Slitherine

To come back to an old topic of mine. (yes i have too much time due to coronavirus lockdowns)

AlbertoC wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:24 pm Major and minor victories

Although major and minor victories have been a signature feature of the series, we felt that this mechanic had a number of problems. In many cases the abrupt transition from major to minor felt extremely artificial. Players wondered why finishing on turn 10 is a major victory with all its inherent bonuses, but finishing on turn 11 is already a minor victory, and finishing on turn 9 did not give any additional bonus. The latter also motivated the players to linger in the scenario and “harvest” more prestige and experience before the major victory limit.

On the other hand, we found that many players refused to settle for a minor victory and had to replay a scenario several times in order to achieve a major. And this detracted a lot from the fun of the game.
To fix all this, we introduce a new approach in Panzer Corps 2. The faster you achieve successes on the battlefield (be it capturing flags, killing enemy units or forcing them to surrender), the more prestige you will earn for these achievements. And the final reward when finishing the mission will be based on the number of remaining turns. This will give you enough incentive to finish the mission as fast and as decisively as possible, but at the same time, you will not be punished too severely when you miss that major victory by a single turn because of the stupid random generator.

I've been meaning to ask a few questions relating to the design choice to remove major/minor victories and the current campaign system. And before anybody starts flaming me. I do not necessarily disagree with the current campaign system of determining the "victory" and "defeat" path. I'm simply curious why one system was exchanged for another. I would also be very grateful for any time people are willing to spend on this, since i'm just a customer of your product and there is in no degree an obligation to answer and this wastes time and money.

That said, the way the current system works is this: Every battle has 2 options, victory or defeat. In order to achieve the "victory" campaign path, 3 criteria have to be met. 1: A "major" victory at Moscow, A "major" victory at Stalingrad, and a prestige cost. Note that the "major" victories here include taking additional objectives within the boundaries of the turn limit, it's not a turn limit in itself.

It seems to me that the following happened from PzC1 to PzC2: Removal of minor/major victories for all missions, then re-implementation of minor/major victory system for the creation of 1 campaign path branch (losing/winning) and an additional victory objective (prestige).

My questions are the following:
In which way is the creation of a minor/major victory system based on the capturing of additional hexes within the same time limit better than the previous system based on turns?

In which way is the introduction of a minimum number of prestige thats required for victory/defeat better than a minor/major victory system based on turns. Especially given that the prestige cost is hidden?

I'm at Stalingrad, with 10 prestige less than the required amount. Or i missed 1 of the extra objectives in that mission. So i'm forced to take the losing path (although this is hidden information when it comes to prestige). How is that system better than a system where you miss out on the victory campaign path because you were 1 turn too slow?
Isn't the introduction of a prestige limit also "extremely artificial"? Why is finishing Stalingrad with 5000 extra prestige worthy of victory and 4990 isn't? Doesn't that motivate players to "linger and harvest prestige"?
Wouldn't this system make people refuse to settle for the losing campaign branch, replaying (now) several missions in order to meet the victory criteria?
Aren't we punished more under this system for failing to take 1 objective and never having the opportunity to see a victory ever again, unlike the previous games which gave you multiple opportunities to come out victorious?
Would it be better to be more transparent about the "victory" path conditions from the start of the campaign, like the old major/minor victory system which always showed the criteria needed for success?

Please let me know what you, players/developers/publishers/designers etc think!

Regards,

Night Phoenix

Just a quick note: lingering hurts you. If you finish early, you get the prestige for all remaining turns, plus a bonus.

nexusno2000 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:51 am Just a quick note: lingering hurts you. If you finish early, you get the prestige for all remaining turns, plus a bonus.

Well, sure but say im playing on generalissimus, i get 20 prestige per turn. if i finish on turn 15/20 i get a bonus of what? 30% so to calculate 5x20=100. 100x1.3=130. If i finish on turn 20 No bonus, no extra prestige. Say that i invest those 5 turns into making 2 extra units surrender, even if they are infantry you've already earned that back. Even if the calculations are slightly different, surrendering enemy units, playing better is more rewarding than the turn prestige reward. For other difficulties, that might be different sure.
Anyways your post is not really an answer to any of my questions, which i would discuss much more eagerly than how cost-effective finishing early is.

