AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

A new story begins...
The sequel to a real classic: Panzer Corps is back!

Moderator: Panzer Corps 2 Moderators

NightPhoenix
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by NightPhoenix » Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:33 am

Hexaboo wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:16 am
Pitching in on the argument of the 1939 shenanigans in the West being 'too small a thing, too tiny a battle': I haven't seen anyone 'scandalised' about the Spanish Civil War DLC, even though it blows the quantities of various equipment way out of proportion. Take the Trubia tank, which you see around every corner in the game: only 4 were ever built, and their active combat history is limited to a battle that's not even in the game (Siege/Battle of Oviedo). Other Spanish-built AFVs were manufactured in similar numbers, and the Soviets only supplied about 300 tanks throughout the entire 2.5 years of the war, so in many scenarios, you can comfortably imagine that the corresponding units stand for no more than 1-2 tanks. Outrage!
The problem with this argument is that the spanish civil war doesn't intrude on any other potential major conflict during that time. The design space can be entirely allocated to this conflict, and thus allow you to zoom in on it. This is not the case from 1st - 16th of september 1939. During that timespan there was the center of attention: the attack on Poland. And the battlefield that became a sideshow because, in comparison not a lot happened: the Saar offensive.

Now if you make the 1939 campaign, you have limited design space, you don't want the campaign to be too long or too short for various reasons, so about 12-16 missions sounds right. Within those 12-16 battles you have to choose which conflicts you are going to present to the player. There are various reasons why you should or shouldn't fill that design space with a certain mission: is the battle exciting, was it of importance for the war, do people know the battle, can you make a fitting narrative to the story, etc.

By choosing to fill a significant portion of that design space with the saar offensive - 5 missions - you reduce the number of battles you present the player in another theather - Poland/Winter War/etc. Scale matters! Having people fight 10 small scale battles in the Netherlands and 4 battles in France doesn't make a great Axis operations 1940. Unless you let people choose which path to take, but then you need to design more missions which costs money and time. With the current DLC they chose to fill the design space with battles that are less known, less exciting (at least to me, mine laying is less interesting than bunker busting breaking through enemy lines kind of battle), and kind of don't make a lot of sense from storyline perspective as Turtler points out. Moreover, you deny players access to more pivotal and exciting battles, even if those have already been covered in a previous Grand Campaign. That's where it might have been better to make 1 mission on the Saar offensive where, for example you could've been flown in, to take command of aux forces holding the line - a defensive scenario - and then flown back to Poland.

Choosing either the option of letting people choose - Saar offensive or start in Poland - or filling less design space with sideshow battles (from 5 to 1) and more main action (Poland) would've been the better design choice in my opinon. Saying, this battlefield hasn't been covered before, thus it's a better choice is definitely an error, as there are many more factors that come into play. If this product is supposed to be some kind of testing ground to see whether people are excited for such a thing, i would've rather known in advance, before purchasing the product, what it was going to be about. Cause i too think it's controversial to use the Saar offensive. It's never done before, and to be frank, i find that theather kinda boring.
When purchasing the Field Marshall edition, maybe already have a little text what that DLC is going to be about would've been great. (So you have to think about such things earlier) And although that probably wouldn't be good for sales, it would be honest towards players. Cause i probably would not have bought this DLC, if i knew beforehand that such a large portion of the game would be about something i'm not too interested in. Yes, you always gamble if you buy the product before knowing what it's about, but it would be nice if companies didn't use such tactics.
Last edited by NightPhoenix on Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:53 am, edited 7 times in total.

heinz1803
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:28 am

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by heinz1803 » Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:37 am

Thank you for the 1939 campaign. It is different from Panzer General, Panzer General 2, Panzer General 3D etc. I hope we will get 1940 norway next month ;)

Moransky
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by Moransky » Sat Aug 22, 2020 12:49 pm

I agreed with the criticism. It's too much making 5 missions of 13 about small Saar offensive. Maybe 2 was enough. After release DLC 1939 developers should change game description in Steam. Now it's not "the ultimate Second World War strategy game!". It's "fantasy strategy game with the units from Second World War".

P.S. But these scenario tree has some advantages. Now I have more than hundred Char B1 in stock. :D

o_t_d_x
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:39 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by o_t_d_x » Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:52 pm

Kerensky wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 7:54 pm
Well, so far we've at least not been accused of reselling the same old Grand Campaign all over again in the sequel. :mrgreen:
Its impossible to accuse you in that regard, you change so much. And thats a good thing, even the allied ai could be good if its done better.

