26+ scenarios

[rayduhz]

In the announcement it was stated there are 26 scenarios. I'm assuming you will not see all 26 scenarios while playing through the game. Similar to the original PG, you progress to different scenarios depending on how you play and choices you make. My question is will WE be able to modify scenarios? Perhaps add more to the campaign? More or less will the game be able to be moddable?

[Rudankort]

Yes, absolutely. You will be able to modify existing scenarios, create new ones and change campaign structure at will.

[pomakli]

Yes, absolutely. You will be able to modify existing scenarios, create new ones and change campaign structure at will.

That's 21. century warfare!



Thanks!

[Obsolete]

I'm assuming you will not see all 26 scenarios while playing through the game.

That kind of line somewhat worries back. Back in the day when I was doing PG2 modding, our golden-rule was to avoid campaign branching. It is a nice thing in theory, but is terrible in reality for designers. The problem, is after all that investment into maps & OOB, much of your work never even gets realized since so many maps are just skipped over due to the branching. In effect, you've shot yourself in the foot and often the player isn't even aware of what he's just missed out.

And then when you do have the experts who are aware, they are forced to do silly things like purposely lose battles A, B, & Z so that they can then get to another scenario that they want, etc. Ughhh! You can see why branching became a big no-no in the community.

I don't mind the support of branching (just to say the capability is there), but in practice it's more problems than it's worth. I'd like to be able to play ALL scenarios in my first try in a campaign, without having to get all fancy with my wins & losses.

[Rudankort]

I don't mind the support of branching (just to say the capability is there), but in practice it's more problems than it's worth. I'd like to be able to play ALL scenarios in my first try in a campaign, without having to get all fancy with my wins & losses.

In the dev diary I discussed this question specifically.

The question about campaign structure is an interesting one. Some players hate linear campaigns because they are predictable, boring and have little replay value. On the other hand, some other players hate branching campaigns because in such campaigns you skip a lot of content. You need to replay the campaign many times to see it all, and in some case you need to do non-obvious actions (e. g. intentionally lose a few battles) to get to certain scenarios.

So, our goal is to strike the right balance between these two extremes. In Panzer Corps the campaign is branching, but each branch in campaign flow is easy to understand (e. g. the choice between the eastern and western front), and the total number of branches remains reasonable. Some branches will depend on your past successes. For example, if you manage to take Moscow in 1941, you will no longer need to fight the soviets from 1942 on. In other cases you can choose the path you want at will, perhaps at the expense of losing some favour with High Command.

In the context of this discussion I have a few questions.
- If the campaign is linear, what is your motivation to play for major/brilliant victory?
- If the campaign is linear, how can you give the player an option to alter history?
- And finally, if we look at PG scenarios for example, how do you suggest to make a linear campaign out of all those scens? Many of the scens take place simultaneously. You can of course make several separate linear campaigns from that, but this approach does not give you any real advantages. It is much more fun to fight the entire war with the same troops from 1939 till 1945 than to play small linear fragments of the war.

[Obsolete]

Some players hate linear campaigns because they are predictable, boring and have little replay value.

This claim is quite arguable. As being stuck replaying a full campaign (which includes the whole spectrum) should not be as boring as replaying a much shorter campaign ten times as much.

- If the campaign is linear, what is your motivation to play for major/brilliant victory?

Well it has ALWAYS been a risk vs. reward. In PG2 IIRC, there was a 10% chance you gained a free proto-type unit which as added to your core. Even more better, was this was exempt from the Jensen cap, so it really was a treasure. Surely that was well worth going after for. However, I feel the risk was a little too re-warding, and relied on too much to gain from random chance.

Also, many people simply felt a thrill if they could get full GOLD STARS in every scenario in a campaign, and SSI was well aware of this, hence they allowed Dossiers to be kept.

So you really had 2 strong factors right there, SSI already knew how to do it back in the day.