I agree.

Generally speaking, finishing early isn't that profitable, unless it's like 10+ turns.

I asked this during the beta. The reply I got was 'most players go for major victory anyway, so there's no point in minor/major.'

That was before the secondary objectives were added, effectively recreating minor/major, but actually a bit more flexible.

if you choose "no turn limit" in options , you will always go in the "winning path". Very cool to test the winning path without stress.

I am playing in iron man mode, on field marshall, and it would be great, when i wouldnt be thrown out of the game, when i am too slow, for one turn or so. A minor victory would be great, so i could continue, of course in a historic way.
I have the balls even to take it like a(n) (iron)man, when i misclick and my 5 star pioneers drive happily with theier trucks, alone, to the stalingrad docks and die. But starting again with poland and norway gets boring fast.

On the other hand the iron man mode gave me so much more tension and challenge. No undo, no reload, so you have to plan very, very good. And now i am on my first "unknown" map, stalingrad. One thing is sure, the african path is much easier. At least for me. BTW: ALT TAB and killing the pzc2 process wont prevent the game from saving. @publisher: well done, its the fst. iron man mode i play in games, that is immune to ALT TAB etc...

o_t_d_x wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 4:59 pm I am playing in iron man mode, on field marshall, and it would be great, when i wouldnt be thrown out of the game, when i am too slow, for one turn or so. A minor victory would be great, so i could continue, of course in a historic way.
I have the balls even to take it like a(n) (iron)man, when i misclick and my 5 star pioneers drive happily with theier trucks, alone, to the stalingrad docks and die. But starting again with poland and norway gets boring fast.

On the other hand the iron man mode gave me so much more tension and challenge. No undo, no reload, so you have to plan very, very good. And now i am on my first "unknown" map, stalingrad. One thing is sure, the african path is much easier. At least for me. BTW: ALT TAB and killing the pzc2 process wont prevent the game from saving. @publisher: well done, its the fst. iron man mode i play in games, that is immune to ALT TAB etc...

I did some Ironman.

Quite liked it. You're much more alert when playing Ironman.

BUT it is much too easy to misclick given the way the UI works. At some point, it just becomes a chore...

And because of this, I'm forced to play Ironman on lower difficulty, lest some very small mistakes cost me the game. But lower difficulty gets boring, so...

...I've put Ironman on the shelf.

Agree on Ironman.

Like that a lot more than adding custom artificial difficulty.

Especially blind Ironman (after understanding the game mechanics) is the greatest experience in SP turn based games imo.

But as of now I won't proceed as it could potentially be a lot of time wasted in a "Wait... what....!?"-moment.

Lifever wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:44 pm Agree on Ironman.

Like that a lot more than adding custom artificial difficulty.

Especially blind Ironman (after understanding the game mechanics) is the greatest experience in SP turn based games imo.

But as of now I won't proceed as it could potentially be a lot of time wasted in a "Wait... what....!?"-moment.

A left-click select, right-click action setup could help quite a bit with that.

Or allow Ironman limited undos from movement, but not if new units are revealed or something.

Related question: I've finally cracked the Moscow mission, intending to go to the 'winning the war' branch of the campaign. What happens when you meet all the requirements (I have taken all the secondary objectives and have in excess of 10,000 prestige on Gereral)? Should there be a prompt asking if you'd like to spend the prestige? I've been getting nothing, sent straight to Kharkov '42.

Hexaboo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:59 pm Related question: I've finally cracked the Moscow mission, intending to go to the 'winning the war' branch of the campaign. What happens when you meet all the requirements (I have taken all the secondary objectives and have in excess of 10,000 prestige on Gereral)? Should there be a prompt asking if you'd like to spend the prestige? I've been getting nothing, sent straight to Kharkov '42.

