Slitherine

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2025 2:39 pm**

Hi, just finished Ghost Division, well i loved it, I found all the games to be great fun and very playable. i found the challenges to be good and the story lines good as well. Overall i thought it was a great buy for a low price. The best of the add on games in the series. I am just about to restart it again to see how re-playable it is.

Now i had no issues with the game but i do have some thoughts,
1) i really wish this Add on had 18 or 27 or even more games, it would have been even better.
2) it was both refreshing and unnerving not to be awash with Heroes
3) The early battles in Poland and France were somehow really enjoyable reminiscent of PG1
4) A good story line does add to the gaming experience. a real shift for me from my early days of just let me at them.
5) I did not feal that winning a game was wasted because it did not effect the outcome.
6) Finding bonuses / Easter eggs is fun
7) Much as i loved getting them, the future weapon's like the Leo and Jets were not needed in the game.

If you get the Super Heavy Mortar unit use it! It is sooooo good in the last couple of games.
9) It does go against my DNA but it feels good to command a German Panzer Division again.
10) i would pay more for bigger Add ons.

My thanks to everyone involved in this game, can we have more of the same...

Martin

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2025 7:07 pm**

Individually, I thought the scenarios were very well designed. But, the biggest thing that all of these DLCs since AO are missing, and sorely missing, is linked campaigns where you import your core. That was originally my hope and belief but quickly evaporated when three scenarios in and you're already in in 1941. I wish it was MUCH LONGER and divided between 2-3 DLCs. I don't mind smaller maps/scenarios; Not every one needs to be a huge marathon map that takes 35 turns to complete. I am just not a fan of small/short campaigns. It goes against the very spirit of this series: Importing and building a core long term.

For instance, the Battle of the Bulge DLC would have made a great DLC that continued previous ones in a multi-DLC US Campaign. The new Westwall DLC could have been maybe somehow fit into it, but I don't know that yet. It does require some additional long-term planning to make sure they are balanced with regards to heroes especially and not overpowered. Here is where I fear the recent Italian-British North African DLC missed out. It is still possible to continue those with follow up DLCs, but the heroes given in them would need to be sorted in some manner along with the experience. That's where the long term design is needed in conjunction with future, follow-up DLCs that continue your core's campaign.

Everyone has opinions with what they like and don't like regarding many aspects of this game, but the point I make above is one that has been ringing pretty consistently over and over again by most and yet still seems to get ignored. Why?

Posted: **Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:45 am**

adiekmann wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 7:07 pm Everyone has opinions with what they like and don't like regarding many aspects of this game, but the point I make above is one that has been ringing pretty consistently over and over again by most and yet still seems to get ignored. Why?

imo it was a decision made due to the very AO grand campaign has to adapt for players jumping into the middle of such one, even though in long terms it should not be, due to how game development has to be done in the form of DLCs. They had to make game design compromises for every year "just in case someone bought this one and played it before starting from SCW and complained about not having idea what was he doing and who this Capitana or Wagner is". So someone said "let's just make some single standalone ones so that we can throw whatever we want to do into it, no more babysitting" and this is what we have got after AO. They could indeed have something long brewing (and I think I have mentioned it before, the War Story one do have a save core function just like AO), but just couldn't stand another blow after the premature announcement of Pacific until the project had made it through all the hell in the office.

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2025 6:09 am**

adiekmann wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 7:07 pm Everyone has opinions with what they like and don't like regarding many aspects of this game, but the point I make above is one that has been ringing pretty consistently over and over again by most and yet still seems to get ignored. Why?

I think you already gave the answer yourself. Its far more work to connect DLC to each other, especially prestige and heroes did break the AO series balance . And I can only judge from the feedback here in the forums, the last connected DLCs lost a lot of quality.
And of course we all know the game has to make money. Thats completly fine and what some veteran players want might not be the strategy that earn money faster and with smaller effort.

