First DLC faction

[Tassadar]

After being almost done with the first German campaign I'm already looking forward to the upcoming DLC in the future. I'm not a multiplayer fan, so the campaigns are the core experience for me and things I look forward to the most. With that being said, I was wondering what are your opinions about the faction the first DLC should focus on. I cannot create a poll sadly, but, here are some options below.

• UK/USA - the classic, but that would be a bit boring as it follows the Panzer General into Allied General cycle
• USSR - another classic, again a bit expected
• Pacific front (Japan/USA) - probably not yet the time for it, as it would be better to take some time to flesh out the details and test out things like naval combat more
• Italian campaign - the one I look forward to the most, after playing the superb campaign by Uhu in the first part
• French campaign - with branching Vichy and Free France
• Polish campaign - with branching Western and Eastern allies paths
• Finland, Hungary or Romania - would give some fascinating and unique challenges such as having to capture a lot of equipment
• Spanish civil war - here's an unexpected one, but could be a chance to play low power units more

[SineMora]

A new Wehrmacht Grand Campaign is of course at the top of my list, but I expect it'll be a long time before we see that, even should DLC sales prove successful. Unfortunately my picks for regular campaigns are unlikely to be realised, as I'd favour a Japanese campaign on the Asian mainland, especially the war in China and the conflict against the British in Burma. Playing as the British while fending off the Japanese would also work. A new Africa Korps campaign with more scenarios in the east, culminating with the battle for India (yes, I know this was done in PzC) or Winter War campaign with the low-tech Finnish against the Soviet armoured divisions.

I'm a hopeless Wehrmacht player, though, so I'm always going to be partial to campaigns featuring them. As long as we don't have to suffer the boredom of an American Marines campaign in the Pacific I think I'd be up for most things to some extent, because let's be honest, island hopping in the Pacific is so incredibly dull that only the Americans could find that interesting, a fact made even worse by PzC's poor naval mechanics.

[elven]

I agree with SineMora I am really looking forward to a new Wehrmacht Grand Campaign even though it might be awhile. Given navel mechanics I really hope the new DLC stays on land for the most part. The Winter War and Russia has a lot of potential for a non Wehrmacht campaign and would be fun to see as well.

[Kerensky]

Interesting speculation.

And even more interesting, I'm pretty sure that 'new Grand Campaign' is one of the most requested directions for Panzer Corps 2 to go. That's pretty amazing, given the Panzer Corps base game campaign, Afrika Korps expansion pack, original Grand Campaign, and now Panzer Corps 2 base game were all German campaigns.

Any new Grand Campaign will probably need to try hard to find interesting battles to explore, so it's just not a mere retreading of campaigns past.

One interesting consideration for Spain:
There weren't any German infantry divisions running around in Spain. Condor Legion was almost exclusively tanks, aircraft, and artillery pieces.

Given the supreme importance of infantry in Panzer Corps 2, this would be a challenge to properly design, while staying historically accurate.

[Tassadar]

Spain and infantry issue should be doable with some code adjustments - PzC1 already had something like that in Afrika Korps where it was possible to buy Italian and German equipment at the same time. Same for western allies as far as I remember.

Also, Panzer General 2 allowed to buy out other factions units if they appeared in the scenario (they would switch the flag to German if upgraded however) - I ended up with a fun run once of having at least one of each infantry and some minor tanks.

[colberki]

Drawing inspiration from PG2, perhaps a DLC for the Spanish Civil War as a prelude to the 1939 Poland Campaign. Another attractive DLC could be Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete.

[gokkel]

I also am mostly interested in some Grand Campaign style of content for the German faction again. From your list though, Italy or one of the smaller factions (Hungary/Romania/Finland) could potentially be interesting. Soviet and Allied Campaign will surely be a thing anyway as well.

[Retributarr]

I'm a hopeless Wehrmacht player, though, so I'm always going to be partial to campaigns featuring them. As long as we don't have to suffer the boredom of an American Marines campaign in the Pacific I think I'd be up for most things to some extent, because let's be honest, island hopping in the Pacific is so incredibly dull that only the Americans could find that interesting, a fact made even worse by PzC's poor naval mechanics.

