Slitherine

impar wrote:

iainmcneil wrote:I dont understand the question about mini Pz Corps games.

One executable\game\program to access several campaigns versus several executables\games\programs to access each one one campaign. The later would be mini PzC.

This will absolutely be the former.

miki wrote:Hi kerensky

Yes. Thank you.

But this takes me to one more question: Seems like Grand Campaings will be named by years, grand campaign 41 for example. Will they include all the fronts (branches) inside it? Say, in GC44, for example, will you include the scenarios to play in Normandy/France and Russia or they will be two different GC selled separately (GC 44 Ostfront and GC 44 West Front)?

According to the current plan, which considers unit and map scale, GC44 OstFront and GC44West Front will be two entirely separate campaigns.

We're planning to do the East Front to completion initially.

iainmcneil wrote:We're planning to do the East Front to completion initially.

Great!

Yup that is the initial plan, but that does not mean we won't have more and better in the future! Have to take it one step at a time though, make sure it's done right.

I for once would love to see unit (priority) and map scale consistent along all the GCs.

BTW, what will be -roughly- unit scale? Regiment, division...?

DLC 1939 and DLC 1940 pretty universally have consistent map scale. I believe it's now something like 4 KM per hex, give or take.
We hope to maintain this map scale and level of detail in the future, where although the player core will get larger and russia vast as it is, we will just expand map size as appropriate.

As for what the player core represents in terms of military formations... I won't pretend to be knowledge in such matters, but historically we know that 1 panzer division and 2 motorized divisions took place in the operations to seize the Albert Canal and advance towards Rotterdam and The Hague.

So at that point of DLC 1940, those missions, the entire player core is equal to three divisions (21 core slots)

So, the rough estimation and totally unofficial scale is:
1 Hex = 4KM. 7 Core units = 1 division.

$5 for a single campaign?

You guys think you're EA or something?

Sorry. You've lost my support. I was hoping this would be a company that fancied itself for quality and didn't go the route of the 'DLC' - a term that I hate - because it is normally associated with little quality and lots of money. $5 is nothing, but the principal of it is everything.

I agree with MikeAP.

Inappropriate and disappointing style to deal with customers !

Cheers, Klaus

So tell me Demetrios, do <i>you</i> work for free? Do you have any idea of the number of man hours involved with the creation of a software product as polished as Panzer Corps? If you can't spare 5 bucks (as an MD?), then don't. Nobody is forcing you.

Making a map is not playing with the editor, putting some units...et voilá!

Building a campaign is time consuming, maps need to be created, tested and carefully adjusted. This people...guess what? are game designers! They live of their work. Making and sellng games is their way of life.

Imagine that you own a restaurant and, after a meal a customer asks for an extra dessert. For free, he claims! since he has already paid for a meal. Not reasonable, isn´t? This is the same case.

Also take in count that Lorz is an small company with a limited budget. They are not Rockstar or Electronic Arts, they make superb games for a minority of players. I think 5$ for campaign is more than fair and i´ll be happy if this also helps their business to grow.

As I have posted elsewhere, doing the math, it comes to $0.36 per seanario for the DLC--it's your call

I agree with Ryben and Shrike. I have to ask those who feel that being charged $5 for a campaign consisting of 30 scenarios is a violation of their principles -- what, are game companies held to some special standard of idealism? They're not a business like any other? This attitude seems to me not only unreasonable but silly. Also, comparing Slitherine to EA is pretty tasteless considering what Slitherine has just been through legally with EA.


Tim

I'm too against most DLCs. Specially when the DLC will add only a kit of weapons or a new wardrobe, and when it deliberately removed content from the original game.
That's not the case with these DLCs.
There are at least 14 or 15 different scenarios for each campaign. I take at least 1 hour to finish a single scenario. That means 15 hours overall, just for the first playthrough.
Let us forget the replaybility factor. 3.7€ for 15 hours, is that to much? When a lot of games out there, have less than 10 hours of play. I just miss the point, when someone refers to it as being inappropriate.
Besides I'm sure they've spent a lot of hours of work for creating each one of those scenarios. So it's disappointing that they charge that extra time?
I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I failed to see the point where these DLCs, are an inappropriate style to deal with customers.

TJD wrote:. Also, comparing Slitherine to EA is pretty tasteless considering what Slitherine has just been through legally with EA.

Uh, no idea of what you are talking about. Anyway, i was only making a comparisom between a big company and a modest (but full of entusiasm) like this. It has more merit and i feel we must support it.

Ryben wrote:

TJD wrote:. Also, comparing Slitherine to EA is pretty tasteless considering what Slitherine has just been through legally with EA.

Uh, no idea of what you are talking about. Anyway, i was only making a comparisom between a big company and a modest (but full of entusiasm) like this. It has more merit and i feel we must support it.

I wasn't referring to your post. I was referring to an earlier one by MikeAp.

Tim

Ryben wrote:

TJD wrote:. Also, comparing Slitherine to EA is pretty tasteless considering what Slitherine has just been through legally with EA.

Uh, no idea of what you are talking about. Anyway, i was only making a comparisom between a big company and a modest (but full of entusiasm) like this. It has more merit and i feel we must support it.

This is the legal dispute he is talking about.
http://www.wargamer.com/articles/indust ... -3087.html

Mojang and Besethda are having similiar issues over the word 'scrolls'.

So for now on, the word Battlefield related with video/computer games, belongs to EA.
That's absurd, but these are the sign of the times in which we live.

I agree, to think they now own that word.

General Lee to General Hood
"Wheres your division"
"Dead on the.... (looks around for EA lawyers) err, battlefield sir"

soldier wrote:I agree, to think they now own that word.

They only "own" it related to video games.
Considering the amount of money they spent into creating a Battlefiled brand, I am not surprised they want to defend that investment.

Even though it's a little absurd, impar. If the game used only the word Battlefield, I could agree. Now Battlefield Academy... In my mind the conjunction of these two words give me a total different idea from the one that come from an isolated word.
Slitherine should think in reserving the word Panzer and the word Academy for themselves.