Asking about your real opinion on the future of PC2

[Bee1976]

I also agree with the sentiment that a keystone to this game, this series even, has been the building and development of your core. Not everything has to be AO in length, but how many scenarios (not fake scenarios like Forbach ) long would you say should be the minimum? I'd say probably around 25.

From my point of view: the longer the better
But it depends. I still enjoy the vanilla campaign fromn time to time and it is short compared to AO. But ofc the vc covers the complete time from 39 to 45 with a lot of equipment and important historic battles.
If i could chose a length for a single DLC i would agree 20 to 25 real, not narrative, scenarios. That is a nice amount for a single campaign, but real great for a long campaign series.

THE AO series is great and long and a lot of fun, but its feels that some important battles are missing or too short. And i know development costs, but i would be happy to pay more money for longer DLCs.
-------------------------------

Some words on Bulge:
Im not a big fan of mini-campaigns. obviously. But i would highly recommend trying it out. Bulge offer some fun battles and some challenge. I dont think i will play it that often but i dont regret that i have bought it.

[BarbarianHunter]

I also agree with the sentiment that a keystone to this game, this series even, has been the building and development of your core. Not everything has to be AO in length, but how many scenarios (not fake scenarios like Forbach ) long would you say should be the minimum? I'd say probably around 25.

25 doesn't seem like enough.
The 59 from SCW to the end of '41 would be my take on the bare minimum for a proper core-based campaign.
Edit: ...with another preferable 15 beyond that to revel in steamrolling maps with what I've created.

[robman]

I lost interest in the Bulge after a few scenarios and didn’t finish it.

[adiekmann]

The following is an excerpt from a post I made during the beta where I outlined some ideas that I would like to see in the future. If I had the skills to make a mod campaign, something like the following is what I would do. Granted, I like historical campaigns, ones that are long enough to build and develop a core, but at the same time something different. I'd love to hear what any of you think of my idea.

Now I will pretend I am an official campaign designer for PzC2 and will lay out an example of what I would envision and try to do. I will use the 9th Australian Division for this example, but there's tons to choose from all sides.

It could begin with its formation and training and follow it through all of its areas of deployment and engagements. This of course means its participation in many of the most famous battles in North Africa, and then later many in the Pacific theatre against the Japanese. Some of their units were even sent to Greece! How cool is that?! You not only get totally different terrain to fight in, but completely different opponents!

My maps would largely focus on their area of operation, rather than the entire battlefield fought by their armies as a whole. Victory would be centered on their mission/job, rather than winning the entire battle. Keep everything historical and use real unit and unique hero names. "Zoomed in" to use the company's choice of words . It was the most decorated division in Australia and with good reason.

Like any well-done campaign, it would require much work/time on researching the details of all of their engagements. While I used the 9th Australian for this example, when you think deeply about it, this same idea could be applied to countless of other famous military formations including even ones smaller than the divisional level. That...I think would be awesome!

Often this idea would probably involve smaller maps since it is focused on your unit's role in the battle so it can be focused on the historical role without worry for the entire battle. I can think of many famous units that this model could be applied to including the 7th Amoured Division (GB), 2nd New Zealand Division, Großdeutschland Division, 7th Flieger/1st Fallschirmjäger Division, and 1/2/3 SS Divisions, 51st (Highland) Division, 4th Indian Division, etc. You could do one focused on one of the minor nations too, like Italy, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, and Greek, though some of those would probably be shorter. Some room for ahistorical content would allow some wriggle room, like an Italian division which under your leadership survived Operation Compass and continues the war in North Africa with Rommel. Anyway, in my imagination I can think of countless possibilities, but I will rest my case here.

[Tassadar]

I've played the game an absurd amount of time, by far the most I have ever dedicated to any title and that is counting modded Skyrim from when I had more time in university way back as a carefree student. I still have ideas for new runs and new challenges, but they need fresh content. Not only from a perspective of changing the sides of the conflict, but adding extra units, involving additional map and campaign designers with their ow twists and fresh concepts and also not being afraid of experimenting.

Panzer Corps 2 biggest asset is that the engine is modern enough for a strategy game to serve for a long while and seems to be flexible enough to add new features and expand the game in new, interesting ways, of course if the devs do come up with something fresh.

That said, AO series was massive and most people who played it, who knows, perhaps like myself even went though it multiple times, can feel a bit of exposure fatigue. While I'd love to see AO West, I think it was a very smart decision to not charge into this area immediately. Let's now give Allies time to shine, to get players slowly, but surely, more interested in revisiting the AO concept on a brand new front. I already made some draft rules for my cores for such a time, but I am content letting anticipation build up slowly, with that element of uncertainty that comes next.

As for mods, the only reason I have not yet started the Grand Campaign redux or Storm Over Europe is their ambitious scale. Since these are mods and not official DLC, I am simply playing it safe and looking forward to a complete release (doe not even have to be final), to be able to enjoy it at my own pace and to be sure that once the mod files are downloaded, I can bring the run to an end at my own pace. I would be great to see more shorter mods as well, I'd be inclined to play the even now, but I agree with modders' option that the dame needs some modding tools, while also being aware that if they do come out, it will be at the end of the DLC development cycle, once the team slowly thinking about Panzer Corps 3 already and that is not coming anytime soon.

Besides, there's recent Headquarters World War II to check out (makes me contemplate how little time off there is in a year to give it a go!) and few other interesting titles. They can refresh the urge to go back to Panzer Corps 2, but let's face it. With each new DLC, the bar will be set higher for making players interested.

