AO 1939 scn tree is VERY controversial

[kondi754]

No, I'm not the enemy

Of course, Devs or project designer for this DLC will not ask how he should create the content of the game one by one, it was a rhetorical question. I mean, we don't really have such a big influence and it's probably good that we don't, because he takes responsibility for the final shape of the game and its popularity among the players. So I know it is doomed and this is how the game will look like forever
This campaign tree was a shock and a blow for me, I don't know any better way to comment it than by writing such a post in this exact place

EDIT. As much as I'm delighted with SCW, I'm now disappointed with 1939

[Kerensky]

Getting out of my lane, but calling the Tree a disaster when you meant the campaign irks me.

1) The Devs do read all the posts.
2) The Dev[Flashback] is not doing the AO campaigns, the Publisher[Slitherline] hired an outside contractor to write the AO campaign.
3) The Outside contractor [Kerensky], also reads these posts, and feels perfectly happy to ignore them as he sees fit.
As you may have noticed.

The next DLC has not been decided/scheduled.
It may be AO-40, it may be US-42, may be . . .
Feel free to weight in.

Disclamer:
I do not personally know anyone working for Slitherline or Flashback, I just browse these forums like everyone else and read between the lines.

Nope he was clearly referencing your campaign tree designs specifically as being a disaster. They clearly lack the artistic background that were vital elements of the original Grand Campaign. (completely ignoring that the original Grand Campaign also did not get tree art until it was fully completed, including West Front DLC set)

[Retributarr]

"Kerensky!"... maybe i'm just not informed enough about the important details of the Campaigns, but just looking at the 'Campaign-Tree' by itsellf… it looked "new"-"different" "and fine" to me.

Anyway!... what I came directly here for... is to see if you could provide more details... [There are some 'Restless-Disgruntled-Souls needing some justification for its design] ...as to why this 'Campaign-Tree' was designed, for what reasons or purposes... and also for what it will contribute to the Campaign-Package itself. Some want to have some 'Personal-Input' into these matters!... so-far... I personally have no such desire to do so... but others seem to need to participate in these developments.

I did my best to get my personal understanding and assessment of PzC2 across to "kondi754"... but just couldn't seem to get him to see it the way that I do. So... if you don't see a need to communicate with him directly, then... if its not too much bother... could you please give us something to quell the savage-beast in some of us, or even better still... a short dissertation on the what, why, where, when and 'who-done-it'...as far as what is happening with this next 'DLC'.

The response that I got from "kondi754".
"kondi754"_quote: "You didn't understand what I wrote, huh?"

[Kerensky]

Anyway!... what I came directly here for... is to see if you could provide more details... [There are some 'Restless-Disgruntled-Souls needing some justification for its design] ...as to why this 'Campaign-Tree' was designed, for what reasons or purposes... and also for what it will contribute to the Campaign-Package itself. Some want to have some 'Personal-Input' into these matters!... so-far... I personally have no such desire to do so... but others seem to need to participate in these developments.

I would have to respond by saying he is entitled to his opinion, and that you shouldn't worry about needing to change or convince him. I think it's unfortunate his opinion seems to merely be based on a number of scenarios without having experienced the content at all, but it is what it is.

So the only thing I can say is if the next chapter of the Grand Campaign looks interesting to you, give it a try and then form your own opinions on it.

[dalfrede]

It makes things hard to read.

AO-1939_Tree1.1.jpg (179.75 KiB) Viewed 864 times

[jeannot le lapin]

I find this selection of scenarios very controversial in this DLC.
The French limited attack in the Saarland was not so interesting to devote as many as 5 maps to this event.
They shot a bit in the air and returned to the trenches and bunkers...

Annotation 2020-08-21 121022.jpg (102.15 KiB) Viewed 812 times

[NightPhoenix]

I find this selection of scenarios very controversial in this DLC.
The French limited attack in the Saarland was not so interesting to devote as many as 5 maps to this event.
They shot a bit in the air and returned to the trenches and bunkers...

