Finland without Finnish?!?

[GUNDOBALDO08]

I'm playing the first Finnish scenario and to my great disappointment there are no Finns !! I apologize to the developers, usually I never criticize their work, but in all honesty I wonder how it is possible to think of recreating the winter war without introducing any Finnish troops? considering also that the "raata road" scenario was perfect for the Finnish ski troops. without Finns the two scenarios are a paradoxical and unhistorical anticipation of the Russo-German clash on which four years of scenarios are already waiting ... I really would like the developers to give us a good reason for not introducing the Finndesi troops !! if it was a resource problem for their creation it would be enough to create the infantry and mountain troops, nothing more !! for me such a gaffe can devalue the entire AO dlc series ... moreover if You call the AXIS operation series you have to value the non-German axis troops certainly not let them take the place of allies even in wars that the Germans do not have never fought ... at this rate we should expect the Germans also in the Pacific?!?

[LynxCom]

Lol. Try Order of Battle. There´s one official DLC and three custom campaings for Finns.

[GUNDOBALDO08]

Lol. Try Order of Battle. There´s one official DLC and three custom campaings for Finns.

I played over them 800 hours at OOB and winterwar is one of my favorite dlc.

[GUNDOBALDO08]

I finished AO1939, skipping finland because without finnish troops it is unhistoric and very boring. I really liked the scenery of Denmark, but I note that Dk motorcycle have the 3D model of the Germans and the regular infantry is the French one. I honestly have the impression that while Scw has been excellently cared for down to the last detail, 1939 was made in haste and with limited resources, perhaps to meet the promised deadlines. I hope that these sensational errors will be solved with future patches ...

[Vorskl]

I finished AO1939, skipping finland because without finnish troops it is unhistoric and very boring. I really liked the scenery of Denmark, but I note that Dk motorcycle have the 3D model of the Germans and the regular infantry is the French one. I honestly have the impression that while Scw has been excellently cared for down to the last detail, 1939 was made in haste and with limited resources, perhaps to meet the promised deadlines. I hope that these sensational errors will be solved with future patches ...

There will be multiple reply points
First.. could you please recommend a nice youtube walk-through for OOB? I cannot 'get' the game and its mechanics.
Second... The Glorious Battle of Denmark took the whole 6 hours and have had near zero impact for the WWII. It is good that Kerensky dedicated it a scenario, but spending time and money developing in-detail models of troops you're guaranteed never to meet again and with zero historical significance... boils down to cost/benefits. In the game we dont have some legendary workhorses like the Fw189 recon plane, so I could not care less if a Denmark motorcycle has an incorrect 3d model.
Third.. Agree, for Finnish scenarios we needed some Finnish AI bots just like in SCW

[GUNDOBALDO08]

I finished AO1939, skipping finland because without finnish troops it is unhistoric and very boring. I really liked the scenery of Denmark, but I note that Dk motorcycle have the 3D model of the Germans and the regular infantry is the French one. I honestly have the impression that while Scw has been excellently cared for down to the last detail, 1939 was made in haste and with limited resources, perhaps to meet the promised deadlines. I hope that these sensational errors will be solved with future patches ...

There will be multiple reply points
First.. could you please recommend a nice youtube walk-through for OOB? I cannot 'get' the game and its mechanics.
Second... The Glorious Battle of Denmark took the whole 6 hours and have had near zero impact for the WWII. It is good that Kerensky dedicated it a scenario, but spending time and money developing in-detail models of troops you're guaranteed never to meet again and with zero historical significance... boils down to cost/benefits. In the game we dont have some legendary workhorses like the Fw189 recon plane, so I could not care less if a Denmark motorcycle has an incorrect 3d model.
Third.. Agree, for Finnish scenarios we needed some Finnish AI bots just like in SCW

Given that I consider the Finnish problem serious and the Danish problem a simple fall in style, if it is not worth creating a complex model for the Danish motorcycle then the developers did not have to introduce it, they could use an existing model of scout car and give it the Danish insignia. . Same thing for the infantry: instead of simply changing the name to the French infantry they could have used a more generic model (eg the Czechoslovakian one) by changing the colors and possibly the insignia. In this regard, I sincerely hope that the Norwegian and Dutch infantry that we will find in AO1940 will abandon the British model for a more personalized model ...

