Hi all,
I just wanted to lobby for a mega-campaign that was not based on the player having to be a Nazi. I would be very interested in the lost victories if I could play it as a Russian. Just my two cents worth.
Till then I will continue to play by email on solo games.
cheers
mgm
Mega Campaign wishes
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
David Heath
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 5:00 pm
certainly understand the view of not wanting to play the "Nazis" and I'm glad that future MC will offer allied roll play oportunities. Having said that I would like to tell you why I bought MCNA and will be first on my block to purchase MCEF. It's not so much about the quality of the games and They are very high quality, not to mention fun and instructive. No that's not why at all. When I buy a Matrix game I'm putting my money where my mouth is. As a wargamer I know just how small my specialized taste are. If I want games that are acurate representations of combat and not just some game companies rip off (we all know about ASL)then I have to support the companies...yes even if they do a thing or two that makes me groan. I suggest to all that have not yet purchased MCNA and who have logged countless hours playing SPWAW that it's time for you, too, to step up and be counted. If you love GOOD wargames then your help is needed by the wargaming community. If we don't stand together than surely we will play "army soldiers, the delux edition" separately.
All Hail Marx and Lennon
VERY IMPORTANT :
Allowing MegaCD for both players would mean in theory design two different campaigns at all that cohexist at the same time.. I think that actually data structure in the game do not allow import-export operations to make thing playable from both side at the same time.....so a MEgaCD is only a pre-designed
scheme of play for just one player..
But I agree that exclusively-one-side MEGACD player's stance is a great limitation in the whole concept..I repeat I think this is a game structure limitation...
Some thoughts..
For example I am very happy battles are from a German side..and I would have your same
feelings if this were designed as an Allies
side..
How design things so that everybody can be happy ?
Consider that a MEgaCD requires a lot of efforts and people working hard on it..
For this reason it's hard to figure two MEGACD edition for both sides..they would be two different MEGACD at all as I have already said..
BUt What a pity if that marvallous campaign does not concern your favourite side...!!!
Let me say I am not really interested in a
Russian-side MEgaCD..maybe for the same-but- opposite reason that makes you not enjoy
Nazi's side..
I suggested a way to smooth this big difference...why making a MEgacd that divides happiness ?
SOLUTION
This was my solution : let an option that enables battles
of a Megacd to be played from humans according to SPWAW game's design possibilities..
that's to say : the MEgaCD stays the same..
...nothing changes from what we have now..
except for the fact that when a battle occurs and SPWAW has to be played let the player look for an opponent in the forum...the opponent will play an online or a PBEM game with map and units of that original MEGACD's battle ...
This way two friends will play the same MEGACD but from different side...the second player only with a passive role..his battles are submitted only to what has been designed and what the first player creates with his decisions and results.
BUT ALWAYS BETTER THAN PLAY A MEGACD FROM THE WRONG SIDE...
I hope this idea will at least be considered
as an option for further MEGACD !
There will be more happy people to buy it
..not only for a question of support
(that is the only reason for me to buy a MEGACD from a russian side...)
Bye
Allowing MegaCD for both players would mean in theory design two different campaigns at all that cohexist at the same time.. I think that actually data structure in the game do not allow import-export operations to make thing playable from both side at the same time.....so a MEgaCD is only a pre-designed
scheme of play for just one player..
But I agree that exclusively-one-side MEGACD player's stance is a great limitation in the whole concept..I repeat I think this is a game structure limitation...
Some thoughts..
For example I am very happy battles are from a German side..and I would have your same
feelings if this were designed as an Allies
side..
How design things so that everybody can be happy ?
Consider that a MEgaCD requires a lot of efforts and people working hard on it..
For this reason it's hard to figure two MEGACD edition for both sides..they would be two different MEGACD at all as I have already said..
BUt What a pity if that marvallous campaign does not concern your favourite side...!!!
Let me say I am not really interested in a
Russian-side MEgaCD..maybe for the same-but- opposite reason that makes you not enjoy
Nazi's side..
I suggested a way to smooth this big difference...why making a MEgacd that divides happiness ?