I feared the same regarding saar battles, like others here. Small sidewhow ... 5 missions ?
But now, that i have won them i must say they entertained me more, then the poland maps of pc1 GC. Maybe the saar offensive was no real war in real life, but in the game..... The defence of the sigfried line alone i had so many casualties and killed so many french, it felt more like the big defence missions in 43 and 44. But ebro wasnt different. If you want perfect realism go join the french legion or wait for mods. :mrgreen:

When all dlcs are released i am planning to bring them all together with the maps of pc one that arent in pc2 and the best maps of my mod. (early poland for example) So everybody can choose, if he wants the saarland or early poland. Hope i dont have to learn LUA, it seems much work for things, that the old editor did without the need for programming.

NightPhoenix
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by NightPhoenix » Sat Aug 22, 2020 2:12 pm

o_t_d_x wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:52 pm
Kerensky wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 7:54 pm
Well, so far we've at least not been accused of reselling the same old Grand Campaign all over again in the sequel. :mrgreen:
Its impossible to accuse you in that regard, you change so much. And thats a good thing, even the allied ai could be good if its done better.

I feared the same regarding saar battles, like others here. Small sidewhow ... 5 missions ?
But now, that i have won them i must say they entertained me more, then the poland maps of pc1 GC. Maybe the saar offensive was no real war in real life, but in the game..... The defence of the sigfried line alone i had so many casualties and killed so many french, it felt more like the big defence missions in 43 and 44. But ebro wasnt different. If you want perfect realism go join the french legion or wait for mods. :mrgreen:

When all dlcs are released i am planning to bring them all together with the maps of pc one that arent in pc2 and the best maps of my mod. (early poland for example) So everybody can choose, if he wants the saarland or early poland. Hope i dont have to learn LUA, it seems much work for things, that the old editor did without the need for programming.
It would be great if the editor actually worked. Like in Order of Battle. But it seems to be a huge mess, and hardly anything can be done but the most basic stuff if you don't know how to code. Well, that would be a bad business model i suppose. People would make custom content that's too cool, people wouldn't buy the DLC's anymore. XD

o_t_d_x
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:39 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by o_t_d_x » Sat Aug 22, 2020 2:40 pm

Of course the devs and slith want to make money. If the editor would work without lua, then i could realease my mod endsieg with pc2 engine.

Many things of my mod inspired the devs of order of battle and pc2. In some regards my mod is still better: The biggest campaign tree of all times. War crimes are in my mod, no clean war. Every time you start a map, many units are positioned differently. So even i dont know where the enemy is. My trigger system is much more complex. For example: As far as possible things arent triggered in an absolute way. (turn 20 the attack starts, or when human enters this hex) There is always a slight randomness involved. Muuuuuuuuuuch story, much more then in the pc2 GC. And its already very big, nearly 100 maps. And i am planning to combine it with the pc2 GC and the best pc1 maps, that arent in pc2.

The biggest problem i had with my mod, was the graphic improvement. (pc1 graphic is so ugly in my opinion) With the new engine i dont have to do that. I just could focus on game design and story, my work rate would improve drastically.
Imagine i release that gigantic mod now ...... that wouldnt be so good for them to create profit.

And i am ok with that, they need to make profit, we want pc3 someday. :mrgreen: Besides i want to improve all their new dlcs and include em in my mod too. So i have to wait and buy dlcs anyways...

I just hope that they will implement the scripting and the zones of the old editor (of course they wont do that soon...), it was so easy to make great campaigns and it was fast. I cant imagine how i should make my partly random unit placing script, with lua. Even if i would know how, it would be much more work, then with pull down menu and a few fast klicks drawing zones on the map.

