Campaign mode

[simovitch]

You mean this one?

[GoodGuy]

nevermind, gonna use the map above

[GoodGuy]

Ok, after i put some time into my scenario-selection sketch, I have time to reply to your statement above, I'm not going to let you get away with that , lol ! [:D][:)]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

But bear this in mind, our engine, as good as it is, still has significant shortcomings in its ability to simulate certain things. We added bridge building to BFTB, because it's essential for that battle.

I agree regarding bridge building. I took bridge building as a substitute (random example) for a feature that requires a lot of work, whereas community-friendly features use to have a rather low priority.
Maybe I should have picked the mixed-movement mode here, instead, as this would be a really good example of where you jump into refining details, but where you don't take the community with you, like we say, means you seem to rank some features (that would make the game even more user-friendly or which would enhance immersion) way lower than numerous AI-enhancements or development of complex (and tricky) movement modes. Actually, IMHO, the cons of the mixed-movement mode outweigh the pros, so the time invested there could have been rather put into enhancing immersion and community acceptance.

In part, one of the reasons why we have been reluctant to release the estab editor ..... [] is that we are fully aware that users will start working on a particular battle where we cannot simulate some essential aspect of it.

Users may be more inventive or better at finding work-arounds than you think. PoE's minefield temp-solution is a good example here. With all respect, but I don't buy that reasoning, it's not the main reason for restricting access to the estabs, at least. [:)]

[].... and hence restrict the options somewhat

With all respect, Sir [:D], but "somewhat" is a mega-understatement, and you don't seem to draw the right conclusion here. The are 4 reasons for the appearance of only a handful of custom scenarios:

• 1) Locked estabs,
• 2) Missing features in the scenario editor.
• 3) Limited modability of the terrain (limited space for new terrain types and or installations. Currently, designers have to overwrite terrain slots, even tho all the stock types are needed (and useful)
• 4) Missing possibility to create totally new types of units
  
  Examples:
  • MG nests with 3 men, 1 HMG and a shyteload of ammo [:D],
  • coastal guns (up to 400 mm) with a limited FOV (ie. 35-90 degrees),
  • fixed 88mm flak guns controllable by the user,
  • bunkers with a set of weapons ranging from MG to PaK and naval gun,
  • single RECON vehicles (armored car, Kübelwagen, Puma armored car, Befehlswagen = command vehicle).

With CommandOps:BFTB you will see one or another scenario created by community mappers, covering the following theaters:

• Normandy (Landings up to Caen / Operation Cobra)
• Falaise?
• Maybe South France (Operation "Dragoon", 15.08.1944 - 28.08.1944 -> push to Grenoble, Nimes, capture of Marseille)
• Maybe North Italy (Heeresgruppe South[-West] Kesselring
• Maybe Monte Cassino (Italy) (got Gurkas?! [:)])
• Germany (i.e. Operation Varsity, biggest para operation of WW2 to secure a bridgehead across the river Rhine near Wesel - with 14,365 para troops being dropped behind German lines, first deployment of M22 tanks (gliders), "Market Garden" didn't involve as many troops)
  The estabs won't fully provide for the creation of such a scenario, though, I guess.
• Germany - Remagen bridgehead
• Germany - What-if US Race for Berlin
• Germany - Cologne (oh wait, I wanted to skip BFTB lol)
• Scenarios covering one or another island (greek islands, Sicily, Korsica) in the Mediterranean
• Operation Torch (1941-43 units won't be available tho)
• Operation Husky ( same applies here )
  
  These are the (limited) possibilies, but I doubt we'll ever see the full list coming up, due to the restrictions I mentioned.
  
  [b]Scenarios which won't make it to the new engine or will be less realistic, because COTA estabs are NOT included in BFTB and/or because Russian forces can't be created:[/b]
  • North Africa (PoE's/other guy's Brevity / Battleaxe)... well I bet he'll finish the scenario, but quite some UK units will be missing (I guess), as they were outdated in 1944
  • France 1940
  • Sealion 1940
  • Poland 1940
  • East Germany/Poland 1944/1945
  • Rumania 1944
  • Ukraine 1944
  • Hungary - "Battle for Budapest"/Paul Hausser at Budapest
  • Vienna (Austria) 1945: SS - Last Men Standing.