Nothing. The campaign doesn't branch until after Stalingrad (if you achieved the optional objectives in Moscow and Stalingrad you get the opportunity to go with the ahistroical route instead).

SineMora wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:16 pm

Hexaboo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:59 pm Related question: I've finally cracked the Moscow mission, intending to go to the 'winning the war' branch of the campaign. What happens when you meet all the requirements (I have taken all the secondary objectives and have in excess of 10,000 prestige on Gereral)? Should there be a prompt asking if you'd like to spend the prestige? I've been getting nothing, sent straight to Kharkov '42.

Nothing. The campaign doesn't branch until after Stalingrad (if you achieved the optional objectives in Moscow and Stalingrad you get the opportunity to go with the ahistroical route instead).

Oh, okay, so it quietly sets a variable, thanks!

I asked this in the launch forum, but why did they opt to remove purchasing Italian units from north africa? I get that they werent the most useful PC1 unless you invested a lot into them, but i had a lot of fun challenging myself to take them as far as i could and it seems like a missed opportunity

Teku wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:44 am I asked this in the launch forum, but why did they opt to remove purchasing Italian units from north africa? I get that they werent the most useful PC1 unless you invested a lot into them, but i had a lot of fun challenging myself to take them as far as i could and it seems like a missed opportunity

Yes it's too bad we don't get answers to these questions. The Italian units are in the game, why not make them available to purchase for the base game? (like the other games did)

I personally feel it's the same with the Major/Minor victory removal (and some other things as well). They say they are removed for some reason, but that doesn't match with what they are doing. Which is implementing them anyways.
Hoped to see a discussion about that here, but people get off track a lot, and nobody really comments on the actual questions. Shame.

I know that you've raised these questions more than once, but before release I did not have time to answer in-depth. I'm a bit more free now, so here goes. My approach to these issues and my line of thinking are as follows.

The most important problem with DV/MV approach, a fundamental one, is that it looks like a system with three possible outcomes, but in reality for most players it still works like:
DV = one and only real victory
any other outcome = defeat

To give you an illustration, this is Panzer Corps achievement statistics:
https://steamcommunity.com/stats/268400/achievements

On a Roll
Win a campaign with all decisive victories. Difficulty Colonel or higher.
9.3%

Great Colonel
Win a campaign on Colonel difficulty
8.9%

The number of people who won with all DVs is larger than the number of people who won a campaign on the default Colonel difficulty (which the vast majority of players pick).

If we go a little deeper, there are people who won on other levels: Field Marshal (2.4%), Rommel (0.7%), Guderian and Manstein (both 0.5%) and General (no data in Steam statistics, but according to this poll we can very roughly estimate it as 2.4/47*35=1.8% ).

So, at the very least, the percent of people who go for all DVs is 9.3/(8.9+2.4+0.7+0.5+0.5+1.8 ) = 9.3/14,8 = 63%. But of course, most likely there is a lot of overlap between people finishing on various difficulties, and this number will be even bigger. Perhaps something like 2/3 or even 3/4 of all players. It's a clear majority.

For all these people, DV/MV system creates several problems. First problem is, by going for DV all the time they can miss a lot of campaign content, and in case of PG/PzC in particular, this forced all these people to go along the shortest, least historical and arguably least interesting campaign branch of all. Second problem is, it unnecessarily complicates campaign structure and victory conditions. It is simply redundant in most cases.

Second point. In Panzer Corps you can actually have very different conditions for DV/MV. It's not "finish early" only. But there are only two things which these different outcomes can drive. It's prestige reward and next scenario (campaign branch). If you look at Panzer Corps campaigns as a whole (not only vanilla campaign), you will see that there are much more linear sections than branches. On these sections prestige reward is the only difference between outcomes. (And this aspect IS important for players. I remember how people discovered that a few MVs in PzC vanilla campaign gave more prestige than DVs, there was a big trouble on the forum).

