Slitherine

Just to throw my opinion before too much of the campaign gets made -

The campaign so far "feels smaller" than the original.

As you will have a tutorial in place it makes sense to merge Poland/Warsaw into a single scenario. However the other scenarios - seem less epic then the originals - for example:

Norway in PG was played on a 36x49 map with 22 core units - in PzC it is now 21x32 with only 18 core units

Low Countries was 46x24 with 26 core units (plus numerous aux) - in PzC it is 38x20 with 22 core units.

Obviously it will depend how many scenarios the average campaign path has altogether and what the final core size will be. But, at least in my opinion, especially given the current fragility of units in general, I would rather see a slight increase in map size/unit numbers over the original to allow for a greater degree of customization of the core forces early. (it would also allow the maps to be more detailed and better represent the area they cover)

My personal preference was also for scenarios like Moscow, Balkans, Stalingrad, and The Allied General scenarios with loads of auxilliaries so even if your core force was all 5 star tigers it couldn't possibly be everywhere at once. It also gave you access to less efficient units that would otherwise never be selected for core forces.

Of course IF the scenario/campaign builder are reasonably powerful and easy to use this is less of an issue to me as I can always make my own "big version" later.

The campaign so far "feels smaller" than the original.

This is correct, but done by design, we had some long discussions about it after internal testing, we realise most of you are PGF vets and fans, but for new players we have to make sure the learning curve becomes not too steep.

So the first few scenario`s of the first campaign are gradually getting harder and some what bigger over time.

Don`t worry there are 26 scenario`s on top of the 6 tutorial scenario`s and we believe that after France the new player should have a good feeling about how to play the game and the scenario`s will get much bigger and harder, in the old PGF style so to speak. It is a concession we have to make if you want to make a game that satisfies veteran players and at the same time will not scare a new player away after the first two scenario`s.

A reason why we put them in the Beta at this point so your feedback is proving you noticed.


P.S.

I have also no doubt that, once the map editor is released, ultra big and hard early scenario`s will be provided by the modding community in no time...

boredatwork wrote: Of course IF the scenario/campaign builder are reasonably powerful and easy to use this is less of an issue to me as I can always make my own "big version" later.

Well, scenario builder is now pretty close to what will be released, and it is part of the beta build, so it is more a question to you - is it powerful and easy to use enough to create new scens for PzC? And if not, what features do we still miss?

So with one Poland scenario, is the minimum non-tutorial campaign path like in PG: Poland>Norway>Low Countries>France>Sealion (victory in the West)>Barbarossa starting scenario>early Moscow (victory in the East)>Washington (total victory) or do campaigns last longer even with wins everywhere?

Add Greece to this before Barbarossa and you have path for decisive victories.
Longer campaign path is with minor victories and that way you end up in Berlin if not ending the war before it.

I had a go at building my first scenario.

Can custom scenarios actually be played yet?

It didn't seem too hard to figure out - it took less time to build a basic scenario then it did to type this post! Having said that a bit of basic documentation would be appreciated for people like me who haven't used scenario editors in a while. The basic interface, What the various layers do, the basic steps needed to make a scenario, what needs to be considered if the scenario is intended as part of a campaign, etc. Finishing off the tool tips would also help.

I do have a few feature/interface suggestions: (if any of these is already possible then because of the lack of documentation I couldn't find it!)

- If at all possible create auto road generation - ie I can quickly layout a line of road tiles and have the computer work out which specific road tile art to use to have them all join together (big timesaver!) If possible have it do it dynamically as the road is created instead of an extra step at the end.

- do the same for river and rails.

- if not possible at least draw hexsides around the road tiles in the palette to make it extremely obvious which side they enter and exit on AND sort the tiles by type - ie have all the single entry/single exit point tiles together, followed by all the 2 fork tiles - sub sorted into six groups for all possible entry permutations for each of the six possible exit points etc.

- give an option to simultaneously change the string layer when laying rivers - so that if I'm making a 50 tile long Rhine river I don't have to go over it twice - once to make the visuals and once to label it all "Rhine." A simple drop down box at the top of the river palette would work.