[Rhaeg]

I wanted to respond to a post by Kerensky in a different thread, which was a reaction to a comment by GUNDOBALDO08. Since it has little to do with that actual thread about the new update I'd rather not derail that thread and post my comment here. Anyway, this was GUNDOBALDO08's comment:

I miss very much Finnish Infantry in Finland scenarios... that’s giving me feeling of a game with lack of resource and low ambition...

And this was Kerensky's reply:

I think you're mistaking bonus Wehrmacht content to somehow be representative of the entire Winter War. Visiting optional Finland with a German force has absolutely nothing to do with the historical Winter War. So why expect it do be a Winter War Campaign?

And this is on top of having a campaign with Saar Offensive and expanded Polish campaign as well?

I really think we need to make a distinction between 2 sorts of bonus scenarios:

1. Scenarios that are ahistorical because they never really happened. Examples would be Operation Sealion and Operation Unthinkable and I believe SCW's Catalonia scenario falls in this category too. These take WW2 in a completely new direction.
2. Scenarios that are ahistorical because they are major alterations of events that really happened. AO 1939's Finnish scenarios fall into this category.

I think there's a big difference between these two types of bonus content. Category 1 type scenarios allow players to explore large or small conflicts within WW2 that were perhaps mentioned by historians as "could have happened" but for whatever reason never did. It allows us to explore the what-if scenarios and for instance German players can in this way be given the option of a victory path instead of only being on the defensive and ending in Berlin in 1945.

Now what do category 2 type scenarios bring to the table? It's something different, I guess, but you don't need to alter history for that. You want Germany vs USSR in 1939 then do the clash in Poland that would fall into category 1. When people see a lineup of scenarios set in Finland in 1939-1940 and you give them Germans instead of Finnish troops, sure you give them something new, but you crush a lot of hopes of people who wanted to see the actual historic events. That does not happen with category 1 scenarios. And what's the big plus side of category 2 scenarios? Is there anyone enthusiastic about playing the Finnish Winter War as Germany vs USSR instead of Finland vs USSR? If there are people who prefer the former please do post here, if these category 2 scenarios are well liked it's fine by me but I just don't see it. The only real reason I see for doing these scenarios is because it is simpler to just let players use their exisiting German units instead of creating a couple of new Finnish ones like you did with SCW for the Spanish factions... which makes me tend to agree with GUNDOBALDO08 about giving of a vibe of "a game with lack of resource and low ambition". That may seem like a harsh statement, but if there is a lack of resources (I have no clue if that's the case, but this is a game in a niche genre so I could definitively understand if it were) then I think you would just be better off avoiding category 2 scenario's altogether. It would be a simple solution and that's why I wanted to make the distinction between different kinds of optional bonus scenarios. I don't think that slapping the "optional bonus" label on a scenario should be a free pass to be able to do any fantasy you like. BUT (and it is a big but) if there are quite a few people who do like this sort of thing then all my arguments are kind of pointless, so I would really like to hear opinions of other players about this. In the end all that matters is what people like to see.

There is also a second reason why I wanted to respond to this short exchange between GUNDOBALDO08 and Kerensky and that has to do with the "lack of resource and low ambition" remark. I've read quite a few posts about the need to deliver new content and not do a copy of the old PC1 grand campaign in the new PC2 framework (for instance, this big thread ended up with some discussion about that). I think most of us here agree that it would be kind of lame to just see a reimplementation of PC1 in PC2, which means you need to be innovative in creating new content like the AO DLCs. That is not an easy thing, since this game is based on (no matter if it is loosely or not) a limited set of historical events that limit the room for maneuvering in creating campaigns and scenarios. After reading the discussions on these forums and learning about the fact that there is basically one guy (Kerensky, not a dev) who has been responsible for the AO DLC content, I do think the "resource vs. ambition" conflict is a very real one that we need to keep in mind.

In short: most of the talk about innovation in the AO campaign on these forums is focused on criticizing scenario and campaign design. Hey, the first part of this post here by myself is an example of that. In all honesty however, I think there is little innovation to be had just by campaign design alone. I would say Kerensky has stretched things to the limit of what is possible in that regard with the latest AO 1939 DLC. The innovation being: Czechoslovakia 1939 (I liked it, but certainly not everyone did), plenty of Saar Offensive scenarios (good choice IMO, but judging by the comments it seems controversial), not as much Poland (at least some people seem to have wanted a lot more), an optional Winter War detour with no Finland but Germans (I think I have said enough about that already ) and an invasion of Denmark (I enjoyed it, haven't seen many comments about this scenario).