SOLUTION
This was my solution : let an option that enables battles
of a Megacd to be played from humans according to SPWAW game's design possibilities..
that's to say : the MEgaCD stays the same..
...nothing changes from what we have now..
except for the fact that when a battle occurs and SPWAW has to be played let the player look for an opponent in the forum...the opponent will play an online or a PBEM game with map and units of that original MEGACD's battle ...
This way two friends will play the same MEGACD but from different side...the second player only with a passive role..his battles are submitted only to what has been designed and what the first player creates with his decisions and results.
BUT ALWAYS BETTER THAN PLAY A MEGACD FROM THE WRONG SIDE...
I hope this idea will at least be considered
as an option for further MEGACD !
There will be more happy people to buy it
..not only for a question of support
(that is the only reason for me to buy a MEGACD from a russian side...)
Bye
Italian Soldier,German Discipline!
Hi again folks,
Mark, I hear you about supporting the hobby. That line of reasoning almost got me to buy the first Megacampaign. Maybe I should grit my teeth and go back and rethink. Goodness knows there are enough poor quality "war games" out there (How anyone can call an RTS a wargame is beyond me:-).
I would put in a big old vote of heck YES to Ruxius's idea. I really enjoy playing email games, I do it all the time. I find a "real" player on the far end much more enjoyable than the computer. I would happily play Russian patsy to the German-ophiles out there in a mega-campaign. Especially if they are designing one in the future where I can play somebody except the Nazi's.
With this idea we can each play our favorite campaign, with the other person the passive opponent. Would this be too hard to engineer Matrix Games? Or are there some sort of security issues we do not understand?
Thanks for the feedback!
cheers
mgm
Mark, I hear you about supporting the hobby. That line of reasoning almost got me to buy the first Megacampaign. Maybe I should grit my teeth and go back and rethink. Goodness knows there are enough poor quality "war games" out there (How anyone can call an RTS a wargame is beyond me:-).
I would put in a big old vote of heck YES to Ruxius's idea. I really enjoy playing email games, I do it all the time. I find a "real" player on the far end much more enjoyable than the computer. I would happily play Russian patsy to the German-ophiles out there in a mega-campaign. Especially if they are designing one in the future where I can play somebody except the Nazi's.
With this idea we can each play our favorite campaign, with the other person the passive opponent. Would this be too hard to engineer Matrix Games? Or are there some sort of security issues we do not understand?
Thanks for the feedback!
cheers
mgm
Why not create 2 mega campaigns over the same theater? Like a MCNA with Germany side and a MCNA with British side.
1. Players could choose which side to purchase (or both
)
2. Since the maps will be similar, there will be a lot less work.
3. Since the references often cover both side of the theater, there would be less research.
1. Players could choose which side to purchase (or both
)2. Since the maps will be similar, there will be a lot less work.
3. Since the references often cover both side of the theater, there would be less research.
"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators."
Les Miserables
Les Miserables
I'd disagee heavily here.Originally posted by lnp4668:
Why not create 2 mega campaigns over the same theater? Like a MCNA with Germany side and a MCNA with British side.
1. Players could choose which side to purchase (or both
2. Since the maps will be similar, there will be a lot less work.
3. Since the references often cover both side of the theater, there would be less research.
First of all, you'd be making two full products, hoping to only sell half as many of each, as, in theory, each person would only buy the side that he/she wanted to play. Some people would buy both, but that, I think would be the exception, not the rule.
Secondly, there would be more work, not less. You would have to create twice as many scens, because of the way you have to work with the AIs side to get it to act the way a designer wants. Even if just did a mirror image campaign, and that wouldn't be much fun, you'd have to design each scen twice, once for each side being the human.
So, again, not a good idea.
I find it interesting, though, how whenever any campign comes out for SP: WaW, no matter who makes it, it seems that within a few days, someone(s) are saying it would be cooler if you could play it from the perspctive of 'insert players fave country'. I don't see what the big deal is about who you play in the game. I know I don't have a fave country to play - I like variety - but I also view this as one of many ways to learn about WWII, and you can't do that by only playing one side. So, I'd say relax, enjoy what's made for you, and don't worry about who you are
On a side note, I wonder why Matrix doesn't do a commercial, in electronic stroes, release of MCNA. That would surely draw more people into the game.