- similarly there didn't seem to be an option to select axis/allied during unit placement - all units seemed to be axis and you had to go in and manually change the side. A pair of radio buttons at the top of the unit palette would be sufficient.

-edit - though now that I think about it for vary large scenarios like the germany scenario having an option at least to set global experience and entrenchment would be a huge timesaver, versus having to open up dialog boxes for 200+ units individually.

- ***********UNDO************ It was too easy to accidently delete or overwrite a labelled experienced overstrength unit when you were trying to move it.

- if a unit has been given a customized name it should be visible upon mouseover so that people attempting to make historically "accurate" (within the limitations of the PzC rules) can see which units they've dealt with and which need work. Indeed a "stats" panel might make sense so XP, Entrenchment, name, equipment stats, etc can all be easily/quickly consulted - likewise when browsing the equipment palette the differences between a PzIA and a PzIB can be determined.

- Bigger paint brushes - painting a 50x50 map 1 hex at a time is like using a 1" brush instead of a roller to paint a room. A set of radio buttons at the top of the terrain pallette would do - 1hex, 3 hex dia, 5 hex dia should be sufficient.


-give an option to make the basic terrain layer expecially semi transparent so that it can still be edited while viewing the pad image beneath it.



Lastly (for now)

- would it be possible to make a feature to import Orders of Battle from other scenarios (as a deployable resource) so that if you had a tendency to enjoy certain match ups or were doing a sequence of battles covering a short period (ex Barbarossa->Kiev->Moscow) where the units would be similar from mission to mission you wouldn't have to recreate the same order of battle from scratch every time? Ideally you could import allied and axis OOBs from seperate scenarios.


- As an offshoot to this concept it would be great, IMO, if OOBs could be imported complete with histories from saved final games so that, for your personal enjoyment obviously, you could build a campaign as you went along - choosing your own path and balancing it on the fly.





Oh - one more thing - partly related to the scenario editor but mostly related to campaign design ->

Would it be possible to have multiple simultaneous core forces in a campaign? Ie two or more core forces each with their own core units and prestige pools that could fight independent scenarios or combine for larger scenarios.

The obvious application being a potential future Allied General Campaign where US and British campaigns could be combined into a single campaign with seperate US and British Core forces sometimes fighting on the same map (breakout from normandy, ardennes, rhineland, Germany, Tunis) and other times fighting seperate (near) simultaneous battles (Market Garden/Metz, Kasserine/Mareth, Cobra/Goodwood).

However it would also be possible to create a wicked long campaign having multiple german forces - especially if you had the option to swap forces between core forces (subject to limitations) - ie group all your FJs together in one core force for the invasion of Crete. Or an African campaign with German & Italian cores.

lordzimoa wrote:This is correct, but done by design, we had some long discussions about it after internal testing, we realise most of you are PGF vets and fans, but for new players we have to make sure the learning curve becomes not too steep.

So the first few scenario`s of the first campaign are gradually getting harder and some what bigger over time.

Again as long as the underlying mechanics are good and I can make my own campaigns you could ship PzC without a campaign and I would still hand over my money - for me a "great in the box campaign" is just icing on the cake (though I never understood that expression - shouldn't it be the cake under the icing )



However what I would be concerned about is the unfair perception among PG fans that PzC is a "dumbed down" remake along the lines of CivRevolution. The game is otherwise so similar that the difference in size between scenarios is very pronounced - not that they need or should be identical to the original (which would be even worse,) but that they are simpler than the originals that obviously inspired them would lend to that perception.

It is a concession we have to make if you want to make a game that satisfies veteran players and at the same time will not scare a new player away after the first two scenario`s.

I would agree IF the only option was, like the original PG, to jump right into the campaign.

However this should be the reason why the tutorial campaign exists should it not? 6 missions is alot of time for new recruits to get used to pushing panzers. Is there any need to then reduce the difficulty of the initial missions further? This is what "easy" difficulty, no supply, no weather, no Fog of war should be for if people are well and truly not able to handle the complexity of the early mission.

Again I'm not saying the missions should be harder at normal difficulty than I remember them being when I first played - I just feel that making them simpler/smaller is probably a mistake. There should be no need to provide a "build 4 farms" level when the tutorial has already taught you how to build farms.