Now I am pretty happy with most of these choices (I only really dislike the Finland choices), but there's already a lot of discussion about them. In all honesty, and I say this mostly to the PC2 devs, I think there is only so much innovation you can achieve by campaign design alone. If you really want to be innovative, you need to develop new systems too. My case for not only German core forces is really just an example of that. Another example would be what you did with SCW's allied AI system: now that is innovation! Predictably not universally liked, but that isn't the point. The point I want to make is that creating new, innovative campaigns will need a substantial input of not only one guy who makes excellent scenarios, but also developers to create unique options by regularly introducing new mechanics into the game. I could give examples other than the "multiple cores" one, but will leave them out because I've already created another wall of text here *** What it comes down to IMO: yes, this type of game desperately needs innovation, but there is only so much you can do by campaign design alone and the developer introducing new mechanics like in SCW is needed here and not optional. There is only so much a Kerensky can do.

*** Edit: I will happily give more examples I can think of that would hopefully be doable in the same way as the allied AI system in SCW was.

[KesaAnna]

Well ....

First , if you compulsively read and monitor the game forums , like I do , then you already knew before you ---- by the way , ELECTED to go to Finland , of YOUR OWN VOLITION , the Finland scenarios are optional --- went to Finland that there would be no Finnish troops.

I'm not entirely sure why someone would be disappointed that they didn't wind up with a cat , when they already knew they were buying a dog ?

But , OK , not everyone compulsively monitors the game forum , or has even paid the first visit to the game forum. So maybe not everyone is in the know.

It seemed to me that in the language used when you were given the option to go to Finland , and the language used subsequently in the briefings , it is obvious that you are going to Finland in an unofficial , surreptitious , not at all kosher , capacity.

It's rather like the Chicago Mafia hiring some hit men from out of town , not a regular part of the organization , to carry out a specific job for them.

So it doesn't strike me as incongruous that there are no Finnish troops in your extracurricular , after - hours , Finnish escapades.

On the contrary , the introduction of troops speaking another language , which your troops are not familiar with , and subject to a command and planning staff that likewise your command and planning staff are not familiar with , is very likely to muck things up.

To me , what is far more unlikely than the absence of Finnish troops in these Finnish scenarios , is simply the scenarios themselves.

In Spain , infantry or no infantry , the entire world already knew perfectly well that the Condor Legion was not some outfit of wild cat free lancers acting entirely on their own. . Everybody knew the German government was involved up to the hat band.

In these Finnish scenarios though , we have German aircraft , piloted by Germans , and subject to German command. German tanks manned by Germans in full - fledged German tank units.

We can sneak all of this around , and the Russians aren't going to find out ? I don't think so.

In my opinion , these two Finnish scenarios have been the nuttiest fail so far . ( Albeit hardly a big , major , or egregious fail )

When SCW came out , there was some complaint that people had signed up for a WW II game , so what's this Spanish Civil War crap ?!

That was a time - sensitive complaint though. In future people will already know that this particular WW II game begins in Spain. And then SCW turned out to be so good that went a long way towards muting any complaints anyway.

Then AO 1939 came out , and there were complaints about the Saar campaign detour. In hindsight , though , I think it was learned that the Saar campaign was a good opportunity to acquire some interesting , and first class , equipment , and in addition only added variety and spice. Without the Saar campaign , Poland might have been too long , and too monotonous and dull ?

Czechoslovakia and Denmark ? As far as I know they never get much love or attention anyway , and on that score alone , why knock it ?

I must confess that in my case I have very little idea of what Danish uniforms and equipment would have looked like , and by extension I have to wonder if there really are that many Danish uniform and equipment enthusiasts walking around.

But these Finnish Scenarios ?

Well, in my opinion anything having to do with Finland rightly belongs to a future northern branch of a Russian campaign DLC anyway.

--- Better yet , partially because of the matter of Finland in the north , Romania in the south , and hopefully Slovakia and Hungary factoring into it somehow , Russia north , center , and south , should be separate DLC ......

.... as , likewise , North Afrika and the Middle East should be a separate DLC .....

[Kerensky]

Well, in my opinion anything having to do with Finland rightly belongs to a future northern branch of a Russian campaign DLC anyway.

--- Better yet , partially because of the matter of Finland in the north , Romania in the south , and hopefully Slovakia and Hungary factoring into it somehow , Russia north , center , and south , should be separate DLC ......