Alex
"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.
Actually, I thinks most people would purchase both side of the campaign, either to follow it to its historical ending, or create an alternate one by playing the other side.
I agree that the design of the scenarios will be twice that of a single mega campaign, however, most of the groundwork, such as map and reference material could be use for both sides, thus there would be less work overall. So instead of having a MCNA follows several months later by Lost Victories, a MCNA on German side could be created, followed closely by a MCNA on the British side.
I agree however, that it is a role playing experience (if I ever receive my MCNA
) so just enjoy.
I agree that the design of the scenarios will be twice that of a single mega campaign, however, most of the groundwork, such as map and reference material could be use for both sides, thus there would be less work overall. So instead of having a MCNA follows several months later by Lost Victories, a MCNA on German side could be created, followed closely by a MCNA on the British side.
I agree however, that it is a role playing experience (if I ever receive my MCNA
) so just enjoy."My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators."
Les Miserables
Les Miserables
Interesting post, Geoff!
We considered that fact when designing the first two Mega-Campaigns.
The next one (if there is one) will be completely different and the Germans will not be the human player side.
I say "Germans" because I don't think "Nazis" is the best term to use. To my understanding, Rommel was a German general but not a Nazi.
Historians will correct me. Being a "Nazi" means being a part of a political party. I am thinking more in terms, at least with MCNA, of German soldiers at war for their country, many of whom were not Nazis.
I'm probably nit-picking here but it bothers me for some reason.
I understand your desire for a different nation as your force. We are working on that.
But aren't you saying in your post that you only want to play by e-mail? If so, you would not play a Mega-campaign anyway, would you? Or did I misread your statement?
Wild Bill
We considered that fact when designing the first two Mega-Campaigns.
The next one (if there is one) will be completely different and the Germans will not be the human player side.
I say "Germans" because I don't think "Nazis" is the best term to use. To my understanding, Rommel was a German general but not a Nazi.
Historians will correct me. Being a "Nazi" means being a part of a political party. I am thinking more in terms, at least with MCNA, of German soldiers at war for their country, many of whom were not Nazis.
I'm probably nit-picking here but it bothers me for some reason.
I understand your desire for a different nation as your force. We are working on that.
But aren't you saying in your post that you only want to play by e-mail? If so, you would not play a Mega-campaign anyway, would you? Or did I misread your statement?
Wild Bill
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
-
Lars Remmen
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Yes ! a very very interesting subject this one!Originally posted by Wild Bill:
Interesting post, Geoff!
Alexandra made a very professional answer to Inp4668's suggestion...
Since a MEGACD is basically a way for Matrix to get funds it's not so useful to double efforts and collect only half results (maybe there should be a better way to express this concept in English but I don't know it
)Anyway Inp4668's proposal has to be considered virtually the optimum , the top solution that for fairness should be provided from a MEGAcd collector's edition..
Reality is different and also we can't
forget that each Megac is already a great present we have from Matrix !
What I offer is only a suggestion (not a request ) to be evaluated only is they are looking for a solution to this subject !
We can't expect the same Megacampaigns will be designed from all side role..but this solution will help not to have only fragments of a war...
I repeat why leave only half players happy for a new MEgacd release ?
Alexandra does not feel any passion for any side..(this seems to be as a professional attitude as her analysis shows.. ;P)
(wow an engineer here ?
)(am I right ? )
(sorry Alexandra I'm kidding you ..I hope my bad english does not kill my attempts to bring some humor here..)
in a few words if you do not have this passion you can't understand how there can be a difference when playing a russian Megacd or an italian one..
Let me say again that personally at least I will play any MEGACD because I will always buy all megacd..
but let me underline my spirit will play them differently..that's obvious..passion is passion !
So I am glad Geoff posted this topic...opening it to a passive human opponent it will bring these major advantages :
1) single effort ..doubled results...not only exceptions like Alexandra correctly stated..
2) it would be more historical in my opinion..that campaigns were fought against human commanders...I often see the AI can't recognize some danger to its units because AI can't understand what units really are..
AI is a coded algorythm based on variables,expressions comparisons
much more simpler than human knowledge..