And the german part is done, there is nothing more to tell beside some side stories.
Whats the alternative? I cant imagine a campaign over 3-4 years that could actually work with the game mechanics.
Defense with the AI and core mechanics does not work. The recent DLCs (poland, africa) made this clear again, you "defend" in some scenarios by attacking, while the stories tells you you have to retreat.

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:15 pm**

DefiantXYX wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 6:09 am
adiekmann wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 7:07 pm Everyone has opinions with what they like and don't like regarding many aspects of this game, but the point I make above is one that has been ringing pretty consistently over and over again by most and yet still seems to get ignored. Why?
I think you already gave the answer yourself. Its far more work to connect DLC to each other, especially prestige and heroes did break the AO series balance . And I can only judge from the feedback here in the forums, the last connected DLCs lost a lot of quality.
And of course we all know the game has to make money. Thats completly fine and what some veteran players want might not be the strategy that earn money faster and with smaller effort.

And the german part is done, there is nothing more to tell beside some side stories.
Whats the alternative? I cant imagine a campaign over 3-4 years that could actually work with the game mechanics.
Defense with the AI and core mechanics does not work. The recent DLCs (poland, africa) made this clear again, you "defend" in some scenarios by attacking, while the stories tells you you have to retreat.

Yes, but that's the beauty of the Elite Series idea that I had been advocating for ages. By focusing on a single unit, like a division or even smaller (SAS/Commando), you limit the scope of the maps and general context in which you as a player are participating in. Therefore, however well you do with your single division, you will not change the course of history (unless you lose). For example, if you were the 2nd Panzer Division and succeeded in driving deep into Allied territory during the Ardennes Offensive, you would still eventually have to withdraw. Why? Because the lack of progress made elsewhere would otherwise result in you being cut off and surrounded. A single division would still be at the mercy of whatever is going on historically elsewhere, out of your immediate area of operation.

This in turn also means smaller (i.e. easier and faster to make) scenarios, like the Battle of the Bulge scenarios were. They wouldn't need to be day by day like those were, but still the Ghost Division DLC could have been stretched out to multiple scenarios for each theater of operations (i.e. Poland, Belgium/France, USSR, etc.).

That's why certain units are even more perfect for this recipe than others, like the 9th Australian Infantry Division. Saw action in Syria/Near East before moving to the epic battles in N. Africa. Successfully defend Tobruk but not change history. Then, after the 2nd Battle of El Alamein, it gets moved to the Pacific and involved in major operations in the jungle. Some of it's units even saw action in Greece! It can be done, and done well without the major resources required by something like AO.

Picking the right division/unit is important to help make its scenarios interesting and different, but it can also help incorporate all or most of the aspects of this game that I have most frequently noticed players want in their posts I mentioned previously.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 10:50 am**

adiekmann wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:15 pm Yes, but that's the beauty of the Elite Series idea that I had been advocating for ages. By focusing on a single unit, like a division or even smaller (SAS/Commando), you limit the scope of the maps and general context in which you as a player are participating in. Therefore, however well you do with your single division, you will not change the course of history (unless you lose).

It is already like that, isnt it? In the AO series you are most of the time only small part of the whole. For example in sealion you are one part of a small expedition force and while the other armies fail, you are the only one who makes it out alive.
Later in Kurks you are in the south, doing a good job but the nothern part fails. Ok for me.
Its getting complicated in 1944/1945, when it feels like you are the only operational army left and you win any battle but still lose. The story telling is just getting worse, sometimes you are a special force, to help im rumania, one map later you are the whole eastern front...

If you are only a special commando unit I once again think that wont work with the game mechanis. You still want to get a bigger core, more heroes, more stuff...you want to participate in the huge battles.
If not its like in the MCU right now, no one cares. You want to see ironman, hulk, thor...not some wannabe superheroes, like the new captain america...urgh.