"As long as we don't have to suffer the boredom of an American Marines campaign in the Pacific:"
Ooohhh!!!... when I read your statement... "SineMora"... I burst out laughing hard inside!. I relate to your assessment completely!. The 'Pacific Hopping' Campaign wasn't done really badly, it just wasn't as riveting or quite exciting enough as it could have been... it needs something like... 'Monster-Steroids' or what-ever to give it a... "I'm all Pumped Up" moment.

This is where... I was hoping that 'Slitherine' could come out to the rescue with the help and assistance of the 'Forum-Community'... to help polish up this 'Lac-Lustre' beastie!. Pertaining too... "island hopping in the Pacific is so incredibly dull that only the Americans could find that interesting, a fact made even worse by PzC's poor naval mechanics:."

[dalfrede]

I think the first DLC shoudl be an 'Allied Corps' variant, for balance.

As far as the GC goes:
Since it was not an objective of the '42 offensive, Stalingrad should be skipped and the Caucasus should be the point of GC42.
Scenarios of Army Group A fighting to avoid being encircled as the Sixth army was would cover any Stalingrad issues.

With the exception of unit 3D models, converting one the Pacific mods should be easy because no one will notice if north is on the right and not up.

[adiekmann]

I played PG2 a ton, and most of it was user-made campaigns. (Anyone remember "Steve's PG2" site? )

Whereas I too would love a GC again, for both Germans and Allies, I also liked smaller focused campaigns/maps. Huge maps with millions of units that take hours to complete sometimes gets to be laborious when played one after the other. I suspect that I may be in the minority here, but I most enjoyed the smaller scale maps/scenarios such as those that began GC'42 West (perhaps my fav GC), the British Campaign, and the US campaign. Also I liked how the same battle, e.g. Stalingrad in the GC, was actually broken up into several separate scenarios (approaching, City, docks, breakout). I would prefer a mix of big, medium, and small scenarios in the next installment of Grand Campaigns. It would also provide one manner of "being different" to PC1.

Lastly, something that some modders did with PG2 decades ago (I'm dating myself here) is design campaigns that were focused on a specific unit. Some of this was done with PC1, but not as much. Again, from reading this forum I already am guessing that many of you do not share this view. But I would find it unique and fun to play just a Fallschirmjäger campaign, Großdeutschland Division, or some other elite unit campaign that focuses on their specific historic battles and roles in them. Since many began only as a regiment sized unit and grew into full divisions, it would also provide a perfect "growth" plan as the campaign moved on. PC2 units could all be battalion or kompanie sized to model the scale. (Waffen SS divisions in particular come to mind, but I understand why that would be problematic.)

Any thoughts on these ideas?

[Retributarr]

I played PG2 a ton, and most of it was user-made campaigns. (Anyone remember "Steve's PG2" site? )

Also I liked how the same battle, e.g. Stalingrad in the GC, was actually broken up into several separate scenarios (approaching, City, docks, breakout). I would prefer a mix of big, medium, and small scenarios in the next installment of Grand Campaigns. It would also provide one manner of "being different" to PC1.

Lastly, something that some modders did with PG2 decades ago (I'm dating myself here) is design campaigns that were focused on a specific unit. Some of this was done with PC1, but not as much. Again, from reading this forum I already am guessing that many of you do not share this view. But I would find it unique and fun to play just a Fallschirmjäger campaign, Großdeutschland Division, or some other elite unit campaign that focuses on their specific historic battles and roles in them. Since many began only as a regiment sized unit and grew into full divisions, it would also provide a perfect "growth" plan as the campaign moved on. PC2 units could all be battalion sized to model the scale. (Waffen SS divisions in particular come to mind, but I understand why that would be problematic.)

Any thoughts on these ideas?

No 'Specific-Thoughts' as yet!... however... your propositions on "e.g. Stalingrad in the GC, was actually broken up into several separate scenarios": as well as... "fun to play just a Fallschirmjäger campaign, Großdeutschland Division, or some other elite unit campaign that focuses on their specific historic battles and roles in them": elicits more delving into this 'Subject-Topic-Matter'.

Thanks for the 'Heads-Up' suggestions!..