This is where my critique (which you quoted) comes into play. As a measure of success rewarded with prestige, DV/MV system is extremely crude and binary, and adding more and more grades of victory (like PG2 did) is not really a good solution. So instead, Panzer Corps 2 has a system which does the same, but in a more sophisticated way. Each additional turn before deadline matters, and each additional turn gives more reward than the previos one (so it's exponential rather than linear growth). At the same time, we avoid the trap of calling it "DV" (see above). In my opinion, this system is better, but it does not mean that it's already perfect. For example, on highest difficulties we might need to increase the reward, to compensate lower base value of prestige per turn. But I'm now talking about concepts, not numbers.

Finally, there is campaign branching. Frankly, this part changed the least, compared to previous games. Both PG and PzC had two possible ways of branching (based on previous outcomes or on player choice). And even paying prestige for some choices is not unheard of (Sea Lion vs. Sea Lion Plus choice in PG comes to mind). In Panzer Corps 2 my approach is to offer an explicit choice to the player at every junction, simply because I believe that it is extremely awkward to force a player to deliberately take an MV/loss in order to explore the branch he wants (e. g. historical as opposed to fictional). I've also tried to disconnect branch choice from previous outcomes as much as possible, to avoid the same trap of most players seeing just one campaign branch.

But of course, it is also strange to ask the player if he wants to win the war or not, so there are preconditions for selecting "ultimate victory" branch. In this regard Panzer Corps 2 follows the classical tradition of "change the history if you are good enough". So yes, in a way we still use DV/MV system. But we use it only where it is needed and unavoidable (in 3 scenarios out of 61 - Gazala, Moscow and Stalingrad), without complicating campaign tree and victory conditions where it's not necessary.

Now to your questions.

NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:31 am In which way is the creation of a minor/major victory system based on the capturing of additional hexes within the same time limit better than the previous system based on turns?

I don't have a strong preference between these two victory conditions. Both in PzC and PzC2 victory conditions can be anything which scenario designer wants (in PzC2 more so because of the more advanced scripting system). We might well see victory conditions based on time again in the future.

NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:31 am In which way is the introduction of a minimum number of prestige thats required for victory/defeat better than a minor/major victory system based on turns. Especially given that the prestige cost is hidden?

Prestige gate is a separate topic (it can be removed from the campaign without changing other design considerations which I explained above) and it is controversial in its own right. I added prestige gates as an integral measure of player's efficiency in the course of entire campaign, as opposed to efficiency on some very local and limited sections of it. Another idea was to make it a prestige sink. We know very well from experience that better players accumulate more prestige, not only because of capturing flags, forcing surrenders and finishing missions faster, but also because of taking less losses and making better purchase and upgrade decisions. Prestige gate is a very generic method to cut off weaker players and let stronger ones proceed. And I believe that it is actually quite precise and fair.

Note also that prestige gates depend on difficulty level. On Major prestige gate does not exist. On Colonel (default difficulty) it's a "symbolic" 1000 prestige which most players will be able to afford. It only becomes steeper on top difficulties, where, yes, I expect the players to show consistently efficient play, battle after battle, in order to win the war.

NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:31 am I'm at Stalingrad, with 10 prestige less than the required amount. Or i missed 1 of the extra objectives in that mission. So i'm forced to take the losing path (although this is hidden information when it comes to prestige). How is that system better than a system where you miss out on the victory campaign path because you were 1 turn too slow?

Isn't the introduction of a prestige limit also "extremely artificial"? Why is finishing Stalingrad with 5000 extra prestige worthy of victory and 4990 isn't? Doesn't that motivate players to "linger and harvest prestige"?

It's a game and any approach can be criticized as artificial and unrealistic. But I would argue that:

- The situation which you describe (4990 vs 5000 prestige) is MUCH less likely. Players who pick adequate difficulty usually swim in prestige by the time prestige gate arrives. Snowballing of prestige is a pretty fundamental thing in this kind of games, and with the concept of prestige gates we acknowledge and embrace this fact.

- You can earn extra prestige anywhere you want in the course of the campaign, it's a very open-ended requirement. You can barely win some harder battles, and compensate for it elsewhere. At the same time, this requirement forces you to stay focused on efficiency at all times.