I am not saying your special ops DLC series would not work at all, but I guess you dont get enough players for it.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:38 pm**

DefiantXYX wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 10:50 am
adiekmann wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:15 pm Yes, but that's the beauty of the Elite Series idea that I had been advocating for ages. By focusing on a single unit, like a division or even smaller (SAS/Commando), you limit the scope of the maps and general context in which you as a player are participating in. Therefore, however well you do with your single division, you will not change the course of history (unless you lose).
It is already like that, isnt it? In the AO series you are most of the time only small part of the whole. For example in sealion you are one part of a small expedition force and while the other armies fail, you are the only one who makes it out alive.
Later in Kurks you are in the south, doing a good job but the nothern part fails. Ok for me.
Its getting complicated in 1944/1945, when it feels like you are the only operational army left and you win any battle but still lose. The story telling is just getting worse, sometimes you are a special force, to help im rumania, one map later you are the whole eastern front...

Yeah, and that's a large area of operation. In Sealion, that the entire southeast coast of England, vs. say, just Utah Beach on D-Day. Plus, with a single division/unit you can control the size of the map to make it more consistent on scale across all maps, like the Bulge DLC tried to do. Again, that would require more long-term planning.

I too had some issues with the last DLCs for AO but that is very difficult thing to do. I feel the big flaw in its design was also forcing it to be accessible to those who don't own/want any of the previous ones. Really? How many players really did that? I would think very few relative to those who played/owned all of them. That's why I enjoy the AO Redone mod so much.

If you are only a special commando unit I once again think that wont work with the game mechanis. You still want to get a bigger core, more heroes, more stuff...you want to participate in the huge battles. I may be the exception here, and I do like a large map/battle sometimes, but not always. I can appreciate a smaller scale map so that is not true, or at least not for me.
If not its like in the MCU right now, no one cares. You want to see ironman, hulk, thor...not some wannabe superheroes, like the new captain america...urgh.

I am not saying your special ops DLC series would not work at all, but I guess you dont get enough players for it.

That is very possible. I have no way of knowing what the global consumer of this game would and wouldn't buy in mass.

When we consider all of the different things they have tried since AO, I don't see my proposal as being that radical of a suggestion to at least try. I guess ultimately the way to get it done is to make my own mod campaign, but I don't have time (or skills) for that.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 5:04 pm**

adiekmann wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:38 pm When we consider all of the different things they have tried since AO, I don't see my proposal as being that radical of a suggestion to at least try. I guess ultimately the way to get it done is to make my own mod campaign, but I don't have time (or skills) for that.

I started off with 0 skills in Modding, be it editor use or LUA-scripting.
If i could do it so can u.

AND u have the big advantage of a quite knowledgeable source to ask questions.
Unless u forgot how to use discord.

Can´t wait to see u cook up a mod. Maybe do a BEF campaign from 39-45.
If i could clone myself, that would be the next i´d do.

sers,
Thomas

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 10:45 pm**

Grondel wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 5:04 pm
adiekmann wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:38 pm When we consider all of the different things they have tried since AO, I don't see my proposal as being that radical of a suggestion to at least try. I guess ultimately the way to get it done is to make my own mod campaign, but I don't have time (or skills) for that.
I started off with 0 skills in Modding, be it editor use or LUA-scripting.
If i could do it so can u.

AND u have the big advantage of a quite knowledgeable source to ask questions.
Unless u forgot how to use discord. I have not forgotten Discord and still do on occasion check in to see what's going on. Loved reading the long exchange you had with Kerensky some months ago for instance. However, I just don't usually comment or post.

Can´t wait to see u cook up a mod. Maybe do a BEF campaign from 39-45.
If i could clone myself, that would be the next i´d do.

Clearly you would really like to see OTHER people make mod campaigns that you can enjoy without having been involved in them intimately. I can understand that. It's like a professional chef who loves making delicious food that people enjoy eating, but would also like to have someone else make something great for them too.