Annotation 2020-08-21 121022.jpg

Is this supposed to show Kondi754 has a point or not? =P

In comparison one small part of the battle of Poland (1 mission in the Panzer Corps 39' DLC) already has more casualties than the entire Saar offensive all together:

[jeannot le lapin]

I find this selection of scenarios very controversial in this DLC.
The French limited attack in the Saarland was not so interesting to devote as many as 5 maps to this event.
They shot a bit in the air and returned to the trenches and bunkers...

Annotation 2020-08-21 121022.jpg

Is this supposed to show Kondi754 has a point or not? =P

In comparison one small part of the battle of Poland (1 mission in the Panzer Corps 39' DLC) already has more casualties than the entire Saar offensive all together:

We’re not in a video game comparing scores.
During the Saar offensive there were deaths, it wasn’t just an exercise.

[NightPhoenix]

Annotation 2020-08-21 121022.jpg

Is this supposed to show Kondi754 has a point or not? =P

In comparison one small part of the battle of Poland (1 mission in the Panzer Corps 39' DLC) already has more casualties than the entire Saar offensive all together:

We’re not in a video game comparing scores.
During the Saar offensive there were deaths, it wasn’t just a drill.

No, but i do think that it shows that in magnitude, the Saar offensive was just a sideshow compared to the fighting in Poland. I think Kondi's point is, he wants to play the big battles. He wants to fight where the biggest action is. Breaking through Polish lines, fighting tooth and nail to get through the say: heavily fortified defenses at Mlawa. Compared this to: laying mines. It just doesn't strike the imagination and doesn't sound exciting. And i kinda agree. It's a matter of taste. I get that. But i'm the kind of person that wants to be right where the action is, i wanna be excited. I want to imagine flamethrower guys firing through the bunker slits with mortar fire banging all around. Not laying mines, or pulling off a raid on a small city that i've never heard of, and is of no importance to the war at all. Having A mission on the Saar offensive would be pretty cool, i agree. but 5.....

[fluffybunnyuk]

I think its a good tree. It starts off small, requiring a deft touch/care because the war hasnt got going yet. It builds up in scale slowly showing different ideas, and when the french are left behind, we redeploy for the invasion of poland. Things ramp up big time,and now no longer is it about keeping the allies happy, and looking for free territory.

All in all i think its very well thought out. I've seen several playthroughs on youtube, and its great fun watching players navigate new ideas, and thinking about things, not just bulldozing. Speaking as a bulldozer myself.

[kondi754]

@NightPhoenix
At least one person which also had different expectations
Yes, there should be 3-4 mission in Poland during the so-called "border battle" and next our hero may be transferrer to western border for 1-2 mission, and then return to Poland for battle of Bzura

The point is that Poland was tasked with withstanding Hitler's onslaught for 14 days before France was ready to go on the big offensive in the West, so the real war was going on in Poland during this period. France did not launch any offensive, because these fights in Saarland were appearances for the ally only, because there was neither adequate preparation for the war nor willingness to act in France. Poland was written off by its Western allies, because France and Great Britain could do nothing more than declare war against 3rd Reich

So we lose all the essence of real and fierce fights 1939 in Poland, where each successful break in the defense of the Poles removes the specter of the Allied offensive in the west, and instead we sit in a bunker near Saarbrucken, this is a shot in the knee by the game creator/-s IMO

Do you really want AO to look like this - on the sidelines of the main events, because someone wants to show something new?

EDIT. BTW, Battle of Bzura (started 8-9th September) was the last main attempt from Polish side to convince Western Allies to start promised offensive.
Polish 2 armies (200,000 soldiers) attacked the exposed wing of the German 8th Army in the south-east direction to start a great battle and show that Poland is still fighting precisely for France and Great Britain.
It would be more logical from an operational and strategic point of view to march eastwards to Warsaw, where there were no German troops, because the spearheads of German armored divisions did not reach Warsaw from the south until 10th September and the infantry and artillery were far behind.
The Polish army, through military involvement elsewhere, allowed the Germans to pull up reserves and encircle 200,000 Polish soldiers at the Bzura river.

