Slitherine

This is not meant as a criticism thread. I`m actually interested in other people`s perspectives and the lines bellow simply detail mine for comparison.

I haven`t played the `42 campaign yet and I`m not sure if I should either. The problem for me is the lack of motivation for playing these campaigns once the tide turns. So I`m wondering what motivates people to do their best if that doesn`t matter on the long run. I`d like to hear some opinions.

Now, I get that "you`re a small cog" out of the whole big war and that you can`t change things dramatically on the world scene personally, but since the player is involved in the key battles of the war I`d still expect some sort of impact. If you don`t achieve anything at all, why put effort into bettering your units, why struggle to win decisively, why play at all? Basically whatever you do, the AI will still have the last laugh as I understand it. Basically once you start one of these DLC campaigns from 1941 onwards you know that while the content might be different, the outcome can only be one no matter how good or poor(to some extent at least) you play.
Do you know those TV shows where each episode ends by returning to the status quo? If the family wins the lottery the only thing unclear is how they`ll manage to lose the ticket before the end of the episode; if they replace their old car with a new one it`s just a matter of finding out how the new car is lost and somehow the old car makes its way back by the end of the half hour; if a natural disaster destroys the family`s neighborhood the family will be relocated to another suburb with identical houses so that if you`ve missed this episode you wouldn`t know the disaster happened; if a new child is born someone had a dream; if a main cast character decides to move and start a new carrier he changes his mind and decides to stay..
That`s how the DLC campaigns seem to me at this point. The issue not being that you don`t change the overall picture, but that you don`t achieve anything at all. I`m talking about this purely with gameplay in mind, not historical accuracy or anything else. Normally, if you lose a game you start all over again and I thought that`s because you lost, not because the game stops you to continue. Of course, I could just skip these german campaigns and play the allied ones when they arrive, but what worries me is that before something like that could happen we`re looking at potentially 6 more DLC campaigns of defeat.

“Focus on the journey, not the destination. Joy is found not in finishing an activity but in doing it.”

I guess I focus on just meeting each individual challenge. Is it more appealing that the DLC would allow me to win the war? Yep. In baseball, I was a good hitter on a bad team. I knew that even if I hit .400+ for the season, my team would still have a losing record. That didn't stop me from trying to get hits.

Aloo wrote:“Focus on the journey, not the destination. Joy is found not in finishing an activity but in doing it.”

Agreed. I personaly detest such an improbable events like the US invasion. Think about it - if in your game you are taking a role of a motorized/panzer corps leader, the performance of your units wouldn't change the final outcome of the war. No matter how successful you were.

My goal while playing is to win the scenario. I don't really care where the path leads as long as I have fun playing and finishing the game. It also helps that I think once they figure it out that they will release some kind of new DLC / main campaign that allows you to make a difference in the outcome. But mostly I just love the game.

Aloo wrote:“Focus on the journey, not the destination. Joy is found not in finishing an activity but in doing it.”

lol
I tend to do the opposite so that probably explains it. Joke aside, the issue I see is why make a campaign if all you want is to just play the game without achieving some long term result? Scenarios would suffice for that end I think.

ivanov wrote: Agreed. I personaly detest such an improbable events like the US invasion. Think about it - if in your game you are taking a role of a motorized/panzer corps leader, the performance of your units wouldn't change the final outcome of the war. No matter how successful you were.

I`d so wish people actually read the first post before replying to it.

What people expect as a reword for playing to their best is probably tailored to each person. My point was not that you should win the war or end up in America, but that you should make some sort of impression. At the end of each year campaign and/or at the end of the overall campaign. If you have a campaign you should be able to show some sort of positive result(I`m open to suggestions as to what that could be) at the end of it if you do your "job" well. If nothing happens then, again, why not just play some scenarios? Surely, for all of you "historical accuracy" people playing preset scenarios would be even closer to your goals since it has the starting unit composition closer to the historical reality than taking your core army with you.

As a conclusion, my point so far is that for a campaign to be more than just a collection of scenarios there has to be some sort of reword. The player should imo feel his efforts materialize into something. That he makes some sort of impression, no matter to what extent.

Thanks to all the repliers btw!

In all the debriefings you get the "pat on the back" saying good job. Thats all I need.

I like the idea of going for the whole war while building my core - scenarios don't allow for that. Also it is interesting how my core will fare in 44-45 while on defense.
You do get some missions based on your performance (spoils of war, rush moscow, storming sevastopol etc.).

Aloo wrote:In all the debriefings you get the "pat on the back" saying good job. Thats all I need.