I suppose I could try to start very small and short. It's just when I rewrote all the briefings for Storm Over Europe SCW, and that's all I did, I never imagined how much time that ended up taking! I still have a full time job and that's why I sadly couldn't commit to doing it for 1939.

But I appreciate your vote of confidence that I could potentially design something that YOU would be interested in playing!

sers,
Thomas

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2025 5:28 pm**

Well, just completed my second run though. This time i followed others advice and went "no Aircraft". Yes i beefed up my AA mainly with 88s. i had no issues at all and those 3 points came in very handy at the start The Bonus was the AAs are dual role and good at killing tanks and recon which improves their experience which makes them better at killing aircraft in the latter stages when you need them. I was quicker this time but not by much as i played Generalissimo.

Martin

Posted: **Fri Jun 27, 2025 6:04 am**

adiekmann wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 7:07 pm The new Westwall DLC could have been maybe somehow fit into it, but I don't know that yet.

I missed the initial call for beta testers so I have no idea how it'll fit. Even if Bulge and Westwall require a little bit of retooling, the opportunity for a US grand campaign that more or less follows Rick Atkinson's books (An Army at Dawn etc).

That would go something like:
1. Tunisia
2. Sicily/Italy
3. D-Day (yes, there is enough involved in the breakout for a full on campaign IMO).
4. Westwall
5. Into Germany

Plenty of drama, varied scenarios, and given how spectacularly the allies developed over time in terms of learning how to fight a war, the gaining of experience toward 5* units makes a lot of sense.

I, for one, would be fine with repurchasing the campaigns if they needed significant retooling to fit a grand campaign, but all they'd need is the ability to import/export the core (which may be there already).

{quote]It does require some additional long-term planning to make sure they are balanced with regards to heroes especially and not overpowered. Here is where I fear the recent Italian-British North African DLC missed out. It is still possible to continue those with follow up DLCs, but the heroes given in them would need to be sorted in some manner along with the experience. That's where the long term design is needed in conjunction with future, follow-up DLCs that continue your core's campaign. [/quote]

A couple of ideas regarding how to manage it with existing campaigns: just flat out downgrade experiences (divide by 4, or cap it at 2* for 2nd linked campaign, reducing experience across the board) this can be justified narratively by how rapidly technology and tactics evolved. The Brits, for example, got caught out by the Afrika Corps after Operation Compass partly because of lazy doctrine. In Compass they didn't need to coordinate air, or even tanks with infantry. They got away with lazy doctrine. So meeting the Afrika Korps was a real-life experience reset.

The allies, unlike the Germans and Japanese, tended to focus FAR more on using their best officers for training (and, for the Americans, war bonds tours). So there's a real life precedent for limiting how many heroes one can import.

Expanding on the Poland campaign, switching nationality of focus could do it. Many Polish fighters were absorbed into French forces, so the 2nd campaign could be from the French POV. The 3rd, and the rest onward, English/Commonwealth POV. That'd winnow down the heroes nicely, though I'd hope I get to pick who stays and goes.

Everyone has opinions with what they like and don't like regarding many aspects of this game, but the point I make above is one that has been ringing pretty consistently over and over again by most and yet still seems to get ignored. Why?

Having just finished the Poland campaign, my impression is that a lot of short DLC were rushed in to plug the gap left by the shelving of the Pacific campaign. Just an impression. I find the stand-aloneness of current campaigns, especially ones that could (should?) be linked like the US ones, frustrating.

ALL OF THAT SAID, I really like the idea of "Elite" standalone campaigns that focus on a specific unit. I think these ought to have more scenarios, but in the 15-25 range rather than linked campaigns focusing on a single unit. As I've said many times elsewhere, PC2 needs an SAS/LRDG/SBS campaign.. "Elite" series would be the perfect home for it (oh yeah, uh, and Carthage must be destroyed[/Cato Mode].

Posted: **Fri Jun 27, 2025 7:02 am**

DefiantXYX wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 10:50 am
If you are only a special commando unit I once again think that wont work with the game mechanis. You still want to get a bigger core, more heroes, more stuff...you want to participate in the huge battles.