3) this will add more and more fun to your MEGACD..you can select Misterx from your to play the first battle..
MisterY the second one..or the entire
campaign can be played with your favourite mate of war !..you will have endless conversations about that campaign !!
Also playing the same Megacd against different human players will make you explore different branches of the MEgacd according to your opponent's skill
4) "Ok here it is my favourite campaign :Invasion of Italy and it's designed from Us side..ooohh nooo !
sigh..uh ? but
yes yes yes ! I can play the passive role ! that's always better than nothing !!!Ok let me call my friend from USA..we will play togheter...Fantastic !
Passion is passion !
The only price designers will pay deals with a different balancing of forces along the campaign's scenarios..they have to figure a hpossible human player now..
And obviously a mechanism that will allow to join an offered pbem-MEGACD-battle ONLY if you own that same MEGACD CD ( I didn't mean cheating here ,guys ! do not misunderstand me or I get angry at once !
) Geoff one thing..
WB's remark is really important here ..
I never say "Communists"..I say Russians...
ok ?
Bye !
Italian Soldier,German Discipline!
I think McHarg has a point here, but I also agree with Wild Bill.
Some of us, me included, like to identify with the side they play, especially in something as involved as a Megacampaign.
Personally, I used to like to play either British(first and foremost) or American against the Germans or the Japanese, but didn't mind playing the Germans against the Russians, or the Russians against the Japanese.
The reasons for this are peculiar: as a kid I fed my passion for anything to do with WWII on war comics depicting mostly the adventures of British and American servicemen against stereotyped Germans and Japanese.
In my childhood games I used to identify with these guys, and that stayed with me.
Later, especially after I discovered Squad Leader and the Eastern Front, I grew to admire the soldierly qualities of the Germans.
Having always been (and continuing to be) staunchly anti-communist I found it easy to decide that it was OK to fight on the German side against the Russians, as the two regimes were equally repugnant.
This, of course, ignores the fact that the Germans were the aggressor, but it's amazing how intellectually dishonest I can become for the sake of being in a position to command first class troops with sexy equipment.
Lately I find that I am maturing out of these silly distinctions, and I find it easier to play any side in any scenario purely from a miltary interest.
I suppose that the Americans will have a number of Megacampaign prospects, with the early engagements in North Africa, followed by Sicily/Italy, North West Europe and of course the Pacific theater.
But what of the British Imperial Forces?
British forces fought desperate retreat battles in Norway and France in 1940, and then in the Balkans in 1941. They fought the Italians in Abyssinia, and in the Western Desert before the arrival of Rommel.
As Rommel's best period has been covered by the MCNA, there could be an El Alamein Campaign (MCEA), following Eight Army all the way to Tunis from that Egyptian railway station, and including First Army in Tunisia. This does not need to overlap with MCNA, and may attract buyers.
Is it possible to allow a choice of nationalities for the core force with different, tailored scenarios, so that one could play it once as Australians, once as British/Scottish, once as Indian etc. (a multi-mega campaign)?
There could be a Sicilian/Italian campaign, with landings in Sicily, Salerno and Anzio and plenty of desperate fighting in Sicily, all along the Boot on both the Adriatic and Tirrenian coasts and central Italy(Termoli, Ortona, Cassino, Volturno, Garigliano, Monte Camino, Anzio beachead, Trasimeno, Gothic Line etc.), for British, Canadian, South African, New Zealand and Indian troops.
There should be a British/Canadian Normandy campaign, as it was British forces who pinned down the bulk of the German armour around Caen in the early fighting there, extending into Belgium, Holland and eventually Germany.
Finally, there are Burma and New Guinea.
Going back to the Germans, it would be interesting to see a "Desperation Megacampaign" covering their desperate struggle to contain the advance of the Soviet hordes from 1943 to 1945. (From Kursk to the Dnepr, Cherkassy etc.)
Not to mention a Stalingrad campaign covering the fighting for Voronezh, the Don bend, Rostov, the Caucasus up to the desperate battles for the city's ruins and the efforts to relieve VIth Army and escape the trap in the Caucasus.