- In this situation which you describe you can proceed by selling/downgrading one unit in your army, which actually makes this prestige barrier quite "soft" and "fuzzy" instead of "hard". Downgrading your army will not work only if you are WAY below the limit, in which case you probably deserve your defeat.

NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:31 am Aren't we punished more under this system for failing to take 1 objective and never having the opportunity to see a victory ever again, unlike the previous games which gave you multiple opportunities to come out victorious?

This is also a completely separate question which is related to campaign design rather than the fundamental issue of victory grades. I mentioned above that in my opinion all-DV path in PG and PzC was the shortest, least historical and arguably least interesting of all. It was our deliberate decision to NOT provide such campaign paths in PzC2. Even if we did not change anything else and DVs/MVs continued to happily exist, we would still find ways to exclude this branch from the campaign (like GC does).

Each campaign is created with certain design goals in mind. Some of our design goals for Panzer Corps 2 vanilla campaign were to provide lots of possible paths, which were all balanced in terms of length, with scenarios evenly distributed across years, and with not too many fictional battles. Because of these design goals, we delayed historical/fictional branch as much as possible. For example, we had Sea Lion '40 in our plans for a very long time (because it's such an iconic what if), but ultimately scrapped it, because it either makes the campaign too short, or too lopsided (too much early war content, too little late war content), or too heavy on fictional battles. We twisted it this and that way, but it just did not fit. Yes, campaign design is about compromises.

I don't want to go into campaign design issues too much here. Vanilla campaign is what it is. It's not going to change. It's different to how we approached PzC vanilla campaign, and this was our deliberate decision. Some people like it, others don't. Wehrmacht campaign is in no way representative of campaigns which we'll create next (like PzC vanilla was in no way representative of what came in GC).

NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:31 am Would it be better to be more transparent about the "victory" path conditions from the start of the campaign, like the old major/minor victory system which always showed the criteria needed for success?

It's a question of presentation and UI. I agree that we probably don't explain campaign logic of the new vanilla campaign well enough (but then again, past games did not explain it well either, try to play PG without campaign trees created by fans). Releasing this game was a mammoth effort, and in pre-release crunch such things get overlooked. Fortunately, it's easy to fix in patches. Once again, this has nothing to do with fundamental design decisions which we've taken and which I've explained above.

For what little it's worth, I agree with the Berlin Wall of Text above me.

As I've said in other threads, no one really misses the old systems and the problems they carried around like baggage. But some positive elements were trimmed, and it would be fantastic to get those back, without wholesale return of a fundamentally flawed system. One of the cornerstones behind the entire point of making the original Grand Campaign was done to address just how short the victory path was. It was what like 10 scenarios? Poland, Norway, Low Country, France Sea Lion, Barbarossa, Early Moscow, USA, USA, USA. Do I remember that right? I also recall it was so short, I volunteered and added on those two extra USAs on at the end. They weren't even there originally.

Addon content is best when it's a reaction to the player's impression of the core content. People like Panzer Corps (a whole lot of people apparently) but it was clear they were hungry for much, much more.

Equally, this is why Panzer Corps 2 isn't just going to directly port over the original Grand Campaign into the new game wholesale. Grand Campaign was a reaction to Panzer Corps base game. Addon content for Panzer Corps 2 should be a reaction to Panzer Corps 2 base game. What form that takes... we still don't know yet. It hasn't been a full month since launch, and the details haven't been revealed.

And for what it's worth, I'd like to think the people in charge are thinking about the sum total of feedback received since launch. Two forums full of more threads and comments that I can keep up with, heh. I'd certainly like to see some effort steered into addon content that touches on issues people are clearly passionate about, as opposed to blindly creating whatever happened to be in a pre-determined production queue.

Kerensky wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:30 pm For what little it's worth, I agree with the Berlin Wall of Text above me.

