easy as it sounds.

Eastern front was more about epic tank battles, while in the west the focus could shift towards infantry and fighting against enemy's very strong air presense. Additional difficulties arise if we allow the player to switch between East and West every year.

Yes there are difficulties but IMO you're overlooking the fact that the developers don't necessarily have to be the ones to solve them. Perfect being the enemy of good enough:

There already ARE difficulties with the current DLC - players are given complete freedom to choose their cores. Some choices trivialise the content, some make it impossible, starting in 1945 is a lot different than importing a core that was carried through 6 previous DLCs - and yet the developers have ruled out adding additional mechanics to control the value of a players core until the next game. And yet the game still works - why? Because the players adapt - they change difficulty to suit their core, they self handicap, they cheat, they mod, they do what they need to do to enjoy the game.

Similarly to give players the option to switch fronts doesn't require perfection just:

1) Design equivalent year battles same core size **in terms of number game playing pieces**, regardless of what world scale they're supposed to represent
2) put a disclaimer that "importing an eastern force into a western campaign may not be balanced" (and vice versa)
3) leave it to the players to adapt. IF they want to switch fronts they'll have to build a balanced force that will work for both.

Lastly regardless of whether or not you link future GCs you'll never get balance 100% on -
4) Give players in game control over difficulty on a scenario by scenario basis. ie The ability to mod difficulty levels is great but why not go the extra little step and make those options changeable within the game via sliders. Seperate out the +/- strength into several broad categories - artillery, aircraft, afvs, infantry and players can customise their difficulty on a scenario by scenario basis. If they want to play Normandy with an "east front" core then add +5 to the Shermans and -3 to the Mustangs.

Problem solved for (relatively) little work beyond creating the DLC West content and adding a few more *in game* tools for allowing players to fine tune their own balance.

[Rudankort]

Scale in PG game, as in PzC, is ambiguous so units might approximate anything from Battalions to Divisions depending upon the scenario being played. Consequently in the context of a game (as opposed to a simulation) I see no problem having the **playing pieces** approximate Brigades/Battalions on the eastern front and Battalion/Company sized formations on the western front. The same Tiger that *approximate* a Tiger Battalion at Minsk might just as easily *approximate* a Tiger company at Goodwood. Again I repeat this is a game - as artillery only ever fires 3 hexes regardless of the map scale - I don't see the logic that units can't vary in what they represent from east to west.

The problem is not with game scale in relation to reality, I know that it is flexible and can be bended the way we want. The problem is, we don't want as many core units in the western campaigns as we have in the east. I know that there are people who like bigger cores, but for most players they are more unmanageable and tedious to control, and also they allow you to have all the units you want, so you have less choice of which units to include and which to leave out. We felt that in the east big core was justified in order to stress the epic scale of action which happened there, but in the west we think that a smaller core is needed. This would also make the campaigns more different and varied. This is a purely gameplay issue, it has nothing to do with realism.

[boredatwork]

I know that there are people who like bigger cores, but for most players they are more unmanageable and tedious to control, and also they allow you to have all the units you want, so you have less choice of which units to include and which to leave out.

IMO "less choice" is innacurate - you have more *freedom to make choices* with the larger core, which IMO is good for the average gamer.

In small cores each core slot represents a greater proportion of the core strength as a whole, thus making the choice of what to use them for more *important* (which is what I think you were trying to say above). The downside however is that if each choice is more important, there is less freedom to make "bad" choices - ie deploying specialist units or vanity units which might only be usefull for a handfull of turns per scenario in favour of general purpose units which make the most of limited numbers.

Going back to my vanilla beta example: If I have a scenario with 2 paths and 6 core units to deploy my choice is made for me: 1 tank, 1 infantry, 1 artillery per path. If I have the same scenario scaled up so that I now have 12 units to advance along 2 paths I now have greater flexibility - after the basic rock/paper/scisor per path requirement is met I now have choice how to spend the remaining 6 slots. I could simply double the allocation of forces assigned to each path. I could make 1 path tank heavy and one infantry heavy. Instead of a second tank or second infantry I could choose to buy an ATG or a recon. I could put 8 units on one path and have 4 on the other.

Compare AG (24 core) vs PG (50 core): at least in my experience Allied General, despite being more challenging, was the more bland because every campaign game I played had the exact same core - Once my minimum infantry/tank/artillery/airpower needs were met there were no slots left to experiment with. Conversely with PzC GC East (and PG) I have much greater variety from core to core which keeps the game interesting and replayable. I have and frequently use a full 3 unit FJ Bde to airdrop and capture minor cities. I take AA HTs in the early scenarios which are lucky if they get something to shoot at. I'll deploy my Bridging Engineer for a single river crossing. I'll deploy recon units in defensive scenarios so they can pick off wounded enemy units for experience. I'll invest in AT units instead of tanks. I can experiment with a range of airpower - fighters, fighter bombers, tactical bombers, level bombers etc.