At the very least you could add a Spanish Civil War scenario to take the place of Poland, allowing the current Poland to be the equivalent complexity of Warsaw, and Norway and subsequant scenarios being made bigger/more involved.

Buidling on that you could, if it were easy to provide the guided scenario hints within the tutorial ("Ok now select this unit by left clicking. Now move it HERE by right clicking."), actually provide a tutorial set in the 1930s - starting with the rhineland re-occupation teaching basic interface/movement, followed by maneuvers/wargames taught by Guderian/Richtoffen/Student as they developed the Panzer tactics (basic land combat), airsupport (air units), and paratroop/ship embarkations. The 5th and culminating scenario would be a deployment to spain as part of Condor Legion by which time new recruits should be fully capable of handling the campaign at easy/normal difficulty.

boredatwork wrote:(though I never understood that expression - shouldn't it be the cake under the icing )

I shoulda known, you're a "pie" eater, aren't you? Or is it *gasp* a"cupcake"?


Anyways, there's some good point in this thread, but to start I just have one question.

boredatwork wrote:At the very least you could add a Spanish Civil War scenario to take the place of Poland, allowing the current Poland to be the equivalent complexity of Warsaw, and Norway and subsequant scenarios being made bigger/more involved.

Doesn't the current Poland scenario of the campaign already reflect Warsaw from the original? Original PG Poland had no air, and Warsaw was the first scenario to have air units, which current Poland does. Warsaw had three victory hexes, current Poland has three. And the northeast VH city in new Poland looks remarkably like Warsaw, except instead of the other VH city being across the city to the NW, that city was replaced by a single fort. That city was then moved a short distance to the west and is now the city with the fortifications in front and airfield adjacent.

Kerensky wrote:

boredatwork wrote:(though I never understood that expression - shouldn't it be the cake under the icing )

I shoulda known, you're a "pie" eater, aren't you? Or is it *gasp* a"cupcake"?

I merely meant that given the choice between "cake" and the "icing" on top I would prefer the later - the cake is just a socially acceptable excuse to eat icing in much the same way that pancakes or waffles are just a socially acceptable excuse to consume maple syrup.

Doesn't the current Poland scenario of the campaign already reflect Warsaw from the original? Original PG Poland had no air, and Warsaw was the first scenario to have air units, which current Poland does.

It does - which is my point - lordzimoa's justification for reducing the size of Norway, LowCo, and France was to not scare new people away from the campaign. However as the current starting scenario (Poland) already exceeds the complexity of the second scenario in the original campaign (Warsaw) then there seems to be less need to reduce subsequant scenarios below their original PG complexity.

Hence my suggestion that if a pre-poland scenario (or better yet the tutorial) can aclimatize new players to the point where the complexity of the "New Poland" scenario doesn't scare them off then New Poland is a perfect bridge into following scenarios of similar scope to the original, IMO. (or better yet make Norway and following scenarios more complex than the originals in the same proportion that New Poland is to Old Warsaw)

I wasn't really talking about food.

And yea, now I see your point about scenario design, I just got a little lost in the wording.

uran21 wrote:Add Greece to this before Barbarossa and you have path for decisive victories.
Longer campaign path is with minor victories and that way you end up in Berlin if not ending the war before it.

Maybe it's just me, and I'll be blunt, I can't help but feel disappointed after I read that.

I always felt players like longer paths and because the ultimate victory path is the shortest one (and in game balance we should make it hardest one) found it suitable to make choice after decisive victory in early Sealion so you can chose to go Barbarossa right away or to go to Greece if you want an extra scenario.
Or something else you disliked?

boredatwork wrote:I had a go at building my first scenario.

Can custom scenarios actually be played yet?

Yes they can, but you will need to add them manually to the scen selection screen. An option to view all available scens, including custom ones, in a big list will be added later. Check out UI/gamesetup.htm file, it is plain text and it should be pretty clear how to add a custom scen. If it is not, I'll explain further.

boredatwork wrote:It didn't seem too hard to figure out - it took less time to build a basic scenario then it did to type this post! Having said that a bit of basic documentation would be appreciated for people like me who haven't used scenario editors in a while. The basic interface, What the various layers do, the basic steps needed to make a scenario, what needs to be considered if the scenario is intended as part of a campaign, etc. Finishing off the tool tips would also help.