As I've said in other threads, no one really misses the old systems and the problems they carried around like baggage. But some positive elements were trimmed, and it would be fantastic to get those back, without wholesale return of a fundamentally flawed system. One of the cornerstones behind the entire point of making the original Grand Campaign was done to address just how short the victory path was. It was what like 10 scenarios? Poland, Norway, Low Country, France Sea Lion, Barbarossa, Early Moscow, USA, USA, USA. Do I remember that right? I also recall it was so short, I volunteered and added on those two extra USAs on at the end. They weren't even there originally.

Addon content is best when it's a reaction to the player's impression of the core content. People like Panzer Corps (a whole lot of people apparently) but it was clear they were hungry for much, much more.

Equally, this is why Panzer Corps 2 isn't just going to directly port over the original Grand Campaign into the new game wholesale. Grand Campaign was a reaction to Panzer Corps base game. Addon content for Panzer Corps 2 should be a reaction to Panzer Corps 2 base game. What form that takes... we still don't know yet. It hasn't been a full month since launch, and the details haven't been revealed.

And for what it's worth, I'd like to think the people in charge are thinking about the sum total of feedback received since launch. Two forums full of more threads and comments that I can keep up with, heh. I'd certainly like to see some effort steered into addon content that touches on issues people are clearly passionate about, as opposed to blindly creating whatever happened to be in a pre-determined production queue.

Ima just respond to this first before dealing with the Berlin wall, because i like doing the easy part first.

Whether the previous system was flawed is i think up for debate. As i will respond later to Rudankort i'll make a short answer here. If more people finish the campaign with all Major victories, isn't that maybe what most people want and enjoy? Why do something you don't like (it's a game, not a chore or work)? I think that if more people finish a game with only major victories, there is a reason for this. Afterwards, people are done with what they want to see most, they do the rest, probably the "losing path". On what can be seen as a succes - Looking at a recent game Unity of Command 2. Only 6,9% of people managed to finish their campaign till the end (it doesn't branch - no bad ending) 6,8% of players finished the campaign with a significant number of "major victories". The campaign is long +20 missions. Leading me to think that most people don't see the game through regardless if it's very long. Most of your audience doesn't see through so many battles. The Grand Campaign confirms this 0,4:% of players manage to see it through. 11% of players managed to go through the first one, 11 missions?. Leading me to think that shorter (but not too short) is probably better when it comes to a base game, trying to reach as big an audience as possible to see it through. In PzC2 you need to go through what 19 missions minimum for the base game to get to the end? I think we'll see that a similar low number will be able to finish. For the "short" PzC wehrmacht campaign, although the real numbers are up for debate, only a small number seems to have finished it in some form, say less than 25%. I wouldn't be surprised if that number is much lower on PzC2 base game, looking at the numbers from the Grand campaign and a similar "long" game Unity of Command 2.

Going all victory in PzC wehrmacht is - Poland, Norway, Low Countries, France, Sealion, Barbarossa, Early Moscow, USA, USA, USA.
I think the "optimal" victory path was this -> Poland, Norway, Low Countries, France, Sealion (MV), Barbarossa, Kiev, Moscow 41', Sealion 42', USA, USA, USA , making 12 missions instead of 10
In Panzer General, the all DV path was 9 missions only, but had 16 missions as the optimal "victory" path.

Ultimately, i think everything depends on what you see as flawed, or baggage, i don't know what that conclusion is based on and of which content in particular is spoken. I think that saying that "nobody misses the old systems"...did you guys do a survey amongst PzC1 players with a reasonable sample group? What does "the old system" mean? Or are the designers, people who do the coding etc, tired of "the old system"? I mean to say that, i don't know what it means, or how that's determined. If you think that more people seeing most of the content you created is good, then shorter seems better. In such a case, more branching - for more different outcomes seems better compared to a longer linear path (in the sense that you can't finish early, and there are only 2 outcomes in the war) as in PzC2. The Grand Campaign in this sense seems to attract mostly a smaller hardcore fanbase. At least the steam statistics lead us to believe that.

NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:47 am Afterwards, people are done with what they want to see most, they do the rest, probably the "losing path". On what can be seen as a succes - Looking at a recent game Unity of Command 2. Only 6,9% of people managed to finish their campaign till the end (it doesn't branch - no bad ending) 6,8% of players finished the campaign with a significant number of "major victories". The campaign is long +20 missions. Leading me to think that most people don't see the game through regardless if it's very long.

