Thoughts about a master campaign

[Zhivago]

I have enjoyed playing the DLCs that have been released thus far, as well as DLC 44 beta. However, after DLC 45 East is released, I wonder if there is some plan by the devs to create one master campaign that kind of mirrors the original Panzer General or even the standard Panzer Corps campaign. Obviously, at present, there is no way to land a knock-out punch and force the Russians to surrender. No matter how much of a whipping the Germans give the Russians in these campaigns in DLC 43 and 44, the message following the successful scenario is always the same "Congratulations on kicking butt, however, unfortunately every other area of the front has been forced back by the Russians and you now have to fight this new fire that has erupted on area X of the front."

I would hope that eventually a campaign tree could be developed that links all of the DLC scenarios together where, for example, if someone got a DV in Moscow in 1941, Russia would be knocked out of the war, or if a DV was achieved at Stalingrad in 1942, the Streets of Moscow map would come up for a final battle in the summer of 1943 or something like this. Strings of decisive victories should be able to change the course of history, or taking certain campaign paths could lead to different results (perhaps random results).

Perhaps when the West DLCs and Africa DLCs are released, if one chose to fight in Africa before taking on Russia, there would be certain pros and cons that would affect the outcome of the war. How about what-if scenarios like, what if the Germans conquered Poland and instead of turning to the west, turned eastward initially. Or if the Germans were victorious in Africa and made it to the Middle East, this would allow greater supplies of oil to allow more units to be utilized in DLC 44 and DLC 45? Capturing certain geographic areas that have certain commodities like oil, steel, wheat, etc, could translate into how many of a certain kind of unit could be fielded in each scenario going forward, etc.

Just kind of thinking aloud here, but ultimately it would be cool to be able to decide what path the Germans took in fighting the war, and each path would have both benefits and penalties going forward.

[taffjones]

If the Dev's could pull something like that out of the bag.It would make for a immense game, so I'll second this idea.

[Mountaineer]

There are a few plausible "what if" scenarios. It would be great if they could be explored and the Axis could see victory instead of getting to 1945 and causing a stalemate at the border. Of course, I also want to see the Allied Corps version of this! The Soviet one would have to be the "Guards Army" since their corps were too small to play at this level

[Zhivago]

Thinking more about this, I think it would be cool to be able to see a large map of Russia and then pick/plan what area you want your core force to fight in, and what objectives you want to strike out towards. More control over the order of campaigns and the objectives would be the focus, instead of being forced to go through a rigid order of campaigns. I guess this is fodder for a possible future variation of Panzer Corps.

[LostAgain]

Would it be impossible after Africa and the west campaigns are out to incorporate them so that you could say play a scenario in the east and then use the same core to play a western scenario? now THAT appeals to me! Also, as far as a scenario that the Germans could win with, how about something that comes after May '45 so that all of the base scenarios until then are still in play but a win in a "future" scenario is possible?

[Zhivago]

Would it be impossible after Africa and the west campaigns are out to incorporate them so that you could say play a scenario in the east and then use the same core to play a western scenario? now THAT appeals to me! Also, as far as a scenario that the Germans could win with, how about something that comes after May '45 so that all of the base scenarios until then are still in play but a win in a "future" scenario is possible?

I think that would be the general idea. I like being able to build a core and watch it strengthen over time, and being able to have your core develop over a series of campaigns and follow you to future battles would be a key element of the game. I think being able to pursue certain objectives by choosing the order in which certain campaigns and battles are fought would make the game more random and different each time you played. I am a big fan of the Civilization series and think if there was a way to keep the freedom of choosing one's path to conquest and control over the development of your core forces, it would be great.

[billmv44]

I would love something like this too. I don't think the war would have ended if Germany took Moscow. I think they would have needed to go all the way to the Urals before victory. Maybe we could have campaign branches that allow for German victory in the east if they take Moscow, Leningrad, Murmansk, Stalingrad, Saratov, Perm and Baku (not in one year). Included would be other cities on the way to those key cities.

[Zhivago]

I would love something like this too. I don't think the war would have ended if Germany took Moscow. I think they would have needed to go all the way to the Urals before victory. Maybe we could have campaign branches that allow for German victory in the east if they take Moscow, Leningrad, Murmansk, Stalingrad, Saratov, Perm and Baku (not in one year). Included would be other cities on the way to those key cities.

Exactly my thoughts...what if the Germans turned towards the southeast after taking Kiev instead of turning north toward Moscow during the 41 campaign and crossed the Volga north of Stalingrad? They could have blocked the Volga and prevented any oil and supplies coming from Baku, or allied supplies from the Caspian Sea. It would be fun to plan your own series of battles and see if you could do better (or worse) than history.