[Kerensky]

I played PG2 a ton, and most of it was user-made campaigns. (Anyone remember "Steve's PG2" site? )

Whereas I too would love a GC again, for both Germans and Allies, I also liked smaller focused campaigns/maps. Huge maps with millions of units that take hours to complete sometimes gets to be laborious when played one after the other. I suspect that I may be in the minority here, but I most enjoyed the smaller scale maps/scenarios such as those that began GC'42 West (perhaps my fav GC), the British Campaign, and the US campaign. Also I liked how the same battle, e.g. Stalingrad in the GC, was actually broken up into several separate scenarios (approaching, City, docks, breakout). I would prefer a mix of big, medium, and small scenarios in the next installment of Grand Campaigns. It would also provide one manner of "being different" to PC1.

Any thoughts on these ideas?

In order to create better variety of battle, they would have to tweak the game's CORE units mechanics slightly. We already have the ability to move units into reserve, which is mandatory for any time a smaller scenario follows a larger one, but I don't think it works quite the way it needs to yet.

But as someone who struggled massively with the problem of inflation in the original Grand Campaign, I definitely am on board for more variety of scenario size. Besides, it's only appropriate. Just because battles were fought in Poland and early in the war doesn't mean they were universally small unit skirmishes. Just as in late war not every battle was a gargantuan Kursk sized battle.

More big battles earlier in the campaign, more small scale battles late war? Variety is only a good thing. =)

Speaking of GC, glad you liked 1942. There were some real winners in there for sure. Kharkov 42. That was my favorite scenario for the longest time. It plays very interestingly, and it often plays out extremely historically. Soviet advance tends to create a pocket of Soviets around Izyum, just as it did in reality.

I think in terms of battle size, 1943 East was the best 'large battle' DLC. It felt big, but not too big. But when it started to get even bigger... let's just say placing and configuring 200+ AI units per scenario was becoming untenable. But any less enemy units and the AI could simply not put up a fight worthy of a CORE most players were fielding.

I guess it was historical to fight endless hordes of Soviets troops, and no matter how many you destroy, the next scenario refilled them all up.... but there was definite burn out stemming from those designs.
It's why when we later launched the West Branch of the DLC, we trimmed the CORE size dramatically (clear reserve after deploy to St. Nazaire).

[Tassadar]

I played PG2 a ton, and most of it was user-made campaigns. (Anyone remember "Steve's PG2" site? )

Whereas I too would love a GC again, for both Germans and Allies, I also liked smaller focused campaigns/maps. Huge maps with millions of units that take hours to complete sometimes gets to be laborious when played one after the other. I suspect that I may be in the minority here, but I most enjoyed the smaller scale maps/scenarios such as those that began GC'42 West (perhaps my fav GC), the British Campaign, and the US campaign. Also I liked how the same battle, e.g. Stalingrad in the GC, was actually broken up into several separate scenarios (approaching, City, docks, breakout). I would prefer a mix of big, medium, and small scenarios in the next installment of Grand Campaigns. It would also provide one manner of "being different" to PC1.

Lastly, something that some modders did with PG2 decades ago (I'm dating myself here) is design campaigns that were focused on a specific unit. Some of this was done with PC1, but not as much. Again, from reading this forum I already am guessing that many of you do not share this view. But I would find it unique and fun to play just a Fallschirmjäger campaign, Großdeutschland Division, or some other elite unit campaign that focuses on their specific historic battles and roles in them. Since many began only as a regiment sized unit and grew into full divisions, it would also provide a perfect "growth" plan as the campaign moved on. PC2 units could all be battalion or kompanie sized to model the scale. (Waffen SS divisions in particular come to mind, but I understand why that would be problematic.)

Any thoughts on these ideas?

Steve's PG2 site was a gem - and while it's no longer updated an archive exists and most mods can still be downloaded.

I second the idea of smaller scale scenarios mixing with larger ones - these would also easily tie with campagins focused on nations such as Finland or Hungary, where the scale of the conflict was not as huge most of the time. With the supply count this can be easily adjusted even in later periods. Thi s also means it would be possibly doable to combine Finnish/Romanian/Hungarian campagins into one DLC if they had smaller scale overall.

A noteworthy variation of that would be bonuses such as the Taranto Raid scenario from Allied Corps.

As for specific units - that's something that would fit well into a Polish campagin for example since after 1939 the troops were scattered all around the world and formed many independent units. It would also work well for the Spanish Blue Division, perhaps as a continuation of the civil war campagin on the nationalist side? There's certainly some potential in that.

[dalfrede]

In order to create better variety of battle, they would have to tweak the game's CORE units mechanics slightly. We already have the ability to move units into reserve, which is mandatory for any time a smaller scenario follows a larger one, but I don't think it works quite the way it needs to yet.