Of course we'll add more documentation, but later, after the code is finalized. I'll have to make the first draft of all docs myself, and I have my hands full with code at the moment.

boredatwork wrote: I do have a few feature/interface suggestions: (if any of these is already possible then because of the lack of documentation I couldn't find it!)

- If at all possible create auto road generation - ie I can quickly layout a line of road tiles and have the computer work out which specific road tile art to use to have them all join together (big timesaver!) If possible have it do it dynamically as the road is created instead of an extra step at the end.

- do the same for river and rails.

You are not supposed to draw tiles manually in most cases. After you are done with terrain and terrain features layers, invoke Tools->Generate Tiles and you'll get it all done for you. Then, you will only need to fixs a few things like river mouths and fortifications.

boredatwork wrote: - if not possible at least draw hexsides around the road tiles in the palette to make it extremely obvious which side they enter and exit on AND sort the tiles by type - ie have all the single entry/single exit point tiles together, followed by all the 2 fork tiles - sub sorted into six groups for all possible entry permutations for each of the six possible exit points etc.

Actually, it is a good idea, even if with Generate Tiles command in your hands it won't be too important.

boredatwork wrote: - give an option to simultaneously change the string layer when laying rivers - so that if I'm making a 50 tile long Rhine river I don't have to go over it twice - once to make the visuals and once to label it all "Rhine." A simple drop down box at the top of the river palette would work.

Exact implementation may vary, but the general idea to name full river with one click would be nice.

boredatwork wrote: - similarly there didn't seem to be an option to select axis/allied during unit placement - all units seemed to be axis and you had to go in and manually change the side. A pair of radio buttons at the top of the unit palette would be sufficient.

Unit side depends on the settings for nations, done in Edit/Scenario Params/Nations. So, whe you place a soviet unit, the editor checks what side soviets fight for in this scen. If this is specified, the side should be correct.

boredatwork wrote: -edit - though now that I think about it for vary large scenarios like the germany scenario having an option at least to set global experience and entrenchment would be a huge timesaver, versus having to open up dialog boxes for 200+ units individually.

Interesting idea.

boredatwork wrote: - ***********UNDO************ It was too easy to accidently delete or overwrite a labelled experienced overstrength unit when you were trying to move it.

Even if any change is easy to revert, a full-blown undo would of course add some convenience, agreed.

boredatwork wrote: - if a unit has been given a customized name it should be visible upon mouseover so that people attempting to make historically "accurate" (within the limitations of the PzC rules) can see which units they've dealt with and which need work. Indeed a "stats" panel might make sense so XP, Entrenchment, name, equipment stats, etc can all be easily/quickly consulted - likewise when browsing the equipment palette the differences between a PzIA and a PzIB can be determined.

We have the stats we thought were most important in the status bar, do you think we should show name,XP etc. there? A real stats panel would help too, of course.

boredatwork wrote: - Bigger paint brushes - painting a 50x50 map 1 hex at a time is like using a 1" brush instead of a roller to paint a room. A set of radio buttons at the top of the terrain pallette would do - 1hex, 3 hex dia, 5 hex dia should be sufficient.

I have a feeling that the benefit of this feature will not justify time spent on implementing it. Probably we should allow the user to fill the map with some initial tile (most often this will be clear and sea), but then most features are quite small, and it is easier and faster to draw them hex by hex. I. e. you see a forest in this hex in a pad map -> you draw forest there. You don't need to think what brush to select to draw a few hexes at a time and still match the pad map.

boredatwork wrote: -give an option to make the basic terrain layer expecially semi transparent so that it can still be edited while viewing the pad image beneath it.

I'm afraid that in most cases this will make the editor window a mess. You can quickly toggle terrain layer on and off (F1 hotkey if I'm not mistaken). If you need to check if you planted terrain in a hex correctly might be easier than looking at blended layers all the time?

boredatwork wrote: - would it be possible to make a feature to import Orders of Battle from other scenarios (as a deployable resource) so that if you had a tendency to enjoy certain match ups or were doing a sequence of battles covering a short period (ex Barbarossa->Kiev->Moscow) where the units would be similar from mission to mission you wouldn't have to recreate the same order of battle from scratch every time? Ideally you could import allied and axis OOBs from seperate scenarios.