RandomAttack
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:19 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by RandomAttack » Sat Aug 22, 2020 3:35 pm

NightPhoenix wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:33 am
When purchasing the Field Marshall edition, maybe already have a little text what that DLC is going to be about would've been great. (So you have to think about such things earlier) And although that probably wouldn't be good for sales, it would be honest towards players. Cause i probably would not have bought this DLC, if i knew beforehand that such a large portion of the game would be about something i'm not too interested in. Yes, you always gamble if you buy the product before knowing what it's about, but it would be nice if companies didn't use such tactics.
Ditto. These first two DLCs seem almost like "throw-aways" to me. A good excuse to play with a bunch of new features like mines, allies, etc., at the expense of typical timeframes. All very clever actually. Can you imagine the outcry if, say, allies had been implemented in a 1940 DLC and messed up that campaign? Visions of say the Belgians attacking towards Norway or something. I am curious to know how many people actually purchased the first DLC-- not counting those of us that got it by virtue of having the FM edition. If a choice, I would not have purchased either of these. Since I have them, I played through SCW once (that was more than enough) and will play through 1939 (probably also once). The REAL ramification is that I will now be VERY cautious of additional DLC. I will now wait until some time passes and have a feel as to whether it's worth my $$, rather than just buying it first-day. They rate we're going, pretty sure I'll pass on some of them.

NightPhoenix
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by NightPhoenix » Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:54 pm

RandomAttack wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2020 3:35 pm
NightPhoenix wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:33 am
When purchasing the Field Marshall edition, maybe already have a little text what that DLC is going to be about would've been great. (So you have to think about such things earlier) And although that probably wouldn't be good for sales, it would be honest towards players. Cause i probably would not have bought this DLC, if i knew beforehand that such a large portion of the game would be about something i'm not too interested in. Yes, you always gamble if you buy the product before knowing what it's about, but it would be nice if companies didn't use such tactics.
Ditto. These first two DLCs seem almost like "throw-aways" to me. A good excuse to play with a bunch of new features like mines, allies, etc., at the expense of typical timeframes. All very clever actually. Can you imagine the outcry if, say, allies had been implemented in a 1940 DLC and messed up that campaign? Visions of say the Belgians attacking towards Norway or something. I am curious to know how many people actually purchased the first DLC-- not counting those of us that got it by virtue of having the FM edition. If a choice, I would not have purchased either of these. Since I have them, I played through SCW once (that was more than enough) and will play through 1939 (probably also once). The REAL ramification is that I will now be VERY cautious of additional DLC. I will now wait until some time passes and have a feel as to whether it's worth my $$, rather than just buying it first-day. They rate we're going, pretty sure I'll pass on some of them.
That's hitting the nail on the head exactly. It feels as if these DLC were used by the developers to figure out how to code and implement these mechanics themselves, and then test out whether these things work. Testing out one or two new tricks every DLC. The first one was friendly AI, giving it orders and commendation points. With the second DLC it's the raid and minelaying mechanic.
Last edited by NightPhoenix on Sun Aug 23, 2020 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by kondi754 » Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:16 pm

Wow, I can see there has been a decent discussion :)
But when I read your posts, I get the feeling that many players have mixed feelings and many concerns about the further development of AO after what they have received so far.
Personally, I was hoping for a very well-prepared game, using new ideas, which will SOMETIMES surprise with something, but will still show all the most important moments of World War II in a new graphic design and with new game mechanics.
Maybe I'm getting conservative in old age ( :lol: ), but what I saw in AO 1939 is too much for me.

But on the other hand I respect Kerensky's independence as a creator from the expectations of others.
I really think he makes a great work as game designer and I always have great pleasure to play his productions, like Burma Road DLC for OoB which I hates for Tiger tank during Imphal scn and Japan jet fighters, prototype of heavy tanks and tanks destroyers during last scn, but which I appreciate very much for everything else ;)
BUT..., I'm sorry to say that but I would prefer AO to be designed by someone else, someone more conservative and paying more attention to historical realities. Kerensky is great at what he does, but he experiments too much IMHO

(EDIT. However, his experiments are sometimes very successful and accurate. For example, I really like allied AI in SCW)


Ultimately, I think I will play AO1939 out of curiosity, but I feel very disappointed.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 7183
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by Kerensky » Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:35 pm

RandomAttack wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2020 3:35 pm

Ditto. These first two DLCs seem almost like "throw-aways" to me. A good excuse to play with a bunch of new features like mines, allies, etc., at the expense of typical timeframes. All very clever actually. Can you imagine the outcry if, say, allies had been implemented in a 1940 DLC and messed up that campaign? Visions of say the Belgians attacking towards Norway or something. I am curious to know how many people actually purchased the first DLC-- not counting those of us that got it by virtue of having the FM edition. If a choice, I would not have purchased either of these. Since I have them, I played through SCW once (that was more than enough) and will play through 1939 (probably also once). The REAL ramification is that I will now be VERY cautious of additional DLC. I will now wait until some time passes and have a feel as to whether it's worth my $$, rather than just buying it first-day. They rate we're going, pretty sure I'll pass on some of them.
Eh, while I'm perfectly fine to for everyone in this thread to have very interesting discussions (harsh criticisms included), I have to correct this statement because I don't want misinformation to spread. :evil:

There is no 'throwaway' content. Everything is crafted with a ridiculous amount of care, and goes through many layers of inspection and internal iteration before it's presented for the players to enjoy. If Flashback was really going to produce throwaway content, you think they would have signed off on creating a Grand Campaign level of content? There is so much extra work involved in the 'under the hood' systems required to link campaigns together way above and beyond anything players see in the scenario gameplay experience.

They had no obligation for the Field Marshal package to be worth anything substantial as two full campaigns, everyone already bought it they got your money. You easily have gotten get 5 unit skins and 5 solo scenario missions for your 2 Field Marshal DLC and that would be the end of it. Should we go over the list of games who have taken this route with their pre-order secret bundles? The list would be longer than this entire thread if we dig deep enough into modern AAA gaming practices.

So by all means, I welcome you guys voicing your opinions and thoughts on the campaign scenarios and layout. I have semi thick skin, I can take the criticism. :) But let's give them a little more credit here. Completely regardless of my work or involvement, I know many team members have been working on this game more than full time. When I send a message or query at 3 AM and I get an instant reply, because other team members are also still working even at that ungodly hour... you just know you are working with extremely passionate people who really care about the project.

And the idea that AI Allies messed up Spanish Civil War is an opinion. Not everyone shares it, many people really liked it and worked extremely well alongside the AI that was specially planned because of how it fit into the historical situation of the relationship between the Nationalists, Condor Legion, and Italian CTV.

impossible
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:02 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by impossible » Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:08 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:16 pm
Wow, I can see there has been a decent discussion :)
But when I read your posts, I get the feeling that many players have mixed feelings and many concerns about the further development of AO after what they have received so far.
Personally, I was hoping for a very well-prepared game, using new ideas, which will SOMETIMES surprise with something, but will still show all the most important moments of World War II in a new graphic design and with new game mechanics.
Maybe I'm getting conservative in old age ( :lol: ), but what I saw in AO 1939 is too much for me.

But on the other hand I respect Kerensky's independence as a creator from the expectations of others.
I really think he makes a great work as game designer and I always have great pleasure to play his productions, like Burma Road DLC for OoB which I hates for Tiger tank during Imphal scn and Japan jet fighters, prototype of heavy tanks and tanks destroyers during last scn, but which I appreciate very much for everything else ;)
BUT..., I'm sorry to say that but I would prefer AO to be designed by someone else, someone more conservative and paying more attention to historical realities. Kerensky is great at what he does, but he experiments too much IMHO

(EDIT. However, his experiments are sometimes very successful and accurate. For example, I really like allied AI in SCW)


Ultimately, I think I will play AO1939 out of curiosity, but I feel very disappointed.

i`d love to see more burma road like content. burma road is one of the best campaigns in oob because its not the usual poland-norway-france-soviet uniton-normandy crap we have been playing for decades now. the spanish civil war dlc was great.

i think the british could get more love tbh, not a lot of british content out there and they fought a lot. i have a 1912 cavaly saber from a military cross winner guy who fought in palestine to put down the arab uprising, north africa, italy and THEN normandy landings and finally got an MC in 1945. thats one helluva ww2 carreer and shows that bririth soldiers had their fair share of misery in this war too.

btw about historical realities: germany had no chance to win the war. it had no resources, inferior economy, inferior army, had no valuable allies, no vision just got into the war really because they didnt expect the franco-british team declare war on them, they were unable to adopt to changing enemy tactics, they had a retarded leader. historical reality is that they were extremely lucky at the beginning and thats it, the soviet union itself was more than enough to beat the shxt out of them.