There needs to be a function/command for script.lua that dumps your entire core into reserve.

When I jumped from Kursk to Libya, I had 105/70 slots available to be placed.

Which hardly seemed fair.

[Kerensky]

There needs to be a function/command for script.lua that dumps your entire core into reserve.

When I jumped from Kursk to Libya, I had 105/70 slots available to be placed.

Which hardly seemed fair.

Correct, this is the hiccup that would need to be addressed.

But I dunno if I like dumping the whole core into reserve. Seems like that would get very annoying very fast as you manually pull (mostly) the same units right back into active service. Only to have it happen again the next time there is scenario slot variance.

[Akkula]

I guess it was historical to fight endless hordes of Soviets troops, and no matter how many you destroy, the next scenario refilled them all up.... but there was definite burn out stemming from those designs.

It was needed maybe in terms of gameplay, but not historically accurate. The "soviet hordes" was an invention of the German and NATO propaganda.
They Red Army had numerical superiority yes, but not like "hordes" or "seas" of men and tanks. Example: in 1944 the men deployed ratio (along the entire front) was 1.9... not 1:10 like the media like to mention. In 1943 it was 1.7.
Maybe in future DLCs, this aspect could be improved. The PzC2 equipment stats is quite more balanced than PzC1, this could help.

[adiekmann]

I played PG2 a ton, and most of it was user-made campaigns. (Anyone remember "Steve's PG2" site? )

Whereas I too would love a GC again, for both Germans and Allies, I also liked smaller focused campaigns/maps. Huge maps with millions of units that take hours to complete sometimes gets to be laborious when played one after the other. I suspect that I may be in the minority here, but I most enjoyed the smaller scale maps/scenarios such as those that began GC'42 West (perhaps my fav GC), the British Campaign, and the US campaign. Also I liked how the same battle, e.g. Stalingrad in the GC, was actually broken up into several separate scenarios (approaching, City, docks, breakout). I would prefer a mix of big, medium, and small scenarios in the next installment of Grand Campaigns. It would also provide one manner of "being different" to PC1.

Any thoughts on these ideas?

In order to create better variety of battle, they would have to tweak the game's CORE units mechanics slightly. We already have the ability to move units into reserve, which is mandatory for any time a smaller scenario follows a larger one, but I don't think it works quite the way it needs to yet.

But as someone who struggled massively with the problem of inflation in the original Grand Campaign, I definitely am on board for more variety of scenario size. Besides, it's only appropriate. Just because battles were fought in Poland and early in the war doesn't mean they were universally small unit skirmishes. Just as in late war not every battle was a gargantuan Kursk sized battle.

More big battles earlier in the campaign, more small scale battles late war? Variety is only a good thing. =)

Speaking of GC, glad you liked 1942. There were some real winners in there for sure. Kharkov 42. That was my favorite scenario for the longest time. It plays very interestingly, and it often plays out extremely historically. Soviet advance tends to create a pocket of Soviets around Izyum, just as it did in reality.

I think in terms of battle size, 1943 East was the best 'large battle' DLC. It felt big, but not too big. But when it started to get even bigger... let's just say placing and configuring 200+ AI units per scenario was becoming untenable. But any less enemy units and the AI could simply not put up a fight worthy of a CORE most players were fielding.

I guess it was historical to fight endless hordes of Soviets troops, and no matter how many you destroy, the next scenario refilled them all up.... but there was definite burn out stemming from those designs.
It's why when we later launched the West Branch of the DLC, we trimmed the CORE size dramatically (clear reserve after deploy to St. Nazaire).

I am glad to hear I am not alone in this feeling. And yes, 1942 EAST I liked a lot, but I was specifically referring to the WEST '42/43 Campaign. I liked the reduced core, being forced to make hard choices with which units to retain from '41, and all those smaller scale operations in France at the beginning. Even when you get to Sicily/Italy, it doesn't grow too big.

With the core slot system in PC2, you have an easy way to keep the player's core army from getting too big and thus unbalancing the type of maps/campaigns that I was in favor of seeing more of. It adds more tactical consideration to your "battle plans" since you don't have a large number of core units. Almost puzzle like.