It's that freedom to experiment that makes me prefer larger cores. Not necessarily that I must have 60+ units as the final destination but rather there should be sufficient core slots *early enough* in the campaign that slots can be spared on more specialist units.

[Rudankort]

I was not talking about extremely small cores, like 3 slots, but with medium sized core you need to make some very important choices. You have several primary unit classes, like infantry, tanks, artillery, fighters and tactical bombers, and also a few secondary but pretty important classes like recon and strategic bombers, but the balance between them is not a fixed constant. This is where I don't agree with your reasoning. There is no single optimal core composition. You could try to go with an infantry-heavy core, or artillery-heavy core; shift the balance towards air force in order to grasp air superiority quickly, or have less planes, or even none at all. It is still the same as in good old PG days where people tried to play the campaign with no planes or with only planes - you have a lot of room for experimentation.

But if you are looking at a 50-unit core, the situation becomes different. Suddenly, you can have enough of everything. If we take only the five primary purchasable classes (infantry, tanks, arty, fighters, bombers), you can have 10 units of each class in your core. This is huge. I can't imagine what kind of force the AI must have to oppose such strength on every given part of the map. Thus, what kind of air force should the AI have to avoid air dominance of 10 core fighters, probably with experience and overstrength on them? Well, I guess 50 AI fighters would do the job, but then the game would look more like an arcade than a strategy.

As for exotic units to experiment with, PzC handles them a bit differently. You can still have them in your core and deploy them when they are needed, e. g. bridge engineers on river-heavy maps. It is just you won't use and deploy them all the time, which makes sense in my opinion. You no longer deploy a horde of bridge engineers on maps with no rivers, as you did in PG.

I agree with your last point though: giving the player more options earlier is more important than finishing the campaign with 60 units. Core slots in late campaign is a controversial thing anyway, because you don't have time to bring new units to good exp/OS level. However, I believe that, given the number of unit classes in PzC, an optimal max core size at the end of a campaign lies somewhere between 30 and 40 units.

[Zhivago]

I was not talking about extremely small cores, like 3 slots, but with medium sized core you need to make some very important choices. You have several primary unit classes, like infantry, tanks, artillery, fighters and tactical bombers, and also a few secondary but pretty important classes like recon and strategic bombers, but the balance between them is not a fixed constant. This is where I don't agree with your reasoning. There is no single optimal core composition. You could try to go with an infantry-heavy core, or artillery-heavy core; shift the balance towards air force in order to grasp air superiority quickly, or have less planes, or even none at all. It is still the same as in good old PG days where people tried to play the campaign with no planes or with only planes - you have a lot of room for experimentation.

But if you are looking at a 50-unit core, the situation becomes different. Suddenly, you can have enough of everything. If we take only the five primary purchasable classes (infantry, tanks, arty, fighters, bombers), you can have 10 units of each class in your core. This is huge. I can't imagine what kind of force the AI must have to oppose such strength on every given part of the map. Thus, what kind of air force should the AI have to avoid air dominance of 10 core fighters, probably with experience and overstrength on them? Well, I guess 50 AI fighters would do the job, but then the game would look more like an arcade than a strategy.

As for exotic units to experiment with, PzC handles them a bit differently. You can still have them in your core and deploy them when they are needed, e. g. bridge engineers on river-heavy maps. It is just you won't use and deploy them all the time, which makes sense in my opinion. You no longer deploy a horde of bridge engineers on maps with no rivers, as you did in PG.

I agree with your last point though: giving the player more options earlier is more important than finishing the campaign with 60 units. Core slots in late campaign is a controversial thing anyway, because you don't have time to bring new units to good exp/OS level. However, I believe that, given the number of unit classes in PzC, an optimal max core size at the end of a campaign lies somewhere between 30 and 40 units.

I do not see the problem here. I think to link the DLCs into a Grand Campaign or Ultimate Campaign, a player would need to be given a choice by the end of 1940 to either go east or west. East could still have a bigger core, and the west path could still have a smaller core. The western DLC's probably will have different equipment demands than the East DLCs. In the west, for example, Allied air-power is going to presumably play a much larger role. I could play the DLC East campaigns through 1945 with maybe three or four fighters, and three or four ME-410s, and I would always have air superiority. However, judging by the D-Day scenario that came with the original PzC game, and from the strength and quality of the Allied fighters in AK, having a larger German airforce, or at least anti-air units, will be more of a priority. To me, AA units (with the exception of the 88 until about 1943) are "luxury" units that really do not make maximum use of a player's available core spots in the East DLC's. I would think they would be far more useful in DLC 44/45 West. The enemy core composition is going to dictate how most players assemble their own cores.