- If the campaign is linear, how can you give the player an option to alter history?

You could have a scenario where it is impossible to hold two or more objectives (key objectives), so the player must decide which path to take (even on the same map/scenario here). You could also give more than one solution to a problem in other way, which has already been done before in the 3D series. Hold towns A & B for so many turns, AND/OR withdraw at least 10 units to exit location Z, etc. The choice is up to the command. Fight to the last stand or retreat…

Technically, you are going to alter history no matter how you play it. For example, you could be defending Berlin at the last stand, if you hold out, surely that’s changing history. Or back in PG1 when you had to invade the USA (LOL!!!), again that’s surely changing history.

- And finally, if we look at PG scenarios for example, how do you suggest to make a linear campaign out of all those scens? Many of the scens take place simultaneously. You can of course make several separate linear campaigns from that, but this approach does not give you any real advantages. It is much more fun to fight the entire war with the same troops from 1939 till 1945 than to play small linear fragments of the war.

I’d like a bit more clarification on that. Do you mean when say, the Axis are fighting on the Western Front, while at the same time there is a hot war brewing up on the Eastern Front?

You could assume that units are being shipped from front to front,… or I suppose break them down into a separate Western & Eastern campaign.

[Rudankort]

- If the campaign is linear, what is your motivation to play for major/brilliant victory?

Well it has ALWAYS been a risk vs. reward. In PG2 IIRC, there was a 10% chance you gained a free proto-type unit which as added to your core. Even more better, was this was exempt from the Jensen cap, so it really was a treasure. Surely that was well worth going after for. However, I feel the risk was a little too re-warding, and relied on too much to gain from random chance.

Yes, I know about prototype stuff in PG2, but I always felt that it was a very artificial reward for brilliant victory. If you do things better than germans did historically, you should get a different outcome in the entire war, not some more prestige and a few fancy toys to play with.

(Oh, and BTW, there will be no prestige cap in Panzer Corps.)

Technically, you are going to alter history no matter how you play it. For example, you could be defending Berlin at the last stand, if you hold out, surely that’s changing history. Or back in PG1 when you had to invade the USA (LOL!!!), again that’s surely changing history.

Exactly. And so, if we don't take Berlin and Washington (both the terminal scenarios in the campaign), but consider intermediate scens instead, you no longer can change history without changing the campaign path. If you take Moscow, there can be no Stalingrad; if you take London there can be no Overlord, and if you repel Overlord, there can be no Cobra or Ardennes. And surely you cannot play both Berlin and Washington in the same campaign.

I’d like a bit more clarification on that. Do you mean when say, the Axis are fighting on the Western Front, while at the same time there is a hot war brewing up on the Eastern Front?

Yep, this is what I mean. And yes, the option to make separate campaigns is what I mentioned above, but I don't really like this solution. After I've played 1939-1942 campaign, why should I start eastern or western front campaign from scratch? And if I don't start it from scratch, but instead take my core to either eastern or western front at will, how is this different from a single branching campaign?

[Obsolete]

If you don't split up your super-duper long campaign into smaller ones, then you risk the problem of allowing a player to gain too much an advantage with elite units. And this can snowball out of control. Unless of course, your core is either very small, or the effects of elite units develop too slow... or they are very restricted on their elitism.

I would like to keep cores from start to end as well, but either bad luck degenerates into an unwinnable campaign, or you end up with the opposite problem. Anyhow, I'm sure you are well aware of these issues.

If you do things better than germans did historically, you should get a different outcome in the entire war, not some more prestige and a few fancy toys to play with.

Well, Rommel won quite a few battles while at a painful disadvantage in Afrika, but that surely did not change much the outcome of the war. Even his major victories there changed very little the outcome of the war. However, he DID get awarded a few fancy toys to play with while bailing out the Italians.... the small handful of prototype Tigers in Afrika for example.