Retributarr
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:44 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by Retributarr » Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:17 am

impossible wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:08 pm

i`d love to see more burma road like content. burma road is one of the best campaigns in oob because its not the usual poland-norway-france-soviet uniton-normandy crap [Ret: Those Campaigns were not crap!... and they are very important to have in any WWII Game] we have been playing for decades now. the spanish civil war dlc was great. [Ret: Yes!... I agree... the SCW was a refreshing change as well as being enlightening as to the background of WWII]


btw about historical realities: germany had no chance to win the war. [Ret: I disagree] it had no resources [Ret:Neither did the Japanese], inferior economy, inferior army [Ret: I disagree... their economy worked very well up till the war started... then later 'Albert Speer... wound it up to blistering high-levels] Image, had no valuable allies, no vision just got into the war really because they didnt expect the franco-british team declare war on them, they were unable to adopt to changing enemy tactics, they had a retarded leader [Ret: Hitler didn't always make the best final decisions... but!... he wasn't an idiot]. historical reality is that they were extremely lucky at the beginning [Ret: they at first understood their nemesis/enemies very well... and planned accordingly] and thats it, the soviet union itself was more than enough to beat the shxt out of them.
Kerensky!... despite the howl's of some... as they are "Calling Down Evil Upon You"... calmly... respectfully listen to what they have to say... then give your response... followed by doing what you must do!.

My take on this WWII Game... is that all of the 'Major Battles' need to be represented or included... but!... at the same time... some new... not so common elements [As you have been doing] should be included as well so as be a 'Compliment' to the 'Main-Engagements'... to give them more meaning. This way... none of the Important WWII 'Subject-Matter'... is missing!... therefore then... no-one should be upset.

Personally... I find no-fault in your efforts!.

KesaAnna
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:59 am

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by KesaAnna » Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:59 am

Kerensky wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:35 pm
There is no 'throwaway' content.
I think it would be really cool ( if do - able ) , that if you elect to go to North Afrika , you can put your infantry in Afrika Korps pith helmets . :mrgreen:

Or , you can put your infantry in Fez's , and so pretend you are Bosnian Moslems , Spanish Moors , an Arab or Persian Legion ?

I pretend my core is a resurrection of the tradition of the Imperial German 25th Hessian Division , so picklehaubes would be really nice ! :mrgreen:

Anyway , I wouldn't have been surprised if our Field Marshall edition extras had been something like that.

" Hey ! Look ! You get hats ! "

" Aren't we generous as all get out ?! " :lol:

Then , of course , I would guess that at least one - third of buyers didn't buy the Field Marshall edition , and going forward , as regards these DLC , it really won't matter whether they do , or not.

They will be able to trawl the internet , or even simply come here , and read player reviews and commentary on these two DLC .

Tassadar
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by Tassadar » Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:11 am

Time for my two cents now that I'm on the first mission in Poland. For me the Saar Offensive scenarios were an intertesting change of pace compared to SCW and had one other quote interesting factors. They were all quite easy to complete in terms of the main objective (General difficulty), but the side mission presented a challenge and what's more importantly, made me question if they were always worth the effort - a nice immersion factor. In Warndt Forest I got caught completelty off guard by a counterattack while working towards the raid objective and really had to struggle to get things under control. Sure, I got the extra commendation points, but did I really need them? I would have no trouble getting the first Saarbrucken CP award and the second one while nice, was not critical. So perhpas the proper balance would be NOT to do that side objective and save prestige. This really got me look at bonus objectives from a different perspective.

What could have been done a bit differently however is the scale of those missions. They could be toned down to the size of Forbach (with maybe one exception) and still work. With addtion of 1-2 more scenarios in Poland as well I think no one would then complain about the scenario distribution. The timeline is tight unfortunately with the current battles, but after Warsaw there could well be a scenario where you try to cut off units trying to reach the Romanian Bridgehead or the siege of Hel Peninsula.

NightPhoenix
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by NightPhoenix » Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:18 am

-
Last edited by NightPhoenix on Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NightPhoenix
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by NightPhoenix » Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:23 am

-
Last edited by NightPhoenix on Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NightPhoenix
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by NightPhoenix » Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:24 am

Kerensky wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:35 pm

Eh, while I'm perfectly fine to for everyone in this thread to have very interesting discussions (harsh criticisms included), I have to correct this statement because I don't want misinformation to spread. :evil:

There is no 'throwaway' content. Everything is crafted with a ridiculous amount of care, and goes through many layers of inspection and internal iteration before it's presented for the players to enjoy. If Flashback was really going to produce throwaway content, you think they would have signed off on creating a Grand Campaign level of content? There is so much extra work involved in the 'under the hood' systems required to link campaigns together way above and beyond anything players see in the scenario gameplay experience.