- As an offshoot to this concept it would be great, IMO, if OOBs could be imported complete with histories from saved final games so that, for your personal enjoyment obviously, you could build a campaign as you went along - choosing your own path and balancing it on the fly.

Interesting idea, but quite time-consuming to implement, so probably not in this release.

boredatwork wrote: Oh - one more thing - partly related to the scenario editor but mostly related to campaign design ->

Would it be possible to have multiple simultaneous core forces in a campaign? Ie two or more core forces each with their own core units and prestige pools that could fight independent scenarios or combine for larger scenarios.

The obvious application being a potential future Allied General Campaign where US and British campaigns could be combined into a single campaign with seperate US and British Core forces sometimes fighting on the same map (breakout from normandy, ardennes, rhineland, Germany, Tunis) and other times fighting seperate (near) simultaneous battles (Market Garden/Metz, Kasserine/Mareth, Cobra/Goodwood).

However it would also be possible to create a wicked long campaign having multiple german forces - especially if you had the option to swap forces between core forces (subject to limitations) - ie group all your FJs together in one core force for the invasion of Crete. Or an African campaign with German & Italian cores.

I know some people would love to have that, but this will require quite some changes not only in the editor, but in game engine and UI. But as a possible direction for future development it is a good idea.

Rudankort wrote: You are not supposed to draw tiles manually in most cases. After you are done with terrain and terrain features layers, invoke Tools->Generate Tiles and you'll get it all done for you. Then, you will only need to fixs a few things like river mouths and fortifications.

Oh! Yes I had figured out "Generate Tiles" for terrain but the terrain features layer wasn't obvious! - I saw the diagonal lines and thought "airfields"

Kerensky wrote:Maybe it's just me, and I'll be blunt, I can't help but feel disappointed after I read that.

I think, this point is actually very important, so it would be very interesting to hear your opinion on this. What kind of campaign path do you see for a player who beats all battles hands down (change the history path)? It is clear we can add Spain etc. in the beginning, but it will not help much I think, because beginning scens are smallest anyway (or you have no space to build your core gradually). So, what campaign tree would you propose?

I'd be in favour of a campaign path that's a bit more in line with what would be historically possible. Possibly, there could be two campaigns: more or less regular PG and a more historical campaign.

Sea Lion was in my opinion not likely to succeed or to happen in general, so I'd be in favour of removing that scenario, as well as the Washington scenario. I was a big fan of the PG2 campaigns where, even if you got all OV's, you would still only manage to win by not losing as the Germans. However, due to the scale of Panzer Corps, a major victory in the campaign could be possible, but not just by capturing Moscow/winning against the Western Allies.

Maybe something like: Spain (possibly), Poland, Norway, Low Countries, France (decisive victory>Greece), France 2, Greece, Barbarossa (decisive victory>early Moscow, if decisive victory in early Moscow>Leningrad, Kiev or defending Moscow), Kiev, Moscow, (if Moscow is captured>Soviet winter offensive, defending Moscow), Rostov, Fall Blau, Soviet winter 1942-1943 offensive in the AGS area, Zitadelle (if decisive victory>some Italy scenario), Orel, some Italy scenario, Overlord (if decisive victory: final scenario in the west), two variants of Bagration, one the historical version and one aimed at Moscow if all other scenarios in the east were decisively won (decisive victory: final scenario in the east), if Overlord was not finished with a decisive victory: Ardennes (decisive victory: final scenario in the west), if Bagration wasn't won: Hungary or East Prussia (decisive victory: final scenario in the east). If both the Soviets and Western Allies have not been stopped: Germany with an attack from two sides, if one side has been stopped: attack from one side. Major victory if Overlord and Bagration have both been won with a decisive victory, minor victory if Ardennes and Hungary/East Prussia were won, draw if you win the scenario where one side or both sides get to Germany.

Shortest campaign path: 17 scenarios.