I know there`s a "good job" after each campaign year. It`s the certainty of a "but"(", it doesn`t matter") to come after it which makes it seem irritating.
EDIT: what I`d like to hear in those briefings at the least btw is that because of the player`s outstanding actions some prepared enemy offensive, encirclement etc. has been avoided. Which can be done because PzC only focuses on a relatively small area of the front. So you could argue that some sort of defeat/battle was avoided in an area of the front which is not present in the next year`s campaign. The reason for that can be that the enemy had to shift some forces because of the losses the player caused in his sector. This minimal thing can give you an impression of achieving ... something...

I like the idea of going for the whole war while building my core - scenarios don't allow for that.

True. Still, from my perspective, that`s more like a succession of historical battles(some other games have such an option in addition to a campaign) imo. The bonus missions are also pretty much unlocked scenarios, not victories or battles that change anything. The campaign of a game should imo leave some room for an unexpected outcome. You get here if you do good, there if you do just ok and so on. What I fear is lacking here is any sort of variation of the outcome(be it even modest) depending on how you`ve played.

But variation based on the outcome would mean you need to branch-out the campaign. And we all know what that would mean looking at development cost and time.

Aloo wrote:But variation based on the outcome would mean you need to branch-out the campaign. And we all know what that would mean looking at development cost and time.

I`ve made an edit to my previous post regarding the briefings. That`s one possible solution imo to make the player feel he`s making some sort of impact. In addition you could avoid branching the campaign midway and just use those actions mentioned above to explain a branching of the final year campaign alone, causing a slightly different result depending on the results of the previous years. For example. This being a minimalistic solution.

Youre only on the 41 campaign, whats to say in future campaigns, your actions wont win the war? Now I would agree if we get to say 43 and there is no way to end/win the war in the East that might not be so good for the game.

Cheers

Unless the dev (and indirctly the players) are willing to make maps which simply can not be played (other than as stand-alone battles) I see no way how the campaign can be more dynamic.

But yes, I like the idea of the year-end debriefing having a more personal touch based on what you have achieved based on how well you did perform. Maybe a page with battle-honors and/or some medals for our glorious leader

Anfield wrote:Youre only on the 41 campaign, whats to say in future campaigns, your actions wont win the war? Now I would agree if we get to say 43 and there is no way to end/win the war in the East that might not be so good for the game.

Cheers

I take it you`re new and do not know yet that the - officially presented - plan is for the player to not change the course of the war at all? Yes, there`s no way to win the war in the east or even lose it to a lesser degree than in reality. 45 will find you in Berlin no matter what you do.
viewtopic.php?p=289688#289688

charonjr wrote: But yes, I like the idea of the year-end debriefing having a more personal touch based on what you have achieved based on how well you did perform. Maybe a page with battle-honors and/or some medals for our glorious leader

Well, yes, something to make you feel you`ve done more than just observing the course of the war.

Oh sure spoil the outcome for me Mark But good to know, but is gonna make the next few years (in campaigns) of the game drag on now knowing that. All the more reason they need to get an Allied campaign released, im almost done with 42, and getting tired of being the Germans.

Maybe they let us play 'til the Battle of the Bulge, and when you win there it's Sealion 45, followed by a US invasion right away....naaah

Overall to the OP, I personally enjoyed playing on the losing path in other PG games. You got to play some different scenarios that way, and could see to stop the enemy onslaught (though after awhile that became easy). I agree however that it should be possible to reach an alternative campaign outcome like in vanilla 39.

... silently enters the debate ...

If you are still winning the war after the 1942 DLC, kudos to you.
In this case I suggest raising the difficulty and to join me in my fight for survival against the red hordes!


I see conflicting interests here that simply cannot be served:

1.) Win the battles, swing the tide of the war
2.) Stay as close as possible to history

-> this does not go together. The DLC campaign serves 2 and many people wished for that, while 1 is focus of the default campaign.
Seriously, who did not intentionally lose to play the "historical" path of the war in the default campaign?

The DLCs are going to offer "hard(er)" and "easy" paths, but the wish to branch like this is unrealistic (IMO).
This is something that is more appropriate for a possible future "Panzer Corps Africa" or something like that. You probably get my idea.

In this case I suggest raising the difficulty and to join me in my fight for survival against the red hordes!

I agree, if you think the game is too easy, play on a higher difficulty. Or use modified equipment files that buff the AI. If you ever check out my posts in the beta forums, I always complain the DLCs are too easy, it's kinda my thing. But I think the DLCs are incredibly good products, especially since they are only $5, and I've had more entertainment from them than I have had from many $60 games.