[George_Parr]

No, but i do think that it shows that in magnitude, the Saar offensive was just a sideshow compared to the fighting in Poland. I think Kondi's point is, he wants to play the big battles. He wants to fight where the biggest action is. Breaking through Polish lines, fighting tooth and nail to get through the say: heavily fortified defenses at Mlawa. Compared this to: laying mines. It just doesn't strike the imagination and doesn't sound exciting. And i kinda agree. It's a matter of taste. I get that. But i'm the kind of person that wants to be right where the action is, i wanna be excited. I want to imagine flamethrower guys firing through the bunker slits with mortar fire banging all around. Not laying mines, or pulling off a raid on a small city that i've never heard of, and is of no importance to the war at all. Having A mission on the Saar offensive would be pretty cool, i agree. but 5.....

I think those are perfectly valid reasons to complain about something, but it also matters how you do that. It just seems like some people aren't capable of nuance anymore. There is a huge difference between saying "I think there are a few too many Saar-missions, especially when compared to the number of Polish missions" or "these alternative missions with little actual combat aren't really enjoyable to me", and just throwing around insulting hyperbolic nonsense like "desaster", "laughauble", "scandal", etc. Especially when you consider that a DLC is the prime spot to test different approaches - when else are they supposed to see whether a new idea works / is liked by the players, if not here? - and that the person in question hadn't even played the missions to know what they were actually like.

The former might get you the attention of hte developers, especially when paired with specific reasons as for why you think something didn't work. The latter is just screeching into the void, something that not only does not offer an ounce of constructive criticism, but it also insulting towards the developers. I'll never understand why some people think this sort of behaviour will actually accomplish anything beneficial. If there are things to criticise, and there almost always are for everything in life, then a well reasoned and compelling argument is much more helpful for everyone than declaring that the world is about to end because a DLC of a freaking video-game wasn't up to a person's liking.

[kondi754]

No, but i do think that it shows that in magnitude, the Saar offensive was just a sideshow compared to the fighting in Poland. I think Kondi's point is, he wants to play the big battles. He wants to fight where the biggest action is. Breaking through Polish lines, fighting tooth and nail to get through the say: heavily fortified defenses at Mlawa. Compared this to: laying mines. It just doesn't strike the imagination and doesn't sound exciting. And i kinda agree. It's a matter of taste. I get that. But i'm the kind of person that wants to be right where the action is, i wanna be excited. I want to imagine flamethrower guys firing through the bunker slits with mortar fire banging all around. Not laying mines, or pulling off a raid on a small city that i've never heard of, and is of no importance to the war at all. Having A mission on the Saar offensive would be pretty cool, i agree. but 5.....

I think those are perfectly valid reasons to complain about something, but it also matters how you do that. It just seems like some people aren't capable of nuance anymore. There is a huge difference between saying "I think there are a few too many Saar-missions, especially when compared to the number of Polish missions" or "these alternative missions with little actual combat aren't really enjoyable to me", and just throwing around insulting hyperbolic nonsense like "desaster", "laughauble", "scandal", etc. Especially when you consider that a DLC is the prime spot to test different approaches - when else are they supposed to see whether a new idea works / is liked by the players, if not here? - and that the person in question hadn't even played the missions to know what they were actually like.

The former might get you the attention of hte developers, especially when paired with specific reasons as for why you think something didn't work. The latter is just screeching into the void, something that not only does not offer an ounce of constructive criticism, but it also insulting towards the developers. I'll never understand why some people think this sort of behaviour will actually accomplish anything beneficial. If there are things to criticise, and there almost always are for everything in life, then a well reasoned and compelling argument is much more helpful for everyone than declaring that the world is about to end because a DLC of a freaking video-game wasn't up to a person's liking.

I do not understand why you are writing about me to someone and not addressing me personally with criticism. You are afraid of me?
This behavior is extremely offensive and insults me.
As a customer, I have the right to express my opinion. If I consider something a scandal, I have the right to write that it is a scandal.