From the Russian point of view, a Road to Berlin campaign, although it would double up with the German retreat campaign, without necessarily repeating the same battles, given the breadth of period and front, would I'm sure find support.
The scope is quite vast, and I'm sure it will be difficult to cover it all.
Still, one can dream...
:rolleyes:
Some of us, me included, like to identify with the side they play, especially in something as involved as a Megacampaign.
Personally, I used to like to play either British(first and foremost) or American against the Germans or the Japanese, but didn't mind playing the Germans against the Russians, or the Russians against the Japanese.
The reasons for this are peculiar: as a kid I fed my passion for anything to do with WWII on war comics depicting mostly the adventures of British and American servicemen against stereotyped Germans and Japanese.
In my childhood games I used to identify with these guys, and that stayed with me.
Later, especially after I discovered Squad Leader and the Eastern Front, I grew to admire the soldierly qualities of the Germans.
Having always been (and continuing to be) staunchly anti-communist I found it easy to decide that it was OK to fight on the German side against the Russians, as the two regimes were equally repugnant.
This, of course, ignores the fact that the Germans were the aggressor, but it's amazing how intellectually dishonest I can become for the sake of being in a position to command first class troops with sexy equipment.
Lately I find that I am maturing out of these silly distinctions, and I find it easier to play any side in any scenario purely from a miltary interest.
I suppose that the Americans will have a number of Megacampaign prospects, with the early engagements in North Africa, followed by Sicily/Italy, North West Europe and of course the Pacific theater.
But what of the British Imperial Forces?
British forces fought desperate retreat battles in Norway and France in 1940, and then in the Balkans in 1941. They fought the Italians in Abyssinia, and in the Western Desert before the arrival of Rommel.
As Rommel's best period has been covered by the MCNA, there could be an El Alamein Campaign (MCEA), following Eight Army all the way to Tunis from that Egyptian railway station, and including First Army in Tunisia. This does not need to overlap with MCNA, and may attract buyers.
Is it possible to allow a choice of nationalities for the core force with different, tailored scenarios, so that one could play it once as Australians, once as British/Scottish, once as Indian etc. (a multi-mega campaign)?
There could be a Sicilian/Italian campaign, with landings in Sicily, Salerno and Anzio and plenty of desperate fighting in Sicily, all along the Boot on both the Adriatic and Tirrenian coasts and central Italy(Termoli, Ortona, Cassino, Volturno, Garigliano, Monte Camino, Anzio beachead, Trasimeno, Gothic Line etc.), for British, Canadian, South African, New Zealand and Indian troops.
There should be a British/Canadian Normandy campaign, as it was British forces who pinned down the bulk of the German armour around Caen in the early fighting there, extending into Belgium, Holland and eventually Germany.
Finally, there are Burma and New Guinea.
Going back to the Germans, it would be interesting to see a "Desperation Megacampaign" covering their desperate struggle to contain the advance of the Soviet hordes from 1943 to 1945. (From Kursk to the Dnepr, Cherkassy etc.)
Not to mention a Stalingrad campaign covering the fighting for Voronezh, the Don bend, Rostov, the Caucasus up to the desperate battles for the city's ruins and the efforts to relieve VIth Army and escape the trap in the Caucasus.
From the Russian point of view, a Road to Berlin campaign, although it would double up with the German retreat campaign, without necessarily repeating the same battles, given the breadth of period and front, would I'm sure find support.
The scope is quite vast, and I'm sure it will be difficult to cover it all.
Still, one can dream...
:rolleyes:
Fabs
Hello Fabs..
As the first part of your post confirms that a personal preference cannot be so easily forgotten (while choosing a side),
again ,the last part of your post shows how it would be impossible to fill in all possible interesting scenarios in WWII even with several different chapters of MEgacd !
..so doubling the value of a single Megacampaign , opening it towards a wider side-preferences option is really reasonable !
I don't think it should be so difficult to be implemented in SPwaw or maybe in Combat Leader..because its definition tries to respect the existent game's engine ...
I am not speaking about a revolution in the basics of the game progress..
Bye
[ July 24, 2001: Message edited by: ruxius ]
As the first part of your post confirms that a personal preference cannot be so easily forgotten (while choosing a side),
again ,the last part of your post shows how it would be impossible to fill in all possible interesting scenarios in WWII even with several different chapters of MEgacd !