In my view the engine needs to address the big four remaining issues of minefields, cross river assault, off-map fire support and mounted/dismounted infantry to round out its core capabilities. Then it will be capable of being turned to nearly any WW2 battle. Then we can address other issues like overhauling the map structures and adding a campaign feature.

• Minefields aren't a definite must-have. Minefields would be neat for people creating Huertgenwald scenarios, as this theater had one of Europe's biggest set of minefields (with one of them being called "Wilde Sau" = "wild sow"). Normandy beaches were mined heavily, too (1,500,000 mines layed as instructed by Rommel), but looking at the Allied casualties, the casualties caused by mines were minor only, so they're not needed for the Normandy TO. The tools causing the casualties during the first hours (beaches and inland (para landings)), starting with the highest threat:
  
  a) MG fire / AA fire
  b) artillery fire (mostly mortars, but some 8.8 and howitzers too)
  c) misdrops, resulting in accidents or lethal encounters (paras landed in woods, swamps or right in front of German units).
  d) mines (destroying several LAVs)... combat engineers cleared paths even under fire, so minefields are useless for Normandy landings.
  
  The North African theater or the Russian theater would indeed require minefields, but I think you want to cover one of these theaters yourself anyways, so if you'd partially lock the estabs you could avoid that community designers hurry ahead and cover the theaters you plan to cover yourself. (I've got several ideas how to achieve that.)
• Cross-river assaults..
  I guess you're talking about the (friendly and enemy's) AI capability to conduct attacks across rivers or across a network of rivers?
  Well... not exactly a blockbuster, and deffo not a feature that will bring more community scenarios/community acceptance.
• Off-map arty..
  Well, a neat feature, but not essential, imho. Interesting feature for the Russian TO, but not necessary atm.
• Mixed-movement (aka Mount/Dismount)..
  Now that mixed movement is in a real tricky state - currently, since COTA, fixing this would be really important. But I would only process this and then review priorities for the next title/add-ons.

My 2 cents [:)]

[Arjuna]

Re. Limited Modability of Terrain. Yes I acknowledge this and its due to the extremely tight data structure we employed when we originally designed the system. Then RAM was very tight and processors were very slow, so you needed a very efficient and small data structure to manipulate. Reworking this is a very BIG job and won't be done soon.

Re New Types of Units. Nearly everyone of your examples would require AI changes for them to work and some would require UI and Estab changes. Eg coastal guns with fixed fields of fire. At present we don't store in the estab a data member which depicts that this has a fixed field of fire, nor do we have a UI within the SM to set it, nor do we have AI code that would filter out targets outside the designated field of fire. This just highlights the concerns I raised earlier.

Re Scenario Options for Modders with BFTB. There will be plenty of options for modders to design custom scenarios using BFTB. You've covered quite a few but there will be plenty of others, including Metz, the Palitinate, the Saar, Aachen and other Westwall battles not to mention a swag of hypotheticals like your suggested Drive on Berlin.

As I said before we will be focussing on data content after we release BFTB. I'm not going to be drawn on the details right now. Things are still in the melting pot. Stay tuned and we'll announce details after BFTB is released.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

This just highlights the concerns I raised earlier.

I disagree. It highlights the fact that COTA's SM (and BFTB's SM to quite some extent, most likely) could have provided for more variety (more maps) and higher replayability, if designers wouldn't have been restricted to the actual extent by a) the estabs and by b) the actual set of SM features, and if priorities would have been aligned differently.

There will be plenty of options for modders to design custom scenarios using BFTB.

That's your theory. We'll see. [:)]

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

This just highlights the concerns I raised earlier.

I disagree. It highlights the fact that COTA's SM (and BFTB's SM to quite some extent, most likely) could have provided for more variety (more maps) and higher replayability, if designers wouldn't have been restricted to the actual extent by a) the estabs and by b) the actual set of SM features, and if priorities would have been aligned differently.