Anyhow, you know how things go by now around these forums. When you do allow the Axis to gain victories in places they historically did not, you are going to have a bunch of players bitching on how un-realistic the game is, since OBVIOUSLY no one conquered Britain, so therefore the game is all wrong and not very accurate if Britain could ever fall! (laugh) But we're trailing into another issue there...

When one plays PG, he is never really controlling all the axis units of all the axis nations. He is commanding a few units, while elsewhere we can always assume other generals are battling it out and capable of losing the war on us, hence why despite we are always victorious, our campaign seems to get harder as we move on...

[TheGrayMouser]

My two cents:

Keep the campaign branching as in the original... i dont understand the concept of "missing out" a battle if it isnt linear. Just make all the battles in the campaigns also available as stand alone scenarios.(many games do this as well as the original PG)

**Also, please dont TELL us exactly what it takes to get a major or minor victory in a campaign battle. This was one of the best if not most subtle feature of the original game.... Your panzers are closing in on the last objective hex, they are your best, irreplacable units, there are only 2 turns left... Do you assault and risk them for nothing or take the chance of getting the major victory? NOT knowing is what made the game one of those "just one more turn" syndromes at 3 am.
I always felt PG#2 really dumbed the game down by telling you exactly what what was needed for a major /minor win

[rayduhz]

In the context of this discussion I have a few questions.
(A) If the campaign is linear, what is your motivation to play for major/brilliant victory?
(B) If the campaign is linear, how can you give the player an option to alter history?
(C) And finally, if we look at PG scenarios for example, how do you suggest to make a linear campaign out of all those scens? Many of the scens take place simultaneously. You can of course make several separate linear campaigns from that, but this approach does not give you any real advantages. It is much more fun to fight the entire war with the same troops from 1939 till 1945 than to play small linear fragments of the war.

Strictly speaking from a linear campaign perspective:
(A) more prestige?more core units?better upgrades?more turns/less turns? the list can be very extensive.
(B) history should have the ability to be altered in every scenario. If you want to follow historical perspective, well its quite simple to follow. Stalled in Russia 41, failed El Alamein 42, etc. Some players like to created WHAT IF scenario with many different outcomes.
(C) I do not think you can make ONE linear campaign out of all of the scenarios in PG. If you incorporated different army groups in the east (i.e. north, central, front) that may be able to add more scenarios as well as give a "branching" option. I think the west and med can stay as one front and still encompass all PG scenarios.

Unfortunetly at this point of development, Im not sure how much can be altered.

[Rudankort]

To make this discussion less abstract and more practical, I suggest that people who prefer linear campaigns propose an exact campaign structure (list of scenarios) for a PG-like (operational scale) game.

[Obsolete]

Could you employ an anchor-point, so that after a campaign is complete, these anchors can then be un-locked and the player can then resume from those points taking other branches in the tree? But if you normally am basing these decision points on win/lose, that could create some odd issues, like a strong army being on a weak map, or weak army on a very tuff map. I suppose you could balance this out with adjusted prestige...

[Obsolete]

**Also, please dont TELL us exactly what it takes to get a major or minor victory in a campaign battle.

If this info is HIDDEN from the players, then I can already see what one of the first major rants about this title is going to be upon release.

So be warned...

[uran21]

Actually victory conditions were present in PG only not in the game briefings but in the Read Me file that accompanied the game.

[TheGrayMouser]

**Also, please dont TELL us exactly what it takes to get a major or minor victory in a campaign battle.

If this info is HIDDEN from the players, then I can already see what one of the first major rants about this title is going to be upon release.

So be warned...

I am warned but.....the original game (and allied general if i recall) didnt tell you exactly how to get a major /minor victory, so I can claim rightiously that I am being a purist

[TheGrayMouser]

Actually victory conditions were present in PG only not in the game briefings but in the Read Me file that accompanied the game.

