Any possibility for this feature in Panzer Corps? Something in the order of Co-op (USA and British joint operations would be perfect for this) or Versus, such as an Eastern Front campaign.
Co-op would be a nice new addition, but considering the mechanics of PG and PzC I'm guessing it's not likely to happen. The game would be two players vs an AI, one player does his turn, then the other player, then the AI? That just sounds convoluted.
However, a competitive campaign, that would be spectacular to see. Instead of just playing a single scenario against someone, where you can blindly discard your units so long as you win your Pyrrhic victory, you have to consider future operations.
There would be a whole new aspect to consider:
Do you play aggressively, capturing VH and other objectives quickly and expensively to influence the next scenario of the campaign.
Or
Play cautiously, making sure to baby your wounded units, preserving your core instead of taking gambles with damaged units at the cost of settling for a tactical victory instead of a brilliant one.
You have the balance preserving your elite units with the need to achieve your long term goals.
Multi-player... campaigns
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Some examples and possibilities.
Barbarossa, one German one Russian player.
The German player plays very aggressively, spending prestige as quickly as he earns it, taking constant risks by continuing to attack with damaged units in an effort to influence where the campaign moves to next. Instead of becoming bogged down in a Kiev scenario, the German player receives the option to go for an 'Early Moscow' campaign path.
The Russian player decides to play passively, doing his best to retreat and preserve and core units with some experience, using cheap infantry and ATG to slow down the German player while also killing a few overextended units the German player has risked and lost.
So after one or two costly brilliant victories, the German player's forces and prestige is fairly depleted, while the Russian player has used those two scenarios to preserve a solid core and stockpile a mountain of prestige. Now the Russian player switches to an aggressive play style, and the campaign momentum swings in favor of the Russians while the German player has to start playing defensively or risk losing the majority of his core to overwhelming forces.
Another possibility is if the Soviet player is aggressive right from the start, limiting the German player to only tactical victories or maybe even a few loses early on, which will change the course of the campaign.
Some considerations about these campaigns though:
Almost certainly they will end up going down fictional paths.
Large campaigns may not fit very well. For example, what happens if the Russian players gets a brilliant victory in the first scenario of a Barbarossa campaign? Still goes to Kiev, or do the Russians go on the offensive into Poland?
Historical accuracy would definitely take second seat to good game play for this to be viable.
Smaller operations would fit into this idea much better. For example, a see-saw struggle in a Stalingrad, Kursk, or Dnieper River crossings.
How do you determine who 'wins'? Well in an example of a multiplayer campaign lasting 5 scenarios, each scenario is worth so many points. Maybe by the state of the VHs at the end of the scenario, or who won and with what kind of victory, players accumulate points.
Simplest way is a brilliant victory is worth 3, a victory is worth 2, a tactical is worth 1. Obviously a loss is either a BV, V, or TV, for the other player, so in that case they get points instead. Person with highest score at the end of 5 scenarios wins.
Or each scenario generates points depending on the conditions of the VHs at the end of the scenario. Each VH owned is 1 point. Let's say each of the 5 scenarios has 11 VH each. Depending who owns how much, the players score increases accordingly.
You now have a campaign that can play as follows:
Do I rush and grab as many VH as possible in the early scenarios at the cost of my forces, then switch to a defensive stance and damage control in later scenarios?
Do I play cautiously, grabbing just enough VH to have a slight lead over my opponent and preserve my core as best as I can, at the risk of suddenly losing my minor advantage in the final scenario?
All of this sounds good as ideas, but actual implementation, balancing, and testing are what will make or break this. But that's what beta tests are for, right?
Barbarossa, one German one Russian player.
The German player plays very aggressively, spending prestige as quickly as he earns it, taking constant risks by continuing to attack with damaged units in an effort to influence where the campaign moves to next. Instead of becoming bogged down in a Kiev scenario, the German player receives the option to go for an 'Early Moscow' campaign path.
The Russian player decides to play passively, doing his best to retreat and preserve and core units with some experience, using cheap infantry and ATG to slow down the German player while also killing a few overextended units the German player has risked and lost.
So after one or two costly brilliant victories, the German player's forces and prestige is fairly depleted, while the Russian player has used those two scenarios to preserve a solid core and stockpile a mountain of prestige. Now the Russian player switches to an aggressive play style, and the campaign momentum swings in favor of the Russians while the German player has to start playing defensively or risk losing the majority of his core to overwhelming forces.
Another possibility is if the Soviet player is aggressive right from the start, limiting the German player to only tactical victories or maybe even a few loses early on, which will change the course of the campaign.
Some considerations about these campaigns though:
Almost certainly they will end up going down fictional paths.
Large campaigns may not fit very well. For example, what happens if the Russian players gets a brilliant victory in the first scenario of a Barbarossa campaign? Still goes to Kiev, or do the Russians go on the offensive into Poland?
Historical accuracy would definitely take second seat to good game play for this to be viable.
Smaller operations would fit into this idea much better. For example, a see-saw struggle in a Stalingrad, Kursk, or Dnieper River crossings.
How do you determine who 'wins'? Well in an example of a multiplayer campaign lasting 5 scenarios, each scenario is worth so many points. Maybe by the state of the VHs at the end of the scenario, or who won and with what kind of victory, players accumulate points.
Simplest way is a brilliant victory is worth 3, a victory is worth 2, a tactical is worth 1. Obviously a loss is either a BV, V, or TV, for the other player, so in that case they get points instead. Person with highest score at the end of 5 scenarios wins.
Or each scenario generates points depending on the conditions of the VHs at the end of the scenario. Each VH owned is 1 point. Let's say each of the 5 scenarios has 11 VH each. Depending who owns how much, the players score increases accordingly.
You now have a campaign that can play as follows:
Do I rush and grab as many VH as possible in the early scenarios at the cost of my forces, then switch to a defensive stance and damage control in later scenarios?
Do I play cautiously, grabbing just enough VH to have a slight lead over my opponent and preserve my core as best as I can, at the risk of suddenly losing my minor advantage in the final scenario?
All of this sounds good as ideas, but actual implementation, balancing, and testing are what will make or break this. But that's what beta tests are for, right?