[NightPhoenix]

No, but i do think that it shows that in magnitude, the Saar offensive was just a sideshow compared to the fighting in Poland. I think Kondi's point is, he wants to play the big battles. He wants to fight where the biggest action is. Breaking through Polish lines, fighting tooth and nail to get through the say: heavily fortified defenses at Mlawa. Compared this to: laying mines. It just doesn't strike the imagination and doesn't sound exciting. And i kinda agree. It's a matter of taste. I get that. But i'm the kind of person that wants to be right where the action is, i wanna be excited. I want to imagine flamethrower guys firing through the bunker slits with mortar fire banging all around. Not laying mines, or pulling off a raid on a small city that i've never heard of, and is of no importance to the war at all. Having A mission on the Saar offensive would be pretty cool, i agree. but 5.....

I think those are perfectly valid reasons to complain about something, but it also matters how you do that. It just seems like some people aren't capable of nuance anymore. There is a huge difference between saying "I think there are a few too many Saar-missions, especially when compared to the number of Polish missions" or "these alternative missions with little actual combat aren't really enjoyable to me", and just throwing around insulting hyperbolic nonsense like "desaster", "laughauble", "scandal", etc. Especially when you consider that a DLC is the prime spot to test different approaches - when else are they supposed to see whether a new idea works / is liked by the players, if not here? - and that the person in question hadn't even played the missions to know what they were actually like.

The former might get you the attention of hte developers, especially when paired with specific reasons as for why you think something didn't work. The latter is just screeching into the void, something that not only does not offer an ounce of constructive criticism, but it also insulting towards the developers. I'll never understand why some people think this sort of behaviour will actually accomplish anything beneficial. If there are things to criticise, and there almost always are for everything in life, then a well reasoned and compelling argument is much more helpful for everyone than declaring that the world is about to end because a DLC of a freaking video-game wasn't up to a person's liking.

Ah, well let's keep it to the actual complaint and not the form. I understand what you are saying, but i'd rather have a discussion about the content of the DLC than about how somebody says things really. It would be interesting to see how other people think about this anyhow, regardless of how they express themselves. Using a large portion of the design space for this conflict over others is quite unique, untested waters rather. Would be a shame if discussion would be cut off or become secondary over something as trivial as form while the message is clear.

[kondi754]

Ok, one thing which I should change is the name of this thread
Maybe when I was so confused/shocked when I saw this scn tree I shouldn't use the word "disaster" so I change it to "VERY controversial"

[Kerensky]

Well, so far we've at least not been accused of reselling the same old Grand Campaign all over again in the sequel.

[kondi754]

Well, so far we've at least not been accused of reselling the same old Grand Campaign all over again in the sequel.

Definitely, it won't be a classic and polite AO
This is VERY CONTROVERSIAL from the beginning

[Patrat]

"Well, so far we've at least not been accused of reselling the same old Grand Campaign all over again in the sequel. "


I'm pretty sure if you had made the DLC to resemble the original panzer corps campaign, you'd have someone else making a thread complaining about it.


Probably with similar language.

[Kerensky]

Definitely, it won't be a classic and polite AO
This is VERY CONTROVERSIAL from the beginning

Au contraire, mon ami. I distinctly recall the original Grand Campaign being extremely controversial in its own right. We look back fondly on it now that it's done and complete, and the fans of it have requested it return to Panzer Corps 2 so much we brought it back (not 1:1, which is the current controversy) but it wasn't all hearts and roses when it started out either...

[adiekmann]

Before even the first DLC was announced, I was wondering long and hard what the content of them was going to be. How do you redo a 'Grand Campaign' but make it fresh, and not just a rerun of PC1. The first game did such a great job, the challenge of a worthy encore is high. I for one could not have come up with a good answer/solution to that question.

I made some comments/suggestions which indeed Kerensky commented on and were included, though I bet he was thinking along those lines already. I assume to take no credit for it.

As for AO'39, I too was surprised to see so many Saarland missions and not more of Poland. But at the same time, I do not fault them for trying to be different. I think I would have been more disappointed if it was simply a updated copy of the original 1939 campaign.