Well I reckon you are still missing the point. There is no point in being able to create a customised estab and then a customised unit, expecting it to behave in a customised way, if the AI does not know how to utilise it. It simply won't work - garbage in, garbage out. The coastal gun is a classic example. Your expectation would be for its field of fire to be restricted ( eg out to sea ). Yet the AI has not been programmed to do this, so it will select and fire on targets from anywhere, including inland. Hence it would not perform how you would want. What you are really wanting is for the game to be model coastal arty and that requires a full gamut of modifications to the Estabs, the Estab Editor ( so we can add a Field of Fire attribute ), the UI in the SM so the desired FOF can be specified for each actual unit, the UI in the Game so the player can see what the FOF is and to the AI so that it can restrict the targets it can fire at to those within the FOF.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Well I reckon you are still missing the point. There is no point in being able to create a customised estab and then a customised unit, expecting it to behave in a customised way, if the AI does not know how to utilise it.

I'm not missing the point. It's pretty much the same situation as where I picked bridge-building and where you jumped on it explaining (in a really detailed and informative way) why this particular function is needed. I had dream-mode on and envisioned units that may be possible some day in the future. I understand that certain units require certain pre-conditions, code-wise, sure. I do some programming myself (nothing fancy), and I supervise (among other things) design/production of mobile games and web games, so I do have some knowledge there.

You're missing the point.

I could create a coastal gun simply by elevating the terrain behind/around the coastal unit (or by drawing a fortress layer around the unit, with tweaked height values), resulting in a FOV of 60-90 degrees for the gun, IF i could touch the estabs. And people more talented than me could come up with a myriad of other solutions - I am sure, IF they would have access to the estabs.

I'll be honest and a bit blunt here:

[honest][blunt]
I could have collected an awe-inspiring massive (neverending) list with all imaginable units, scenarios and theaters that could be covered with unlocked estabs.
The AA series could have an impressive list of custom missions by now, if the policy would have been different, if the SM would have had priority and if scenario files would be compatible (within the several versions of the engine + estabs).

This thought scares you, as you think this would drive you out of business, I understand. That's one reason for me suggesting to unlock the estabs partially only, while enhancing the SM features at the same time.

But you over-estimate custom designers here, in one way: Individuals will most likely never have

a) the resources (sources, manpower, knowledge),
b) the time,
c) or the motivation

to stem projects carrying the scope of BFTB or let's say a CmdOp:Desert Rats production, so people will still pay for your products - means the excessive research, the advanced scenario design and the support, as YOU're the only one who holds the resources (design teams, programmer(s), researchers) to recreate a given scenario in the most professional way, and with the most sophisticated solutions/features.
I don't think you should see community efforts as a threat, you could be less restrictive there very well, it wouldn't harm your financial base.

Your game, which is simply the best operational wargame, will "just" proceed to make the same amount of people (converts) jump on the CmdOps-bandwaggon each year, without spawning a substantial (additional) amount of new customers, if you keep up this kind of restrictive policy, and if you don't improve the presentation of the game: means the immersion department (scenario-selection, campaign-mode). Once you fire up a scenario, just like JudgeDredd said, you get sucked in, but the "hull" of the game, let me call it the "wrapping" is grey and boring.

I advise to see things more often from a customer POV than from a developer/programmer POV. I highly respect your goal to improve the AI and the realism, but there are other things to be included in your thinking too, the number crunching under CmdOps hood may be impressive, and it may add realism, but it doesn't necessarily make the game more sexy for casual gamers or for people who need a certain level of replayability, immersion and presentation (i.e. scenario-selection).
Also, people will eventually think twice when evaluating the "value" of a new list of features presented in a given sequel, and when they look at the package's price (full price-tag), especially if there are only like 4-6 custom scenarios getting to the surface with each release.

Review priorities, as that's how you can boost the game's acceptance and how you can glue people to the product.

[/blunt]

I know that it's hard having to fill all roles, programmer, designer, support engineer, director, community-relations manager, etc., at the same time. Try to foster the design (eye-candy for the menu presentation, for immersion - the ingame gfx and menus are great, I could only imagine contour lines acting as sugar icing there [:)]) and the community-manager role, even if it's just for the scenario-selection screen, for now.

I'll shut up now, [blunt] as you don't seem to see that your policies/priorities suppress your own product, it could very well have a higher level of community-acceptance, otherwise.[/blunt]
[/honest]

[SeaMonkey]

Dave, I have to say that I agree with a lot of what GoodGuy has presented.  You have the cutting edge wargame here, the foundation for a lot more, you've had it for years now and yet it has not "broken out".  I know its a niche business, but so is mine and over the years a lot of the method development I've done I kept "close to the vest".
 