A couple of comments on UoC2: there is actually a little branching in that campaign, and you have to pay prestige to get into ahistorical battles.

The fact that the number of people who completed the campaign, and those who got a lot of 'major victories' is effectively the same there suggests that people don't settle for anything less. They all go for major victory (which is meeting all the deadlines + bonus objectives), which means they will get frustrated by certain missions where a major victory is ahistorical and difficult even on easy—read Market Garden—and eventually stop playing, not finishing the campaign. The UoC2 devs have had excellent ideas about optional objectives that give you more ground or other bonuses in subsequent missions, but this divide between major and minor victories simply doesn't take human psychology into account ('major' and 'minor' reads as 'normal' and 'substandard', respectively).

First of all, wow thanks for such an extensive answer. =P I hope you are having as much fun having a discussion about this as i do. (as i generally like discussions like this, though that does tend to take quite some time) In terms of how Kerensky might say it: Let's build some more on that Berlin wall of text.

Rudankort wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:24 pm So, at the very least, the percent of people who go for all DVs is 9.3/(8.9+2.4+0.7+0.5+0.5+1.8 ) = 9.3/14,8 = 63%. But of course, most likely there is a lot of overlap between people finishing on various difficulties, and this number will be even bigger. Perhaps something like 2/3 or even 3/4 of all players. It's a clear majority.

For all these people, DV/MV system creates several problems. First problem is, by going for DV all the time they can miss a lot of campaign content, and in case of PG/PzC in particular, this forced all these people to go along the shortest, least historical and arguably least interesting campaign branch of all. Second problem is, it unnecessarily complicates campaign structure and victory conditions. It is simply redundant in most cases.

I think we can't forget the people who play a campaign multiple times here. if i finish the campaign on Field Marshall, doing all DV's i will get both trophies. However if i redo the campaign on Field Marshall and go for a different branch, either losing or a different victory path, this is not represented in the steam data. So it would in reality be quite hard to say, what percentage actually does see the losing path content. If all people, after winning the main campaign immediately stop playing and do nothing else, this indeed applies, but i think that's not the case. No hard data is present of this, but i would find it hard to believe that most/all players would say "Well i won in USA, might as well throw the game in the bin now, nevermind all the other content"

Rudankort wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:24 pm Second point. In Panzer Corps you can actually have very different conditions for DV/MV. It's not "finish early" only. But there are only two things which these different outcomes can drive. It's prestige reward and next scenario (campaign branch). If you look at Panzer Corps campaigns as a whole (not only vanilla campaign), you will see that there are much more linear sections than branches. On these sections prestige reward is the only difference between outcomes. (And this aspect IS important for players. I remember how people discovered that a few MVs in PzC vanilla campaign gave more prestige than DVs, there was a big trouble on the forum).

But that's a problem of choosing the rewards, not a problem with the major/minor system in itself. This system which as you states allow for a wide range of conditions and rewards as well. If developmers/designers of the time chose to give DV a better reward all the time, that wouldn't have been an issue. Also one cannot forget the psychological effect of the different text for major/minor victory on top of the prestige rewards. Getting that extra pat on the back the extra compliment, having taken moscow before the winter storms/reinforcements slow you down, recreating that image in your head is the second reward that you get. In Pzc2, after each mission the message is clear: you win this mission. In PzC1 the message (for DV) was: You have done very well, congratulations, good job! You took Moscow! That's a very different approach psychologically, and one that i think can't be ignored. Storyline matters.

Rudankort wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:24 pm This is where my critique (which you quoted) comes into play. As a measure of success rewarded with prestige, DV/MV system is extremely crude and binary, and adding more and more grades of victory (like PG2 did) is not really a good solution. So instead, Panzer Corps 2 has a system which does the same, but in a more sophisticated way. Each additional turn before deadline matters, and each additional turn gives more reward than the previos one (so it's exponential rather than linear growth). At the same time, we avoid the trap of calling it "DV" (see above). In my opinion, this system is better, but it does not mean that it's already perfect. For example, on highest difficulties we might need to increase the reward, to compensate lower base value of prestige per turn. But I'm now talking about concepts, not numbers.