One other idea I had was that the AI should be able to somewhat randomly place its units in starting positions on the board so the battles and campaigns are not so predictable. My other all time favorite game besides Panzer General was/is Civilization. Each time you start a new game of Civilization, there is a completely new computer-generated map, and AI cultures and planet resources are randomly generated all over the map. I know you cannot have this degree of random-ness with Panzer Corps because the game is based on actual history and actual geographical locations. However, introducing some element of randomness to the game would enhance the game's replay-ability.

[El_Condoro]

There is a way to introduce some randomness now - by using zones and AI appearance triggers and time triggers. It would be a fair bit of work but it would operate something like this: if player moves more than 3 units to a zone in the south, an AI division (or whatever) will appear there to counter him; if he goes north, the same; if goes north and south and takes a flag another force will appear somewhere to counter him etc etc. The player won't know what these triggers are unless he inspects the scenario in the editor and so it will appear random as determined from his moves and results. As I said, a lot of work...

[Zhivago]

There is a way to introduce some randomness now - by using zones and AI appearance triggers and time triggers. It would be a fair bit of work but it would operate something like this: if player moves more than 3 units to a zone in the south, an AI division (or whatever) will appear there to counter him; if he goes north, the same; if goes north and south and takes a flag another force will appear somewhere to counter him etc etc. The player won't know what these triggers are unless he inspects the scenario in the editor and so it will appear random as determined from his moves and results. As I said, a lot of work...

It sounds like it would be worth the programming. Unfortunately I am just an idea man, not a computer programmer!

Another thought I had would be to allow a player to apportion some of his prestige to develop advanced weaponry. This was a concept in the old Axis and Allies board game. You could take some of your industrial production points in A&A and buy roles of dice to try and obtain advanced weaponry. Perhaps in this game, such a concept could be introduced whereby if a player gained enough prestige, high command would periodically reward him with use of prototype unit before it was available historically (for example, getting use of a Tiger I in mid-1942 instead of the end of 1942), or a 1943 infantry unit in 1942, etc.

[El_Condoro]

That's a concept from PG2 - the prototype. PzC uses the SE unit bonus but in PG2 it worked as you describe; a player might get a unit 6 months before its availability date for winning a Brilliant Victory (as it was called there).

[Zhivago]

That's a concept from PG2 - the prototype. PzC uses the SE unit bonus but in PG2 it worked as you describe; a player might get a unit 6 months before its availability date for winning a Brilliant Victory (as it was called there).

You're right...I haven't played PG 2 in at least 15 years, so I forgot about that.

[produit]

Making the campaign tree more complex is something. Letting the player choose everything is not so easy.
Let's think about it. If, as it was proposed before, the player in 41 don't go for Moscow but for Baku. If he achieves to capture Baku, we would like to see a reduced quality and less motorized Russian army for further battles. And for example, if you go toward Moscow in 42 or 43, you would really want the influence of the previous battles you won or loss on the combat map of Moscow. What does it mean ? Moscow must be easier to take if you achieved to take the whole southern Russia. Thus, no preplaned map can be made. Everything must be dynamic and depending of your previous battles, from the quality to the quantity of your troops or the enemy ones.

Doing such things would be really complicated and will you have the same interest to play a Moscow map, if there are now enemies because you took the whole Russia before going for Moscow ?

I played a lot HOI 1-2-3 where you can really have a master plan, going north or south. The problem with this kind of game was the duration of the "important battle". As soon as you cracked the Russian army, the rest was just rolling over Russia. Keeping a climax at is can be done in PC is not so easy.
Simpler games such as Time of Wrath/Furry, Commander Europe at war or Making History I/II were also interesting, but less enjoyable, as less complex. I still have to continue to play at War in the East, as it is also a game were going North or South will really have an impact on the duration of the War.

In the end, I enjoy to play PC, and I am not sure that trying to convert it to other games I cited previously would really make it more enjoyable. But I do agree that doing a more complex campaign tree would be really nice. I enjoyed a lot the original PG game, as you could go through Afrika or Russia and achieve a total victory. In PG, winning or losing had a major impact on your campaign, not like it is in the DLC.

The problem in the end, is that for writting a campaign 50 scenarios long with a lot of branches (and choices), you have to write perhaps 300 scenarios... An answer was keeping the campaign short, as in the original PC campaign...