But now I 've learned and I share my knowledge and ideas and I'm unafraid cause I know what I give, I get back, expotentially, and the ideas flow, and it will always be that way, I don't know why, it just is.
 
It will be the same for you, you have the gift....give it!

[Ron]

Wow, imo GoodGuy you have crossed the line here and elsewhere. You are quick and free to give advice yet you have given no thought of the person on the receiving end. Whatever your intentions, the means are the end.

[JudgeDredd]

I wouldn't think his intention was to hurt anyones feelings and he's only pointing out what everyone knows....that Panther Games have locked their estabs to protect their market and that by opening up those estabs the engine would reach a wider market. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with PG locking their estabs or that his assumption is correct...I'm just pointing it out.

I guess he's frustrated (maybe too strong a word) that Panther Games doesn't understand that opening the estabs will open the game to a wider community and his frustration at this is in his post. Again, I'm not suggesting that he's correct in this assumption.

He's not crossed the line anywhere that I could see. No name calling. No verbal abuse. He's just pointed out some things (fact and opinion).

[sapper_astro]

He does have some points.

Another compromise solution would be to make the scenario maker a seperate program. This is autoupdated to include all estabs from each successive PG as you buy a new one, and includes all of the new features when making a scenario.

So, if you have CotA, and you buy BftB, the scenario maker is updated along with all of the estabs for both games now usable together.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

This issue is not new, of course. There have, traditionally, been two general ways of approaching accessability of these types of games. One is to open everything up, hoping for a maximum of user-created content. The other is to lock things down, hoping for a maximum of user interest in follow on products. SSG does the former; with their games you can create any battle you want, provided you want to put in the very considerable effort it takes. HPS does the latter--with the Panzer Campaigns games, you can create units and scenarios but no maps, so you're limited to the maps they provide with new titles. Neither approach is in itself "good" or "bad," just different. SSG games are wide open, but how many user-created scenarios do we have for Kharkov, for instance? Especially with a functional AI? Panther's games are pretty tightly locked down, but they come with numerous scenarios and, face it, how many scenarios would we really have had that would have made full use of the engine and AI, given the difficulties in actually doing that effectively?

Every developer has to decide how to approach this issue. John Tiller and HPS turn out a variety of new games based on the same engine (for WWII, Napoleonics, ACW, etc.) but update the engine with every release, retroactively. They have a large variety of user created scenarios, within the limits of the map sets, but naturally some folks want to make their own maps. SSG gives us the whole toolkit, but the instructions are like an early 1980s VCR manual and making maps requires PhotoShop or equivalent software and skills. Panther is sort of in between--flexibility to an extent, but limited. The goal of the developer is to balance the desires of what is almost always a small if vocal and sometimes significant creative minority with their own need to maximize sales. It's not clear, certainly, that restricting access increases sales of new products, but it's also not at all clear that making game creation completely accessible increases actual sales, either. Everyone has an opinion of what might, should, or could happen, but I've watched this business long enough to know that what we think is true often is not, or at least, is not that clear.

I tend to respect each developer's stand on this issue. Each one has to make their own decisions on how to market their products. Despite the predictions of doom for HPS, for example, John Tiller still turns out a good variety of games based on his tried and true system. SSG turns out great products too, yet their open accessibility has not generated much variety in scenarios, certainly not since the BiN/BiI days. And we're all salivating for BFTB. I'm sure we'd all love to have full access AND lots of user created high quality scenarios AND low prices AND lots of new games, but we have to live in the real world, sadly enough. I'm pretty content to jsut get good games--after all, I continue to play games from all of these companies long after the product is new.

In short (yeah, too long winded, I know), I don't think it's an issue where you can definitively stand there and say to the developer, "you're doing it wrong!" It's really only "wrong" if their accountants pitch a fit.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

[]..... Panther's games are pretty tightly locked down, but they come with numerous scenarios ... []

I still play HTTR once in a while, as it delivers in 3 departments:

a) Thrilling force pool,
b) crystal clear maps with pretty flat terrain where even less experienced players don't need contour lines (almost no hills anyways)
c) superior scenario design.