I agree, in that sense it is binary and crude under the old system in terms of rewards. Adding more grades is not neccessarily good, takes long to create as well. Getting more prestige for finishing early, it's a nice concept, tweaking that is not really anything i know about.

Rudankort wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:24 pm Finally, there is campaign branching. Frankly, this part changed the least, compared to previous games. Both PG and PzC had two possible ways of branching (based on previous outcomes or on player choice). And even paying prestige for some choices is not unheard of (Sea Lion vs. Sea Lion Plus choice in PG comes to mind). In Panzer Corps 2 my approach is to offer an explicit choice to the player at every junction, simply because I believe that it is extremely awkward to force a player to deliberately take an MV/loss in order to explore the branch he wants (e. g. historical as opposed to fictional). I've also tried to disconnect branch choice from previous outcomes as much as possible, to avoid the same trap of most players seeing just one campaign branch.

I actually think this is where things change the most, and i think where most of my.....critique comes from. I'm looking at branching in terms of: How does Germany (it's the wehrmacht campaign after all) come out of the war?
I can only compare to Panzer General - i haven't played the wehrmacht campaign in PzC (Indeed!)

Outcomes in Panzer General: 1: not defeating poland - 2: not defeating France 3: Barbarossa defeat 4: Losing at Sevastopol 5: Allies breaking through at Anzio 6: Berlin defeat 3x (allied & Soviet & combined)
And Victory 7: Washington 8+9: Beating UK, Soviets at budapest/Berlin 10+11: Beating Soviets, Allies at D-Day/Ardennes and two Neutral ones at beating the Berlin scenario from both sides and beating the allies & soviets at ardennes & budapest. So thats a total of agruably 13 outcomes.
In PzC2 there are 2 if you want to see a campaign conclusion: Berlin or Washington. (Because there are no end briefings for missions, just a loss doesn't count) I just win or lose scenarios and have to assume something happens.
The choice that people are presented with has little meaning - You play Warsaw North or South, then the follow up mission and always go to Norway. It's a road, splitting, but coming together again in a few minutes to continue along its linear path.
The one meaningful choice, without the Major/Minor victory system in PzC2 (Stalingrad & Moscow) is the choice to go to Africa or Barbarossa, because the string of missions that you play after is so different. Although again, ultimately the roads meet each other at the end. Then for the only other real split in the campaign: Losing or winning path, there is the Major/Minor victory system and so you can't explore the branch you want.

The use of prestige to alter scenarios can be a very good concept btw. I like that idea.

Next question......

Hexaboo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:13 am

NightPhoenix wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:47 am Afterwards, people are done with what they want to see most, they do the rest, probably the "losing path". On what can be seen as a succes - Looking at a recent game Unity of Command 2. Only 6,9% of people managed to finish their campaign till the end (it doesn't branch - no bad ending) 6,8% of players finished the campaign with a significant number of "major victories". The campaign is long +20 missions. Leading me to think that most people don't see the game through regardless if it's very long.

A couple of comments on UoC2: there is actually a little branching in that campaign, and you have to pay prestige to get into ahistorical battles.

The fact that the number of people who completed the campaign, and those who got a lot of 'major victories' is effectively the same there suggests that people don't settle for anything less. They all go for major victory (which is meeting all the deadlines + bonus objectives), which means they will get frustrated by certain missions where a major victory is ahistorical and difficult even on easy—read Market Garden—and eventually stop playing, not finishing the campaign. The UoC2 devs have had excellent ideas about optional objectives that give you more ground or other bonuses in subsequent missions, but this divide between major and minor victories simply doesn't take human psychology into account ('major' and 'minor' reads as 'normal' and 'substandard', respectively).

Indeed, very little branching in that one. Which is what i said in my post. On the rest of your comment, i will redirect to my first answer to Rudankort.