..so doubling the value of a single Megacampaign , opening it towards a wider side-preferences option is really reasonable !
I don't think it should be so difficult to be implemented in SPwaw or maybe in Combat Leader..because its definition tries to respect the existent game's engine ...
I am not speaking about a revolution in the basics of the game progress..
Bye
[ July 24, 2001: Message edited by: ruxius ]
Italian Soldier,German Discipline!
A two-sided Mega Campaign or any campaign for that matter is intensely intriguing. Some games have that feature already, example-Combat Mission.
I think it would be another welcome addition to this game but if it does not make it here, it should definitely be a part of Combat Leader.
Wild Bill
I think it would be another welcome addition to this game but if it does not make it here, it should definitely be a part of Combat Leader.
Wild Bill
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
I have my own theory as to what will happen with Matrix's development and progression of MCs...
The first MC was done at a point fairly early in the war, at really the only real junction where the fighting was in doubt. Rommel's advance across North Africa was very shocking, as the odds were very much against him when he arrived. To start the first MC with the invasion of Poland would have been a largely futile gesture because the campaign was never in doubt, and ended so quickly. A similiar case can be made for the Blitz in France and the Low countries.
Therefore, starting in north africa with the arrival of Rommel was a logical choice.
The 2nd MC has been announced as being, in effect, about the early months of Barbarossa, ending with Kiev. Not only does the date of this campaign coincide in somewhat linear fashion with that of MCNA, it provided what many players had been asking for... a MC on the Eastern Front.
Yes you once again play the Germans, but the Germans were the historical victors in the early days of the invasion (much like Rommel was historically triumphant in the spance of time where you play in the previous MC)
So now they announce a 3rd MC in the works, and promise only that you play one of the Allies. What would the pattern suggest?
1) That it roughly coincide with the end of MCLV.
2) That the country you fight with "wins" that portion of the war or campaign.
If we accept all of these things being true, then it seems to me to be most logical for it to be a Russian campaign, and deal with the desperate defence of Moscow.
The US isn't in the war yet, and Britian didn't really conduct a campaign during that time which could be called a "victory".
Of cource, I can be completely wrong, and this MC could be taking place in the Pacific theatre... I think that this would be most unexpected... while I do think Matrix will eventually produce a Pacific theater campaign, I believe that they will do so after more European campaigns are completed.
If my theory holds to be true, then after the Russian campaign, you could expect events to follow roughly a cronological order of the European Theater... perhaps a russian campaign dealing with stalingrad... Operation Torch (played from the sides of the western allies) The landings in normandy (again from the western side), and most likely the Battle of the Bulge from the German side.
BTW, I would like to support the ideas above for future MCs to have multiplayer support, and I would like to suggest a "Hypothetical" MC, perhaps not on a scale, or as continuous as MCNA and MCLV, but instead comprised of a Mega collection of Mini-Mega campaigns
On that, you could have Operation Seeloewe from the German side, perhaps the invasion of Malta as well... an in depth look at the Kursk offensive, perhaps a British tenatious defense of Crete, Vichy French troops holding back the Canadians at Omaha... all as "short" campaigns... (Maybe 10 hubs long each) While it is easier for you to create hypothetical situations for the losers of the war, I am certain that the Allies had missed opportunities and made mistakes which could spark that eternal "What-If" question.
OK, I have talked long enough.. hehe
The first MC was done at a point fairly early in the war, at really the only real junction where the fighting was in doubt. Rommel's advance across North Africa was very shocking, as the odds were very much against him when he arrived. To start the first MC with the invasion of Poland would have been a largely futile gesture because the campaign was never in doubt, and ended so quickly. A similiar case can be made for the Blitz in France and the Low countries.
Therefore, starting in north africa with the arrival of Rommel was a logical choice.
The 2nd MC has been announced as being, in effect, about the early months of Barbarossa, ending with Kiev. Not only does the date of this campaign coincide in somewhat linear fashion with that of MCNA, it provided what many players had been asking for... a MC on the Eastern Front.