COTA was different. It was less accessable. I can't exactly put my finger on it, maybe it was the scenario design, the game was somewhat less challenging, at least. I was a bit disappointed. I do believe that it was mainly the theater that made for a less accessable game, at least.

I'm too lazy to count the scenarios in both games, but in theory, once people are done with all the scenarios, they might fire up the game once in a while, but they will eventually wish for more scenarios.
The investment gave them a certain amount of Entertainment (value = number of scenarios), but once they had worked their way through the loosely presented scenarios, there was nothing else.
No custom scenarios (well...ok: 3), no exclusive scenarios for multiplayer. No ingame matchmaker utility where people could meet (they have to arrange matches via email).
The unpredictable AI provides for some replayability, but the battles will still rage on the same old maps.

That's where I, as a customer, think "ok, so much for COTA". When i did a search for HTTR maps - before COTA was released, I found at least 6 custom scenarios, and each one gave me heaps of fun, especially the Bastogne scenario (by ElSaviour?). In contrast, around 3 scenarios (Norway, Leros, Sealion) came up for COTA, due to the composition of the estabs, imho.

It's a bit like this:

The COTA customers may feel like car buyers who check out a second hand car (let's say 6 years old). The car's motor had been upgraded, as it received a twin-turbo, a dual carburetor. The car also got new rims, a powerful multi-information display and computer, a sun roof and a new exhaust system. Yet the seller wants to sell it for the price of a new car.

The seller will find a buyer, no doubt, as all the upgrades are nice. But there'll be buyers who'll think twice.

And no, i'm not suggesting CmdOps is an old rusty engine. It's just that CmdOps' autobody needs some paintwork.

Ok, so much for my parable.
It means, a modern interface for CmdOps, enhancing immersion, wouldn't hurt. Some more replayability and accessability (through modability - e.g. partially unlocked estabs) wouldn't hurt either, to make more people want to buy this "car", errr game.

This issue is not new, of course. There have, traditionally, been two general ways of approaching accessability of these types of games.
[].... face it, how many scenarios would we really have had that would have made full use of the engine and AI, given the difficulties in actually doing that effectively?

Have you tinkered with the ScenarioMaker (SM) and MapMaker (MM) before?
I have. I created a fictional HTTR scenario ("Cologne"), it wasn't totally professional, since it was my first scenario I ever created, but I put quite some thought into arranging the objectives, and I think some parts of this scenario were really sophisticated, providing quite some thrill, as I made extensive use of the duration switches.

I had around 10 people from the HTTR forum testing the scenario, and most of them told me they liked it, and that they had a blast, as it took people 2-4 days (ingame time) just to get to downtown Cologne, which was just a part of the operation - the scenario had a duration of 7 days. I didn't ask to put it on the dropzone as the scenario needed fine-tuning, and because I played COTA.

That said, it's not difficult at all. It took me 1 day to draw the map, and 1 day to arrange the scenario, and a few hours to do some quick fine-tuning. You need to read one or another paragraph (that covers mapmaking) in the manual, but that's about it.
Creating maps for HTTR/COTA/BFTB doesn't require Photoshop, nor does it require a college degree. It's pretty intuitive.

Even more important, once you have arranged proper objectives in the SM, the game's brilliant enemy AI will develop plans and will assign troops to attack/defend these objectives, it's amazing. Once you have tried it yourself, you'll know that it doesn't take years of experience to create fictional scenarios.

But community designers expose the limits of the SM tool quickly, in case they want to achieve certain effects, or if they want to create all-new units (for those historic battles they're interested in, or they can cover with the material they have/with the research they did). That's why I stopped making maps. I have German road maps/military maps from 1938-1940, I could scan them and create sophisticated maps, easily. But investing hours for mapmaking, just to figure I wouldn't be able to create the historical force pool - for the historic or what-if battle I have in mind, isn't my cup.
As a community designer, you don't field German forces vs British forces, if you want to recreate a battle in Russia.

That said, the SM clearly needs an upgrade. It's not just about estabs.

It's not clear, certainly, that restricting access increases sales of new products, but it's also not at all clear that making game creation completely accessible increases actual sales, either.