[Zhivago]

Making the campaign tree more complex is something. Letting the player choose everything is not so easy.
Let's think about it. If, as it was proposed before, the player in 41 don't go for Moscow but for Baku. If he achieves to capture Baku, we would like to see a reduced quality and less motorized Russian army for further battles. And for example, if you go toward Moscow in 42 or 43, you would really want the influence of the previous battles you won or loss on the combat map of Moscow. What does it mean ? Moscow must be easier to take if you achieved to take the whole southern Russia. Thus, no preplaned map can be made. Everything must be dynamic and depending of your previous battles, from the quality to the quantity of your troops or the enemy ones.

Doing such things would be really complicated and will you have the same interest to play a Moscow map, if there are now enemies because you took the whole Russia before going for Moscow ?

I played a lot HOI 1-2-3 where you can really have a master plan, going north or south. The problem with this kind of game was the duration of the "important battle". As soon as you cracked the Russian army, the rest was just rolling over Russia. Keeping a climax at is can be done in PC is not so easy.
Simpler games such as Time of Wrath/Furry, Commander Europe at war or Making History I/II were also interesting, but less enjoyable, as less complex. I still have to continue to play at War in the East, as it is also a game were going North or South will really have an impact on the duration of the War.

In the end, I enjoy to play PC, and I am not sure that trying to convert it to other games I cited previously would really make it more enjoyable. But I do agree that doing a more complex campaign tree would be really nice. I enjoyed a lot the original PG game, as you could go through Afrika or Russia and achieve a total victory. In PG, winning or losing had a major impact on your campaign, not like it is in the DLC.

The problem in the end, is that for writting a campaign 50 scenarios long with a lot of branches (and choices), you have to write perhaps 300 scenarios... An answer was keeping the campaign short, as in the original PC campaign...

Keep in mind that the title of my post is Thoughts about a master campaign...that is all I am putting forth. Thoughts, not a fully-realized new game. However, since you asked, I think that in my "what-if" scenario, going southward in 1941 would have its own pros and cons. Every choice in a campaign tree would have its own unique benefits and drawbacks. I realize that this is not War in the East (a game that i have not played, but would like to try once i have a few months' time to learn it).

[dthomas561]

I strongly agree with some kind of master campaign. It does get a bit depressing not having the chance to knock out the USSR and move to the west. I don't know how the developers could do this but if it was possible to have a more old PG tree that would be cool. I also agree that I would pay for this as the old PG is one of my all time favorites and Panzer Corps is right there now. I love playing the game.

[Kerensky]

The best way to approach this is to simply make more campaigns.
For example, make an alternate DLC 1942 that is built in a way that assumes Russia surrendered/signed a peace treaty at the end of DLC 1941 Then import your DLC 41 core into that campaign instead of the current DLC 1942 that exists. This is all entirely possible with the current system in place, all it requires is another campaign to be made.

Because campaigns don't grow on trees, the problem is making enough scenarios and campaigns to explore all the possibilities.
Right now we're invested in making DLC 39-45 purely historical (with the exception of the odd bonus scenario). After that though, who knows? Africa? Historical Italy/West Front? Fictional campaigns? It's simply too early to say anything about those plans at this point.

[ivanov]

Africa? Historical Italy/West Front? Fictional campaigns? It's simply too early to say anything about those plans at this point.

If you were to take a historical approach, it would be more logical to release the African/Italian campaign and the Western campaign 1944-45 as the two independent DLC's.

[do335b6]

Be cool to also see an expansion into the Pacific with German and Japanses forces possibly linking in India.

[LostAgain]

I think that a "fantasy campaign" is almost mandatory. I just completed the '45 beta(2nd) DLC. I think that when one sheppards a core force from '39 to '45 and then the action stops just as his units reach their full potential it's a bit of a let down. Yes, the Axis lost in the real war, but gamers like to think they can win it all, and personally I'm a bit disappointed that plans for a "what if" DLC aren't already in place. That's the point where it would really get interesting. One wouldn't be able to use historical events as a guage regarding what to expect any longer. I LOVED scenarios like Stalingrad for example, but in retrospect I had an idea of what to expect relative to what had happened.

I don't think I'm alone in wanting to take my favourite core to attack North America, or going into the far east, Africa, or anywhere on the globe the programmers imaginations sent me. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I just want to KEEP GOING.

It's your own fault at Slitherine/Matrix. You give a wildly addictive series of DLC's and then...it's over??? Noooooo!

[OmegaMan1]

After that though, who knows? Africa? Historical Italy/West Front? Fictional campaigns?

I'll take all of the above, please...