Yes you once again play the Germans, but the Germans were the historical victors in the early days of the invasion (much like Rommel was historically triumphant in the spance of time where you play in the previous MC)
So now they announce a 3rd MC in the works, and promise only that you play one of the Allies. What would the pattern suggest?
1) That it roughly coincide with the end of MCLV.
2) That the country you fight with "wins" that portion of the war or campaign.
If we accept all of these things being true, then it seems to me to be most logical for it to be a Russian campaign, and deal with the desperate defence of Moscow.
The US isn't in the war yet, and Britian didn't really conduct a campaign during that time which could be called a "victory".
Of cource, I can be completely wrong, and this MC could be taking place in the Pacific theatre... I think that this would be most unexpected... while I do think Matrix will eventually produce a Pacific theater campaign, I believe that they will do so after more European campaigns are completed.
If my theory holds to be true, then after the Russian campaign, you could expect events to follow roughly a cronological order of the European Theater... perhaps a russian campaign dealing with stalingrad... Operation Torch (played from the sides of the western allies) The landings in normandy (again from the western side), and most likely the Battle of the Bulge from the German side.
BTW, I would like to support the ideas above for future MCs to have multiplayer support, and I would like to suggest a "Hypothetical" MC, perhaps not on a scale, or as continuous as MCNA and MCLV, but instead comprised of a Mega collection of Mini-Mega campaigns
On that, you could have Operation Seeloewe from the German side, perhaps the invasion of Malta as well... an in depth look at the Kursk offensive, perhaps a British tenatious defense of Crete, Vichy French troops holding back the Canadians at Omaha... all as "short" campaigns... (Maybe 10 hubs long each) While it is easier for you to create hypothetical situations for the losers of the war, I am certain that the Allies had missed opportunities and made mistakes which could spark that eternal "What-If" question.
OK, I have talked long enough.. hehe
Humorous or ironic, Charles, not sure which.
Nice thoughts Mentant. Of course at this point I know the answer so it is not fair for me to comment.
Actually we began with MCNA because it was not the magnitude of EF and it did attract more interest than the Blitzkrieg of 39-40 (though that would also have been a good one).
With MCNA two more Mega Campaigns or perhaps one would complete it...at least from the German side.
As has been commented here, every battle has two sides (at least) and until both sides are represented, it is not really complete.
And of course even the best campaign, mega or otherwise, unless full of surprises and different situations, can become tedious and we don't want that.
So a change of venue has to be in order to keep interest, then we can go back to a previous theme.
This, of course, is not an official position of Matrix, just my personal thoughts on the matter.
And of course we started with 1941 because you can't really go backward with Mega Campaigns. To link them you have to go forward.
So there is room for EF 42, 43, 44, and 45. Also there is room for NA 42 and part of 43.
And that only scratches the surface. It would take 50+ Mega Campaigns to even begin to give adequate coverage of this mammoth conflict.
But you gotta start somewhere !
Wild Bill
Nice thoughts Mentant. Of course at this point I know the answer so it is not fair for me to comment.
Actually we began with MCNA because it was not the magnitude of EF and it did attract more interest than the Blitzkrieg of 39-40 (though that would also have been a good one).
With MCNA two more Mega Campaigns or perhaps one would complete it...at least from the German side.
As has been commented here, every battle has two sides (at least) and until both sides are represented, it is not really complete.
And of course even the best campaign, mega or otherwise, unless full of surprises and different situations, can become tedious and we don't want that.
So a change of venue has to be in order to keep interest, then we can go back to a previous theme.
This, of course, is not an official position of Matrix, just my personal thoughts on the matter.
And of course we started with 1941 because you can't really go backward with Mega Campaigns. To link them you have to go forward.
So there is room for EF 42, 43, 44, and 45. Also there is room for NA 42 and part of 43.
And that only scratches the surface. It would take 50+ Mega Campaigns to even begin to give adequate coverage of this mammoth conflict.
But you gotta start somewhere
!Wild Bill
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
Hello WB..
and glad to have you sharing this idea!!!
A Combat Leader two-players campaign feature would be a serious reason for a very good sale of that game (and also one of the many classified 'revolutions' Matrix gave to this game...