All I cared about was having about 50 scenarios on the Ostfront. That looks like a reality with the 4 years of DLCs, which is just fantastic for me personally. There's nothing quite like fighting the endless hordes of Soviets. Then they will have the Afrika expansion, hopefully followed by 3 years of DLC West fighting the British and Americans (Italy, Normandy, Ardennes44, Ruhr).

As for changing history, if the DLCs are very successful, surely there will be some options for ahistorical campaigns.

Anfield wrote:Oh sure spoil the outcome for me Mark

Yep, sorry to tell you, but you`ve begun losing this campaign the moment you`ve started it. Funny, huh?

But good to know, but is gonna make the next few years (in campaigns) of the game drag on now knowing that. All the more reason they need to get an Allied campaign released, im almost done with 42, and getting tired of being the Germans.

That`s how I`m starting to feel about it now. Since the `42 campaign came with no patch(and `43 might come solo too) there`s no new units, no new features, just more maps of germans battling the russians. And anyone who`s read history can also tell the outcome. It tends to become rather uneventful in a sense.

bebro wrote:Maybe they let us play 'til the Battle of the Bulge, and when you win there it's Sealion 45, followed by a US invasion right away....naaah

That would be more about some sort of conditional surrender imo.

Overall to the OP, I personally enjoyed playing on the losing path in other PG games. You got to play some different scenarios that way, and could see to stop the enemy onslaught (though after awhile that became easy).

Yes, I did that too. Still, it always ended with some reward for your troubles. Even the defensive campaigns of PG2 from the later years would still bring some sort of lesser defeat if nothing else. You still felt you`ve influenced things to some extent.

Longasc wrote: I see conflicting interests here that simply cannot be served:

Only if you want to be extreme about it. I wasn`t actually.

1.) Win the battles, swing the tide of the war
2.) Stay as close as possible to history

There is also of course a middle way that pleases everyone entirely, but we should drop that because clearly the devs don`t have enough resources to create alternative scenarios through the entire course of the campaign to fit numerous alternative courses of the war(without eliminating the historical ones so you could also play "historical" - in an outcome of the war sense - if you`d want to). This btw is the only reason why it is "unrealistic". If the resources and demand were there it could be achieved wonderfully in terms of gameplay.

What I`ve asked for is actually your number 2, only that you looked at it more narrowly than me. My view(taking into account the developing limitations) is this: you`d stay close to history(which doesn`t mean copy it as that`s not possible anyway), follow its general path and towards the end you achieve one result or another. Of course, if you`ve generally followed history, by 1945 it`s not a matter of wining at all, but of avoiding a total defeat at best. Still, that`s one outcome to which you`d feel you`ve contributed to and would have some sort of gaming satisfaction.

deducter wrote: As for changing history, if the DLCs are very successful, surely there will be some options for ahistorical campaigns.

This thread is not about changing history per se. It`s about the fact(as I perceive it) that the current system does not take into account the way the player plays at all and that it does not give the player any sort of motivation to play good or bad in terms of the result which is the same no matter how you go about it. The solution could be as simple as the cosmetics suggested above(medals, more personal briefings) or a sleight alteration of the final missions of the final campaign year, leaving the rest as they are.

EDIT: and btw, the current DLC campaign is already ahistorical. The germans did not take Moscow in reality, nor did Romania invade Yugoslavia, nor did the germans and russians fight a full scale battle in Poland 1939. It`s just that these ahistorical scenarios that are already present don`t give you any sort of benefits in the campaign. You just play an ahistorical battle without having any impact whatsoever on the course of the war.

I know I lost battles in the main campaign on purpose so that I could play more scenarios but with the DLCs you get to keep going pretty much no matter what which is nice.

I think eventually they will have alternate history DLCs that can fit in with the other historical scenarios. It wouldn't be that hard to have an invasion of Britain DLC for instance.

Mark50 wrote:
As a conclusion, my point so far is that for a campaign to be more than just a collection of scenarios there has to be some sort of reword. The player should imo feel his efforts materialize into something. That he makes some sort of impression, no matter to what extent.

The trouble is that I can't see how all those split up DLC:s could have a mechanism do this. If you for example win in Stalingrad, you could be directed to do an offensive in the Caucasus and then end up in Iran or the Suez. But the saved core in the next DLC puts you directly at the battle of Kursk, regardless of your previous achivements.

Maybe this sort of diversity could be made once all the planned DLC:s have been published.

But I agree with some of the other repliers, I like the challenge of each scenario and building of my core units.