Oops didnt see this post before i posted mine.... Really?? , in the In game biefings it told you how many turns exactly it took to get a major or minor victory?? I never read the read me....
(it has been over 10 years since I have played and i have likly lost many memory cells since then....)

Oh well in any case i still think it would be nice to have these unkown but I understand that many players like more control.

[uran21]

I am warned but.....the original game (and allied general if i recall) didnt tell you exactly how to get a major /minor victory, so I can claim rightiously that I am being a purist Smile

On the contrary, Read Me file I mentioned not only had conditions for victory but also strategy tips to achieve it. But PG is not a puzzle game you can achieve your victory on numerous ways.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm I am wondering if there were differences between the DOS and Windows 95 version of the game....?
In any event no matter , cant wait for the game to be released. BTY i wasnt implying the game should play like a puzzle /// Just knowing that capturing the last V hex in turn 11 vs turn 9 for a majopr/minor detracts from the challenge/emmersion factor (to a small degee) for me personally, and when i play Panzer Corp I will just make sure not to peek at the V conditions

[Obsolete]

Actually victory conditions were present in PG only not in the game briefings but in the Read Me file that accompanied the game.

I also could have sworn this vital info was present to us in the original as well. After his post I had been wondering if perhaps I was just remembering PG-F instead, since the Original was quite a few years ago. But even still, I'm pretty sure the PG community would have had their forums filled with data-sheets breaking down the vic conditions for each scenario if that were the case. After all, this is a prime mechanic to the game. People would be outraged if they didn't have it, and for very good reason.

Please don't force 99% of the community to have to manually look at a piece of paper, or EXPERIMENT through numerous trial & error to play their campaigns optimal. That's just not very good game-designing.

If you really do want to have this critical info hidden, then you had better at least RANDOMIZE it, though that's a whole other can of worms, and I can see the Ladder Clubs crucifying it, since they would think that's a bit too DICY to compare one pro's victory games to another. So one guy gets Brilliant vic for 10 turns, while another only gets Tactic Vic, despite the latter played much better?

[TheGrayMouser]

Actually victory conditions were present in PG only not in the game briefings but in the Read Me file that accompanied the game.

I also could have sworn this vital info was present to us in the original as well. After his post I had been wondering if perhaps I was just remembering PG-F instead, since the Original was quite a few years ago. But even still, I'm pretty sure the PG community would have had their forums filled with data-sheets breaking down the vic conditions for each scenario if that were the case. After all, this is a prime mechanic to the game. People would be outraged if they didn't have it, and for very good reason.

Please don't force 99% of the community to have to manually look at a piece of paper, or EXPERIMENT through numerous trial & error to play their campaigns optimal. That's just not very good game-designing.

If you really do want to have this critical info hidden, then you had better at least RANDOMIZE it, though that's a whole other can of worms, and I can see the Ladder Clubs crucifying it, since they would think that's a bit too DICY to compare one pro's victory games to another. So one guy gets Brilliant vic for 10 turns, while another only gets Tactic Vic, despite the latter played much better?

I doudt any desighner is going to change what they consider a fundamental part of of the game because of 1% ( i guess that might mean myself)

Any ways, i just loaded up my copy of PG Forever. The scenario briefing for the Poland start point campaign states "take all objectives before turn 10, and that "additional reinforcements " might be available for Warsaw if you take it sooner"....
The 1941 start scenario states somehat similarly "take the obectives prior to turn x" (actually they state a date) and that "earlier success could prove decisive"

If a recall correctly the original PG had similar "vagaries" in each briefing....... words like "earlier" and "could" of course are not laser precise...

Nowhere do these briefings appear to state 10 turns major, 8 turns minor 6 turns draw etc... of course this is PG Forever and not the original but whatever.... I like the vagueness of PG F and at least what my perhaps faulty memory recalls from PG original.

Its all good though, although i am surprised how important this is to some to know exactly what is needed... ( not a criticism BTW just didnt realize)

Cheers!