After enabling that a MEGACD with active-passive role would be a natural consequence of the new feature...
(So maybe you should save your energies for future enhanced-MEGACD's subjects eheheh
Passive-active role : at least this concept seems to be ineluctable as designing a pre-made campaign should have some fixed paths...fixed paths are in some way necessary to gain something historically correct..
This structure is the easiest way to open towards a two sided campaign..but obviously it's not the only possible to be realized !
Although this should be the first step , consider also how many different varieties of options are possible in developing this feature..
In general you can give two fixed amount of points..a general map...and a strong rarity factor for that period...depending on quantities..many informations are available on the net regarding the total number of Panzer III (for ex.) available during that period in that place ..
So parameters for that campaign may be fixed at the beginning for at least 150 Panzer III , 50 Panzer IV
200 Inf Platoons available for that campaign..no one more..this may include considerations about reinforcements being destroyed ecc. or these events may be also
simulated in some way..
These constraints control how you can spend your initial amount of money in purchasing during the campaign..(consider that a part of that money can be used for repairs)(or buying secret intelligence informations ecc.ecc.)
PLaying the campaign will mean creating groups of units ...maybe available combat groups can be inspired from historical resources..for ex. you can create and fill in 4 groups from 6th division reference that means they can only have some kind of units due to its historical nature..or 12 from 3rd Panzer corp...164leicht division , 101 Airborn division ecc.ecc.
Battles will occur when combat groups meet each other..
I am diverging now from my first target..
this may be an option for a free two player's Combat Leader Campaign...
and they need some major revoulition in the game engine..
Turning back on a MEGACD two players
I like very much the idea of linking MEGAC 41 with MEGAC 42 for the same side player..this should also let the player import his core units in some way..
Then I think it's much more better opening a MEGACD for supporting a two-players control (even restricted in active-passive role ) than designing two megacd regarding the same period but from different prospective...
In a collector's edition that may bring you to think that two parallel and not converging flow of operations took place there!
Bye
and glad to have you sharing this idea!!!
A Combat Leader two-players campaign feature would be a serious reason for a very good sale of that game (and also one of the many classified 'revolutions' Matrix gave to this game...
After enabling that a MEGACD with active-passive role would be a natural consequence of the new feature...
(So maybe you should save your energies for future enhanced-MEGACD's subjects eheheh
Passive-active role : at least this concept seems to be ineluctable as designing a pre-made campaign should have some fixed paths...fixed paths are in some way necessary to gain something historically correct..
This structure is the easiest way to open towards a two sided campaign..but obviously it's not the only possible to be realized !
Although this should be the first step , consider also how many different varieties of options are possible in developing this feature..
In general you can give two fixed amount of points..a general map...and a strong rarity factor for that period...depending on quantities..many informations are available on the net regarding the total number of Panzer III (for ex.) available during that period in that place ..
So parameters for that campaign may be fixed at the beginning for at least 150 Panzer III , 50 Panzer IV
200 Inf Platoons available for that campaign..no one more..this may include considerations about reinforcements being destroyed ecc. or these events may be also
simulated in some way..
These constraints control how you can spend your initial amount of money in purchasing during the campaign..(consider that a part of that money can be used for repairs)(or buying secret intelligence informations ecc.ecc.)
PLaying the campaign will mean creating groups of units ...maybe available combat groups can be inspired from historical resources..for ex. you can create and fill in 4 groups from 6th division reference that means they can only have some kind of units due to its historical nature..or 12 from 3rd Panzer corp...164leicht division , 101 Airborn division ecc.ecc.
Battles will occur when combat groups meet each other..
I am diverging now from my first target..
this may be an option for a free two player's Combat Leader Campaign...
and they need some major revoulition in the game engine..
Turning back on a MEGACD two players
I like very much the idea of linking MEGAC 41 with MEGAC 42 for the same side player..this should also let the player import his core units in some way..
Then I think it's much more better opening a MEGACD for supporting a two-players control (even restricted in active-passive role ) than designing two megacd regarding the same period but from different prospective...
In a collector's edition that may bring you to think that two parallel and not converging flow of operations took place there!
Bye
Italian Soldier,German Discipline!