They had no obligation for the Field Marshal package to be worth anything substantial as two full campaigns, everyone already bought it they got your money. You easily have gotten get 5 unit skins and 5 solo scenario missions for your 2 Field Marshal DLC and that would be the end of it. Should we go over the list of games who have taken this route with their pre-order secret bundles? The list would be longer than this entire thread if we dig deep enough into modern AAA gaming practices.

So by all means, I welcome you guys voicing your opinions and thoughts on the campaign scenarios and layout. I have semi thick skin, I can take the criticism. :) But let's give them a little more credit here. Completely regardless of my work or involvement, I know many team members have been working on this game more than full time. When I send a message or query at 3 AM and I get an instant reply, because other team members are also still working even at that ungodly hour... you just know you are working with extremely passionate people who really care about the project.

And the idea that AI Allies messed up Spanish Civil War is an opinion. Not everyone shares it, many people really liked it and worked extremely well alongside the AI that was specially planned because of how it fit into the historical situation of the relationship between the Nationalists, Condor Legion, and Italian CTV.
I don't think anybody said the developers of this game aren't hard working, and i think this answer isn't really engaging with the criticism. It's not that he or me for that part think the people working on this are lazy or whatever. The critisism in Randomattacks post is this: Because you already have our money, they are using these DLC to play around with creating different mechanics and/or ideas for a game that might not be positively reviewed by everyone. It's testing ground. Whereas i personally get the feeling from this game is that the development team is still learning how to create and code different mechanics/gameplay features or hasn't finished coding them, and uses these DLC to test out each new thing they made. - Rather than getting a product which used a full arsenal of various mechanics to make it entertaining for me, i get one or two new tricks every DLC and i'm getting less bang for my buck that i was expecting.

In this case, Flashback is running a tight rope - If these DLC aren't good enough, future DLC sales will suffer, so they can't make 5 unit skins + 5 solo scenarios because nobody would buy future DLC anymore. But i personally feel that much more could've come out of these DLC. Which is why i think they are not done/still learning coding all the different mechanics. This can be seen in the first mission of the second DLC already, where it's apparently needed to first give the player commendation points, and then substract them if you fail an objective. That hasn't been done before. It's there for no apparent reason when it comes to gameplay mechanics or storyline purposes. You could easily just give the player 5 points for completing the secondary objective, which would make a lot more sense really. (Can you imagine a mother saying to her kid "here take a lollypop, but if you don't do your homework i'm taking it away again!") - why do it differently but to test out whether this newly coded/designed feature works?
This is coupled with the "controversial" decision to allocate a large portion of the design space to the Saar Offensive. The only way to do that without hurting sales (but potentially hurting future sales still) is by putting that in DLC thats already purchased while people didn't know what it was going to be about. For if you mention that beforehand you know a certain percentage of your potential customer base is going to drop off and say - i don't care about this theather of war, so i'm not buying it.
With the pre-orders, we kind of fell for it ourselves, that's true. In my case i thought that because i liked Panzer Corps 1, surely Panzer Corps 2 would be to my liking as well, and i was wrong. On the one hand, it's not a trap because Flashback still needs subsequent DLC to sell and they need their field marshall DLC to be good, but on the other hand i find such business practices as: you don't know what you get, but you can already pay for it - is gambling. And that's kind of a shitty practice, as you acknowledge yourself (unless apparenly when people worked hard on the content), cause it's very easy to fall for that kind of trap.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by kondi754 » Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:29 pm

I understand searching for new content, but the PzC series (1, 2 and maybe 3... sometime) is the most important production in its niche genre.
I would expect greater respect for history and its participants.
Let's be honest, that the next opportunity to present the events in 1939 will be maybe in 8-10 years, looking at how much time has passed from PzC1 GC'39 to AO'39, so for the next 10 years we have 5 (perhaps interesting, but maybe uninteresting, because people write about it differently) scenarios about an unimportant incident, instead of classic and dramatic battles in Poland
What worries me even more are the announcements of more surprises in the future...
10 scenarios in Norway? and that the work is progressing slowly because it is not easy to find so many battles which have not been seen in such games before... a nice circus is going on, meine Herren :|

Simonas
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:42 am

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by Simonas » Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:32 pm

You guys are really boring or your life is boring, if you are looking problems in such area.

jeannot le lapin
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 274
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:29 pm

Re: AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

Post by jeannot le lapin » Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:42 pm

There is an Editor so those who are not happy, go to work instead of talking!

R.U.S.E. - Historical Battles: Saar Offensive -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kXMbKIEmNg

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps 2”