Spanish Civil War DLC?

[Ballacraine]

Well, how about it?

I think it would make an excellent additional Grand Campaign.

It would give a chance to use some interesting 'new' older units.

At the end of the campaign it would be nice if we could import the experienced core to Grand Campaign 39

What do you think?

Balla.

[Longasc]

I have the gut feeling they have more substantial things on the agenda than another DLCs atm, now that the Grand Campaign series is finished.

[Anfield]

I like the idea, but maybe after they get the Western Allies up and running.

[dumbttt]

I think they should focus on a new game with improved engine at this point, or at least a substantial expansion pack. Making yet another DLC gives the impression that they are just trying to milk PzC players.

[KeldorKatarn]

Trying to milk us?!? You realize that the GC DLC series is pretty much every wargamer's wet dream since Panzer General? I wouldn't mind being milked a bit more like that...

Seriously, these DLCs were incredibly fair in price in terms of gameplay per buck and at the same time probably cheaper to produce than fully fledged campaign so with them both the devs and we players profited. Also I'm pretty sure that the GC DLCs incomes are largely providing the budget for the upcoming larger campaigns like the Allied Corps that's coming up. So really... this is hardly milking. Skin packs and selling one shiny gun for 20 bucks, THAT's milking. This here is how all DLC should be!

[dumbttt]

Trying to milk us?!? You realize that the GC DLC series is pretty much every wargamer's wet dream since Panzer General? I wouldn't mind being milked a bit more like that...

Seriously, these DLCs were incredibly fair in price in terms of gameplay per buck and at the same time probably cheaper to produce than fully fledged campaign so with them both the devs and we players profited. Also I'm pretty sure that the GC DLCs incomes are largely providing the budget for the upcoming larger campaigns like the Allied Corps that's coming up. So really... this is hardly milking. Skin packs and selling one shiny gun for 20 bucks, THAT's milking. This here is how all DLC should be!

Unlike you, I do not profess to know the content of every wargamer's wet dream. I do know, however, that if all of their wet dreams involve anything resembling PzC, Slitherine will not need income from DLCs o provide budget for sequels. In fact, I don't think PzC has managed to capture many hearts not already enamored with the old PG. PzC is a great PG remake, but could use some more innovation. I agree with you that the DLCs aren't as bad as some other DLCs on the market.

[Longasc]

I agree that Panzer Corps DLCs are great value for money, unlike so many other DLCs out there. But I also doubt many besides us die-hard fans bought the. Think of Fallout and Skyrim, really big sellers, but the DLCs were only bought by a very low fraction of those who bought the main game. They cost quite a lot of money to make but sell for a rather low price nevertheless and the public interest and sales are not as high as we "gamer"/"wargamer" dudes think.

I think Slitherine/Matrix/Lordz experimented with Afrika Korps and the DLCs to see what makes more money compared to the effort. The higher priced larger stand-alone package of scenarios or the DLCs. I personally think we got the better end of the deal with the DLCs.

There is of course room for improvement. The DLCs are in for a revamp and maybe a grand package of all DLCs, some bugs are to be fixed and the devs (to avoid saying Slitherine/Matrix/Lordz over and over again...^^) are again to be praised for that. There is no money to be made there, many companies wouldn't do that.

Panzer Corps/Afrika Korps and all DLCs are 6.08GB downloaded. Installed only 1.03 GB. So yeah, there is room for improvement how the DLCs and stuff get handled.


Slightly going off-topic, rather than another DLC I would also rather like to see a Western Allies campaign or a Pacific Corps with improved mechanics, briefings and objectives plus unit abilities better explained and integrated into the UI etc..

[Rudankort]

If there is an overwhelming demand for more DLCs, we might consider making them. Feel free to make a poll for this or something.

Of course, this does not mean there will not be other "bigger and better things", in fact we are already working hard on them.

[Ballacraine]

Am I able to add a poll with the edit function or do I need to start another thread?

Balla. :0/

[KeldorKatarn]

I really doubt the PzC team produces the DLC just to be nice to us. I'm pretty sure they earn money with it and compared to a fully fledged campaign with new unit graphics and voicovers and other stuff the GC DLCs should be very cheap to produce in comparison and should make money. No company produces games just for the fun of it, especially not DLC wich blocks important few but important personell. As for inovation, no be honest, SSI did lots of "inovation" after Panzer general. All of it bad, which caused the downfall of the franchise in the end. What Rudankort (which as I understand it was the main dev behind all this) and the Lords did here was capture the heart and core of what made Panzer general good and improved slightly on it where necessary and while staying true to what made the game great. The DLCs and the patches and especially AK then went ahead and slowly added new features while always being careful not to touch the core virtues. That is very very good game design and good work. So I think this product deserves every penny, no matter how "niche" it might be nowadays. I am actually glad it is niche, because I don't want to see what a Blizzard or EA would have done to the product to make it "mass market" *shudders*
So from again from one (actually now ex-) game dev to another: Job well done. I recently read several reviews of the old Panzer General and while it was praised for a lot there were a few critiques, and guess what, you guys managed to get rid of nearly every single one of them (like decisive victory always being determined by just capturing everything in a short time or the Ai not being able to counterattackwhen your last crappy turn clearly would have allowed for it). That means to me that you guys did your homework and know your game design.
*thumbs up*.