[Snake97644]

You could do one focused on one of the minor nations too, like Italy, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, and Greek, though some of those would probably be shorter. Some room for ahistorical content would allow some wriggle room, like an Italian division which under your leadership survived Operation Compass and continues the war in North Africa with Rommel. Anyway, in my imagination I can think of countless possibilities, but I will rest my case here.

It seems I was not the only one that passed on the Bulge mini-campaign. Personally if they are going to do mini-campaigns I would prefer somethings like adiekmann outlined above. The Big Red One mod campaign already showed how this concept can work, and it would be a great way to incorporate some of the smaller nations into a campaign. Instead of a Bulge campaign that no one seemed to play, how about a mini-Polish campaign centered around a division sized element. At least if it falls on its face, it will be something different and unique.

Much like the others on here I would still like to see an American and British campaign, but independent of each other, and at the corps level. I would not mind a Soviet GC as well. I would also enjoy an Italian campaign.

I enjoy ahistorical content, and I did enjoy that aspect of the AO series, but even I could not get into AO46. I finished it, but I can't see myself replaying it again. However even if I would have ended the AO series differently, I appreciate the fact that the developers attempted something different; it did not work so well in that iteration, but that innovation also helped to make other aspects of the AO series so great and fun.

[DefiantXYX]

If i could chose a length for a single DLC i would agree 20 to 25 real, not narrative, scenarios. That is a nice amount for a single campaign, but real great for a long campaign series.

It depends on the time period. 20-25 in one year is just too long. There is nothing to upgrade, or a reason to manage your core at all.You will lose a huge part of the game if you just play a map. Thats a major problem in 1946, you can play the whole game with~10 upgrades or just stay on your units from 1945, doesnt really matter.

Even in the early AOs sometimes it gets boring if you units reach the exp. maximum and stuff. Once again, either the game mechanics needs to be changed or you focus on qualitiy instead of quantity.

[rafstaff]

As most of you i also didnt finish 46 campaign, story, no side objectives, the same kind of missions and later on no upgrades in equipment made this dlc really repeatable and not interesting. Secondly i suppose that the biggest mistake of devs was trying to change naval combat into more interesting fights that's why they lost 2 years of time and probably a lot of money, when they could simply start Pacific campaign as japan in 36 at war with China. This would give them time to find solution of this problem as also some money and community wouldnt lost their interest in the game. I wrote about this after release of 45 and 46 dlc. Right now my hopes are in mods like storm over the europe, they have done great job and i am waiting for the second part of 40s.

[Bee1976]

If i could chose a length for a single DLC i would agree 20 to 25 real, not narrative, scenarios. That is a nice amount for a single campaign, but real great for a long campaign series.

It depends on the time period. 20-25 in one year is just too long. There is nothing to upgrade, or a reason to manage your core at all.You will lose a huge part of the game if you just play a map. Thats a major problem in 1946, you can play the whole game with~10 upgrades or just stay on your units from 1945, doesnt really matter.

Even in the early AOs sometimes it gets boring if you units reach the exp. maximum and stuff. Once again, either the game mechanics needs to be changed or you focus on qualitiy instead of quantity.

Valid points of course. But i dont care about upgrades that much and i dont lose fun when my units reach max experience. I like to develop a juicy core army, unit variation, doing wierd stuff with "weak" units. In most of my playthroughs i try to keep old gift units in my coreforce and try to keep them alive and make them usable through heros in lategame, like the "Neubaufahrzeug" or the "Verdeja 2".

Of course i enjoy some upgrades aswell, having no real updates in 46 is a big minus for this DLC for me aswell. But if the devs wanna do me a favor, they add more ways to indiviualize my units. Elite Units, more medals, and so on. And more heros. More bonusses from medals light +spotting or +movement or + defense and so on. Iwould still love a "phased movement" hero. Imagine a "Neubaufarzeug" with a phase movement hero and camouflage, with+spotting and +movement from medals....would be real fun (for me)


To fix the max exp problem, tryout "green replacements" neg trait and counter this with the fast learner positive trait. that might bring a nice flavor to your playthrough keeping at least some units on elite status.

[DefiantXYX]

But if the devs wanna do me a favor, they add more ways to indiviualize my units. Elite Units, more medals, and so on. And more heros. More bonusses from medals light +spotting or +movement or + defense and so on. Iwould still love a "phased movement" hero. Imagine a "Neubaufarzeug" with a phase movement hero and camouflage, with+spotting and +movement from medals....would be real fun (for me)

I agree with you turning this game into a "RPG" in some way could be very nice. But once again I dont think this is balancable, even right now 2-3 heroes combined can break the game. Imagine a Tiger I in 1942/1943 with 2-3 strong heroes and you add some more stuff that is changing the stats. I guess thats something exclusivly just for us "power players", who played more than 1000 hours this game.

To fix the max exp problem, tryout "green replacements" neg trait and counter this with the fast learner positive trait. that might bring a nice flavor to your playthrough keeping at least some units on elite status.

I can just repeat myself I am not a big fan of the negative traits. Any trait should have a slider. Lets say you always repair with 25% green replacements, that could be nice. I dont want 0% or 100%, thats manipulating the gamestyle too much.

And to repeat myself one more time, this game needs some soft reboots. Best example that is storywise already in the game is kursk 1943. There is an allied invasion in italy and you have to send some of your core units as support.
After sealion you could have to release some planes, since they are staying in the west.
1941 you have so sent some elite units to africa. And so on...
If there is always a reason to get new units and work with them the game is far more interesting.
I am aware that this is also very hard to balance. Some guys got their core full of shit units, they dont care if they lose some of them You could work around with "send 10.000 experience" to italy". You got send two 5 star tanks or 10x some green reserve units.