.... as , likewise , North Afrika and the Middle East should be a separate DLC .....

If all that content was made, the complaints would still exist. Just in the form of milking the game dry with more and more and more DLC.

Trust me, when the Axis Operation Grand Campaign is complete, alongside other potential expansion packs or DLC, people will complain why the full version of the game is so crazy expensive with so much addon content.

[Retributarr]

If all that content was made, the complaints would still exist. [Ret:Somebody will always Complain!] Just in the form of milking the game dry with more and more and more DLC.

Trust me, when the Axis Operation Grand Campaign is complete, alongside other potential expansion packs or DLC, people will complain why the full version of the game is so crazy expensive with so much addon content.

PzC1 had a shorter version of the WWII Campaigns than the 'Grand-Campaign' had... so... why-not do the same routine again. Then!!!... those who do not wish to delve into the 'Nitty-Gritty' details and intricacies of WWII in Europe and the surrounding regions can just stick with and play the 'Basic-Game'.

On-The-Other-Hand!!!... "For Those Of Us Others" … who want much more than... "The a-la-Ordinaire' "... we will gladly and enthusiastically take all the 'DLCs' that you can reasonably crank out!... the more-the better!.

That's my-personal take on this subject matter anyway!.

[KesaAnna]

If all that content was made, the complaints would still exist. Just in the form of milking the game dry with more and more and more DLC.

Trust me, when the Axis Operation Grand Campaign is complete, alongside other potential expansion packs or DLC, people will complain why the full version of the game is so crazy expensive with so much addon content.

I am aware.

I'm a fan of Crusader Kings 2 , and that is the default complaint about Crusader Kings 2 .

Never mind that the game came out 13 years ago ( ? ) , and all that DLC represents 13 years of effort , 13 years of Paradox supporting their game. !3 years of Paradox giving the games fans what they asked for.

Not to mention , after all , that you can just as well play that game without any DLC , and it is still a quite decent game without the DLC , or you can play with any combination of DLC , 2 , 4 , 6 , or all the DLC , it doesn't matter.

Certainly I DO appreciate how 300 dollars - worth of DLC looks.

But then , I also appreciate that this isn't Pac Man , and if you want quality you are unavoidably going to have to pay for quality.

Speaking of Pac Man , when I consider how many quarters people probably fed into the machine to become Pac Man whizzes back in the day , when I consider what just about any hobby ultimately costs , whether it is buying coloring books and crayons , or mowing your lawn , I suspect that history - based computer games are actually something of a discounted bargain. ?

[Retributarr]

Wot!!!... "Many More 'DLCs'... I say... Bring-them-On!!!":

There are not 'Too-Many-Games"... that I 'Reaaalllyyy - Reaaalllyyy' like to play!!!... so as far as i'm concerned... for those others who are WWII-fussy... and just want their basic-flavor 'GaME' of pounding "Ad-Nauseum"... away at the Russian's... let them have it!... let them Force-Feed or Gorge them-selves on that regurgitated Flied-Lice!.

Then... for us Generals who dwell in the Darkened-Netherlands... "Give us 'The-What-For!!!'... right between the 'Eye-Balls',,, REAL-HARD!".. with the inclusion of the usual left-out or by-passed significant events that transpired during WWII!... as well as try to include some 'Very-Spectacular... What-If's'... some bizarre' mind bending 'A'-historical near-realities that could have really have taken place!.

[IceSerpent]

I'm a fan of Crusader Kings 2 , and that is the default complaint about Crusader Kings 2 .

Never mind that the game came out 13 years ago ( ? ) , and all that DLC represents 13 years of effort , 13 years of Paradox supporting their game. !3 years of Paradox giving the games fans what they asked for.

Not to mention , after all , that you can just as well play that game without any DLC , and it is still a quite decent game without the DLC , or you can play with any combination of DLC , 2 , 4 , 6 , or all the DLC , it doesn't matter.

That's highly debatable. The list of "default" complaints about CK2 is very long, but price / amount of DLCs is somewhere at the bottom of that list. I'd say that 1st place is a tie between game losing historical accuracy over the years and DLCs changing mechanics of the base game (yes, it still runs, but stuff you could do before got replaced with new approach...which happens to require a DLC, which costs money). In other words, the DLCs you have matter a lot - to the point where you can't even answer other players questions about how to do something in game without knowing what they have installed.