[Rudankort]

So from again from one (actually now ex-) game dev to another: Job well done. I recently read several reviews of the old Panzer General and while it was praised for a lot there were a few critiques, and guess what, you guys managed to get rid of nearly every single one of them (like decisive victory always being determined by just capturing everything in a short time or the Ai not being able to counterattackwhen your last crappy turn clearly would have allowed for it). That means to me that you guys did your homework and know your game design.
*thumbs up*.

Thanks for your kind words. Indeed, to innovate and at the same time stay true to the roots is probably the trickiest thing. I think, we actually might have been a bit too conservative, but considering how many innovations did not quite reach their goal in other games, this might be the right approach, after all.

[KeldorKatarn]

In my experience being conservative in this kind of scenario is never a mistake. And you guys probed for new possibilities just fine. So far I've seen a game evolve over time by innovating moderately where the possibility for improvement was spotted or clearly shown by gamers' experiences. I think the way you did it was just fine. After all pretty much every improvement that you finally implemented was welcomed by the player base (at least I've never heard any major outcry about any of it) so the conservative way of evolving carefully and when it doubt keep things that seem to work, has so far proved to be the right one. I'm looking forward to what you guys come up with next

Big kudos to you Rudankort for keeping the panzer general gameplay alive for so long and creating this game. Heck if you hadn't done it I certainly would have at some point hehe, this kind of gameplay is just too special not to have around

[Schneides42]

All

I would also like a Spanish Civil War DLC, but only after the Allies version and a Pacific campaign (hopefully with options to play as Japan, or the Allies).

Cheers

Craig

[boredatwork]

In my experience being conservative in this kind of scenario is never a mistake.

There are probably as many games that have **failed** from being conservative as have failed from being innovative. Being innovative isn't a flaw - it's being innovative but going about it in a half assed sloppy fashion that leads to failure.

. As for inovation, no be honest, SSI did lots of "inovation" after Panzer general. All of it bad, which caused the downfall of the franchise in the end...

TBH I think you're not giving SSI enough credit - much of their innovation was good.

The problem was is too many of their products their overall integration was sloppy resulting in a one step forward, 2 step back feel.

Leaders, recon movement, seperate fire and movement, improved AT utility, long term supression, "prototypes," base strength higher than 10 (ie conscript inf/manstein) etc all improved PzC beyond it's basic PG predecessor were SSI innovations incorporated by the developers.

There were other SSI innovations which weren't pursued with PzC which might have made the game even better IMO. While we got long term supression with artillery IMO the ideal would have been to use the FG combat system as a base for WW2 combat instead of the original PG. That way units would suffer disorganisation which would knock them out of the scenario as opposed to losses that result in perma death. The later acts as a hinderance to any efforts to improve the AI as doing so potentially puts a player's core at excessive risk of death. Similarly PeG brought numerous innovations that were interesting IMO could have served as the basis for an improved PzC: partially revealed units; attachments; and arguably the air system.

While I don't disagree with you that the developers did a great job with PzC and I feel like I've got my money worth, I would agree with dumbttt that I would hope for an improved game before any additional DLC is released. It doesn't have to start from scratch - but I would love to see the developers at least experiment with the suggestions to break the PG mold to keep to deliver improved game play while remaining true to the original spirit, if not necessarily the exact design.

[Ballacraine]

IMO they have already done that.

The whole game is more flexible & challenging than PG ever was & with each patch there are noticieable improvements.

The fact that they are reworking the earlier DLCs shows a pleasing level of commitment to the game's development

Balla

[Ballacraine]

Well, I have checked the FAQ & it looks like I am unable to create a poll.

I suppose I will just have to rely on folk replying to this thread.

Balla.

[nikivdd]

It is not difficult to create a single Condor Legion scenario or a few scenarios and that core you can simply import into DLC39. It is possible that the campaign.pzdat file and the first scenario of the DLC39 require little adjustment. Players don't necessary have to wait until "official" content is released.

[Ballacraine]

I dare say that is the case for those that are intimate with modding the game.

I was just giving a suggestion for another potential 'nice little earner' for the developers.

Balla.

[nikivdd]

I dare say that is the case for those that are intimate with modding the game.

I was just giving a suggestion for another potential 'nice little earner' for the developers.

Balla.

Certainly. We all benefit from further development of the game whether it is by official content and by more tools in the editor. It is rare to find a game where developers listen to the "players" and keep investing in more features.

[Ballacraine]

I still reckon a prequel GC such as this would be very interesting to play.

Balla.