NO I DO NOT. i find massive scenarios utterly tedious. I quite like the number of units on the board in Ghost Division or War Stories, I'd prefer grand campaigns that worked at a similar scale.

i don't think the game models huge battlefields well at all. I also don't like waiting for the game to move 200 enemy units (even on fast mode).

Smaller-scope campaigns (and even grand campaigns) would deflate the relentless moaning on Steam of "I wOn eVeRY bATtLE wHy diDn'T HiStoRY cHanGe." I mean, if you win the entire battle of Kursk, maybe they have a point.... if you control ONE division, not so much.

If "you want to participate in the huge battles" you may want to check out Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2." You control the ENTIRE eastern front on a granular level. I have it, it looks great, but I don't have enough free time to get into it just yet.

Posted: **Fri Jun 27, 2025 10:18 pm**

Trenchard wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 6:04 am
adiekmann wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 7:07 pm The new Westwall DLC could have been maybe somehow fit into it, but I don't know that yet.
I missed the initial call for beta testers so I have no idea how it'll fit. Even if Bulge and Westwall require a little bit of retooling, the opportunity for a US grand campaign that more or less follows Rick Atkinson's books (An Army at Dawn etc).

That would go something like:
1. Tunisia
2. Sicily/Italy
3. D-Day (yes, there is enough involved in the breakout for a full on campaign IMO).
4. Westwall
5. Into Germany

Plenty of drama, varied scenarios, and given how spectacularly the allies developed over time in terms of learning how to fight a war, the gaining of experience toward 5* units makes a lot of sense.

I, for one, would be fine with repurchasing the campaigns if they needed significant retooling to fit a grand campaign, but all they'd need is the ability to import/export the core (which may be there already).

{quote]It does require some additional long-term planning to make sure they are balanced with regards to heroes especially and not overpowered. Here is where I fear the recent Italian-British North African DLC missed out. It is still possible to continue those with follow up DLCs, but the heroes given in them would need to be sorted in some manner along with the experience. That's where the long term design is needed in conjunction with future, follow-up DLCs that continue your core's campaign.

A couple of ideas regarding how to manage it with existing campaigns: just flat out downgrade experiences (divide by 4, or cap it at 2* for 2nd linked campaign, reducing experience across the board) this can be justified narratively by how rapidly technology and tactics evolved. The Brits, for example, got caught out by the Afrika Corps after Operation Compass partly because of lazy doctrine. In Compass they didn't need to coordinate air, or even tanks with infantry. They got away with lazy doctrine. So meeting the Afrika Korps was a real-life experience reset. In the N.A. beta that you were part of, I did a detailed post on how to correct this for a continuing DLC. You can try to look it up and read it. But it is still unfortunate because to me it showed that they did not intend for it to continue. I still like the idea of a grand African Campaign, be it from the German/Italian or Allied perspective, starting before the Germans arrived. How to make it different than what some complain has already been done? Also, elite/famous divisions. Hell, for the DAK you could even begin with the 3rd Panzer Division, then after the conclusion of the Battle of France, take half of the units with you (the formation of the 5th Light Division and eventually 21. Panzer Division). And if I fulfilled Grondel's wish for me to become a full-time mod campaign designer

, then I would bend history a bit by withdrawing from the African continent instead of reinforcing a defeat. Then I would continue the campaign and your core in Sicily and the Italian peninsula all the way until final capitulation in 1945.

The allies, unlike the Germans and Japanese, tended to focus FAR more on using their best officers for training (and, for the Americans, war bonds tours). So there's a real life precedent for limiting how many heroes one can import.

Expanding on the Poland campaign, switching nationality of focus could do it. Many Polish fighters were absorbed into French forces, so the 2nd campaign could be from the French POV. The 3rd, and the rest onward, English/Commonwealth POV. That'd winnow down the heroes nicely, though I'd hope I get to pick who stays and goes.