[Kerensky]

Third.. Agree, for Finnish scenarios we needed some Finnish AI bots just like in SCW

The negative feedback from SCW was a major, but not only, factor in the omission of Finnish AI units. As has been said, yes some people really liked the new AI units. And other people really, REALLY did not like them.

Unlike a successful system like the return of Degrees of Victory through bonus objectives and Commendation Point rewards, a troubled and mixed received AI Ally system doesn't get to coast into the next DLC. Your feedback in action, it matters.

[Retributarr]

The negative feedback from SCW was a major, but not only, factor in the omission of Finnish AI units. As has been said, yes some people really liked the new AI units. And other people really, REALLY did not like them.

Your feedback in action, it matters.

How about a 'Compromise???'... where in which... the player would now either have the option to let the 'AI' do it's own thing... more or less... with limited player-control... or... the 2nd-Choice... where the player decides to 'Take-Full-Control'.

The more-daring risk-taker player or... the 'Mussolini-Type'... will likely opt for the 'Independent-Autonomous-AI' … and the more methodical player... who needs to be a 'Management-Perfectionist'... or the 'Bernard-Montgomery-Type'... will likely opt for the 'Full-Control' option.

[DeadlyChipmunks]

Why not have a Finnish campaign with Finnish units, under your express control. The story could be that you are chilling in your nice villa, taking a break after your successful conquest of Poland, when news of the Winter War breaks out. German High Command summons you and orders you to Finland, where you are to act as an "observer" for the Germans. Is this entirely historical- no, probably not, but it would hardly be out of the realm of reality either.

You wouldn't take your previously-built core with you into this scenario (though it would still be saved for the Norway/Low Counties/French campaign that comes next). However, once the scenario is completed, you are allowed to bring any units you captured and prestige you earned, as well as maybe earning a reward Finnish unit or 2 to bring along in your following campaigns.

[FunPolice749]

This was my biggest issue with AO 1939 overall. I felt like having just small contingents of Finnish troops would’ve (could?) been a great addition to the scenarios. Everyone loves the Finns and I don’t think (although I have no clue in all honesty) it would’ve been that difficult to add a few Finnish units to be under your direct control. Like you really would only need a Finnish Infantry unit, an artillery piece (Many choices are already in the game like various 105mm guns), an AT gun (the polish 37mm is a good choice), and maybe an AA gun (40 mm Borfos).

That’s all you would really need to have decently diverse and interesting Finnish force for the 2 scenarios they are in (could honestly just give us an infantry and artillery and that’s enough).
Personally I would’ve enjoyed if it kinda emulated SCW in that your German core would provide armor, air power, and extra support while the Finnish mainly added infantry. Might have been cool and helped to quell complaints over these Finland scenarios not having any Finnish.

[Retributarr]

"Concensus- Determination":

Kerensky!... to try help quell the antagonistic disruptions, unsettling dis-agreement's and disappointments that some players are having...

… "Why-Not" make-up a selection of acceptable choices that you determine to be within the range of do-able realistic practical implementation... to be made available for the 'Players' to then vote on [How this could be done?... I don't know!.]... to then get a better determination of what would be their best or more preferred preference or preferences to have included in a Scenario or Campaign.

Then... "You-Your Self" could finally go about your business in a more peaceful-relaxed-manner!. Get the "Forum-Player-Community" "INVOLVED"... so that they are now as participants in the development of PzC2!.

[Kerensky]

I think passing off reskinned infantry and generic artillery as Finland and trying to say that roster is Panzer Corps 2's version of the Winter War is even more insulting.

The title of the thread goes to the heart of it.

You just have to accept Finland in Axis Operations is as representative of the Winter War as much as Finland was representative of the Winter War in Panzer General 2. This is not Finland without Finnish. This is ahistorical bonus German content in a Wehrmacht themed Grand Campaign.

Expecting a full Finnish campaign within the Axis Operations is simply unreasonable, and was never the goal, attempt, or promise made at any point with the content. No piece of marketing says '1939 covers the Winter War' No piece of marketing says a word about Finnish units.

I get that people want a full Winter War piece of content, and maybe they'll get it someday.

[terminator]

You just have to accept Finland in Axis Operations is as representative of the Winter War as much as Finland was representative of the Winter War in Panzer General 2. This is not Finland without Finnish. This is ahistorical bonus German content in a Wehrmacht themed Grand Campaign.

In Panzer General 2 Winter War, there were German and Finnish troops :

PG2WinterWar.jpg (111.69 KiB) Viewed 4259 times