Kerensky, since you designed it, I will continue and elaborate with a specific example. The Hardelot scenario (#3 in GC '42/43 WEST). You are spread out all over. You don't know where the attack is going to come from. That is small scale genius design and very welcome from your usual huge map slug fest. To take that scenario one step further, after a few play throughs and you think you know where the sea invasion or the last land attack is coming from, it changes from North to South, or visa-versa! That had me scrambling all over the place! Genius! I could go on with other examples in different scenarios/campaigns, but I think that illustrates my point of view quite well.

An entire campaign, based on a specific historic unit (say, Großdeutschland for instance) could be kept somewhat small by limiting the allowable core size. I would also think easier/faster to create since it isn't as large-scale, but I must admit that's easy for me to say as one who has never made anything myself beyond a single scenario

Forum readers (and developers), think about it and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I still like a good big battle, don't get me wrong, but bigger isn't always better!

[ErissN6]

As 1st DLC, I would buy the faction of 2D game.

[Kerensky]

I am glad to hear I am not alone in this feeling. And yes, 1942 EAST I liked a lot, but I was specifically referring to the WEST '42/43 Campaign. I liked the reduced core, being forced to make hard choices with which units to retain from '41, and all those smaller scale operations in France at the beginning. Even when you get to Sicily/Italy, it doesn't grow too big.

With the core slot system in PC2, you have an easy way to keep the player's core army from getting too big and thus unbalancing the type of maps/campaigns that I was in favor of seeing more of. It adds more tactical consideration to your "battle plans" since you don't have a large number of core units. Almost puzzle like.

Kerensky, since you designed it, I will continue and elaborate with a specific example. The Hardelot scenario (#3 in GC '42/43 WEST). You are spread out all over. You don't know where the attack is going to come from. That is small scale genius design and very welcome from your usual huge map slug fest. To take that scenario one step further, after a few play throughs and you think you know where the sea invasion or the last land attack is coming from, it changes from North to South, or visa-versa! That had me scrambling all over the place! Genius! I could go on with other examples in different scenarios/campaigns, but I think that illustrates my point of view quite well.

An entire campaign, based on a specific historic unit (say, Großdeutschland for instance) could be kept somewhat small by limiting the allowable core size. I would also think easier/faster to create since it isn't as large-scale, but I must admit that's easy for me to say as one who has never made anything myself beyond a single scenario

Forum readers (and developers), think about it and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I still like a good big battle, don't get me wrong, but bigger isn't always better!

Oh, that's what I get for assumption. Made an ass of myself.

Ahh Hardelot, I think I made it that way just because the location name sounds like 'hard lot' in my head. Yes there was some very funky script work to make that scenario possible. The old system was just not designed to create 'potential' units. If you've ever looked at Desert Squadrons in the editor, you'll see what I mean. The only way to create potential units is to create ALL possible potentials...

That limitation is gone in Panzer Corps 2. Even in first generation Panzer Corps 2 maps, we have Defenders of the Reich, which is more advanced than anything we saw in any late development Panzer Corps DLC.

Defenders of the Reich is a monstrous scenario, and in addition to being difficult by design, the unpredictable attack patterns the AI has at it's disposal puts the difficulty through the roof. I made the damn thing, and it kicks my butt if I hit a 'worst case' set of attack waves.

But that's solo scenario design, it gains replayability through obscene difficulty and shuffling of enemy compositions. When we see unpredictable elements in a campaign setting... have to be careful from the pretty insane difficulty spike it can generate.

But as with the Grand Campaign before it, I think the main theme of any expanded content needs to be interesting innovation. We'll see if Panzer Corps 2 can carry that torch. We still don't know even what the Field Marshal DLC a lot of people already bought are. Yet.

[Nalikill]

IMO France or Spanish Civil War would be perfect for showing off the "branching campaign" tech: an "allies" and "axis" alt history branch for a Francoist victory and a "comintern" and "allies" (read: France or North Africa) branch for a Republican victory.

France you could have the ultra-hard alt history "France Stands" path where France fights Germany to a standstill, a medium difficulty alt history "Evacuate to Algeria" path, and the historical branching between Vichy and Free france.

Japan / China would set us up perfectly for an eventual Pacific War DLC and cover a little-known and understood front in the war.

and to vaguely complement what was said above me: trying out at last one path where core slots go down would be an interesting way of balancing a battle: make me do more with less, scale the battle down and make it feel more human and understandable.