Everyone has opinions with what they like and don't like regarding many aspects of this game, but the point I make above is one that has been ringing pretty consistently over and over again by most and yet still seems to get ignored. Why?

Having just finished the Poland campaign, my impression is that a lot of short DLC were rushed in to plug the gap left by the shelving of the Pacific campaign. Just an impression. I find the stand-aloneness of current campaigns, especially ones that could (should?) be linked like the US ones, frustrating.

ALL OF THAT SAID, I really like the idea of "Elite" standalone campaigns that focus on a specific unit. I think these ought to have more scenarios, but in the 15-25 range rather than linked campaigns focusing on a single unit. As I've said many times elsewhere, PC2 needs an SAS/LRDG/SBS campaign.. "Elite" series would be the perfect home for it (oh yeah, uh, and Carthage must be destroyed[/Cato Mode].
[/quote]

Some of my inspiration/ideas come from the rich treasure trove of mod campaigns that were made from Panzer General 2 and Panzer Corps 1. For PG2, I remember a mod campaign that focused just on the 1st SS Division. He created new special units to that were more powerful than the vanilla equivalent units in the game, but you were forced into tough battles were you were desperately outnumbered and still struggling to survive despite your overpowered units. But I know now that we'll never see anything like that, at least not officially.

Posted: **Sun Jun 29, 2025 1:35 pm**

adiekmann wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 10:18 pm ]In the N.A. beta that you were part of, I did a detailed post on how to correct this for a continuing DLC.

I remember the post, dont' remember the details. I do think that downgrading experience and heroes can and should be super simple and understandable to the end user. For Poland, "pick your staff" and downgrade experience. With some words on how "warfare is already changing" to accompany the experience downgrade or some such. AO put a ceiling on experience. Poland most definitely did not.

However such a downgrade is implemented, I'd like it if there were tradeoffs and customization, Like trade 4 heroes of your choosing for one custom hero with a top tier trait and and a less powerful trait, or 'sell' heroes for prestige, so that if you take a big stack of heroes into a campaign you run out of prestige even with Trophies of War going.

I still like the idea of a grand African Campaign, be it from the German/Italian or Allied perspective, starting before the Germans arrived. How to make it different than what some complain has already been done?

If North Africa has been done well and in adequate detail in PC2, that'd have to be a mod campaign, the Wehrmacht campaign of the base game is pretty dull and superficial.

And if I fulfilled Grondel's wish for me to become a full-time mod campaign designer , then I would bend history a bit by withdrawing from the African continent instead of reinforcing a defeat. Then I would continue the campaign and your core in Sicily and the Italian peninsula all the way until final capitulation in 1945.

I'd go the other way, very historical, and more granular but without those overblown massive scenarios with so many units you can brew coffee during the Allied turn. I like the Ghost Division approach of fewer units, bigger maps. I don't like a spread out whackamole situation for sieges like Tobruk but I would like more detail. That said I can't imagine I'm going to get into that sort of thing any time soon, in the unlikely event my spare time ramps up I'd probably give Gary Grigsby's War In The East a go. As it stands I was overwhelmed by the initial stages of the tutorial LOL.

Some of my inspiration/ideas come from the rich treasure trove of mod campaigns that were made from Panzer General 2 and Panzer Corps 1. For PG2, I remember a mod campaign that focused just on the 1st SS Division. He created new special units to that were more powerful than the vanilla equivalent units in the game, but you were forced into tough battles were you were desperately outnumbered and still struggling to survive despite your overpowered units. But I know now that we'll never see anything like that, at least not officially.

What I would worry about with overpowered units struggling to survive is that massive quantities of enemy units, so that i have to wait for them all to move, is very unattractive to me. That said, if it were done by equally overpowering enemy units that'd be pretty cool.

Slitherine

completed Guost Division plus thoughts

completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts

Re: completed Guost Division plus thoughts