Correct. That's why I suggested to unlock the estabs partially, and see what happens.
My essay aimed at another issue too, though. Namely the lack of immersion when you fire up the main menu (missing campaign feature, ancient scenario selection).

And that's where people in this forum very well posted statements like "oh, then I'll pass this time", or where they said "nice idea", making it a point where you can clearly put a finger on it and say "ah, that's affecting sales".
Immersion plays a vital role for many players, so that's why pointed it out as well.

I tend to respect each developer's stand on this issue. Each one has to make their own decisions on how to market their products.

Me too. It's Dave's show. But I think that there are some people out there who agree with one or another point i made. I am not claiming to be the holder of the universal truth, at all.

I don't think it's an issue where you can definitively stand there and say to the developer, "you're doing it wrong!" It's really only "wrong" if their accountants pitch a fit.

Actually, I am not that impertinent. The essence of what I said was rather like "he can do it differently", for the benefit of the customers.
My essays weren't just about estabs and surely weren't about me standing up and throwing "Oh you're doing it all wrong" at Dave. He does have the possibilities and the resources to make his game more accessable, more user-friendly. That's what I was pointing out above.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

My post wasn't necessarily in direct response to yours, GoodGuy; your response covers most of the points though and states your opinion well. I do think any estimates of potential sales gains or losses are purely anecdotal--lots of people say they will or won't buy this or that, but the reality is hard to ascertain.

And I respectfully disagree that the ease with which you apparently created scenarios translates into a general ability. My experience (also, of course, anecdotal in that I have not made a systematic study of it to produce actual data) over the years has been that the number of people who want to make scenarios vastly exceeds the number who actually do. And of the ones who do make scenarios, only a very few ever create anything useful. True, that can still leave us with a lot of great user created content--it all depends on the installed base of the game and other factors--and, yeah, who wouldn't want lots of scenarios to play?

Then again, I'm not your average gamer I guess, as I still have not played all the scenarios in either HTTR or COTA. And I think I've actually completed maybe two scenarios, total, from both titles. [:)]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

I'm not your average gamer I guess, as I still have not played all the scenarios in either HTTR or COTA. And I think I've actually completed maybe two scenarios, total, from both titles. [:)]

If so, you might be part of a rare species. [;)] You're missing out a lot.
Personally, I use to squeeze games out, as if they were lemons - like we say. So, being an excessive gamer (not in terms of hrs per week, but in terms of finishing a game quickly, or beating all scenarios in no time), i find bugs. I find shortcomings, weaknesses, and lots of strong features, too.
This may be due to my profession, where i need sharp senses for details.
HTTR is one of the few games I used to return to, every now and then, as it was revolutionary, challenging and very reliable (stability/code-wise).

My experience .... has been that the number of people who want to make scenarios vastly exceeds the number who actually do.

Correct. We've had the same experience, then. [:)]
Well, say you add a campaign-mode, or overhaul the interface, there's a chance that these details translate into some more sales, already. This may generate more mappers, too. Having 10-15 serious mappers, instead of 3 (like with COTA), may result in having a nice little pool of custom maps. Potential customers will notice that.
The mappers do need the tools, though.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

[*] North Africa (PoE's/other guy's Brevity / Battleaxe)... well I bet he'll finish the scenario.

I've got two maps and three scenarios pretty much in the can:

[*]Operation Brevity 2-Day
[*]Operation Brevity 3-Day
[*]Black Rats at Gabr Saleh

The map and OOB are done for Battleaxe, the units are placed on the map, and reinforcements scheduled. However, I've found doing the victory conditions a bit of a fright, and that's what's holding up the 4th installment. One of these days, I might do a Totensonntag scenario, or something less ambitious, like Mechili or the other skirmishes associated with the "Benghazi-Handicap," circa 1940-41. At a later date, I hope to do some scenarios for El Alamein and Gazala, Knightsbridge, perhaps, or Alam Halfa Ridge.

[Redmarkus5]

Hi. I was about to go and buy Command Ops when I spotted this thread and realised there's no Campaign. I own AA, HTTR and COTA as well as the whole CM series, WiTP and WiTP AE, HOI (arrghh!), every TOAW release and almost any other past war games you care to list.

The price would be OK for me if there was a campaign, but 80 Euros to play through a set of separate scenarios is of no interest for me, particularly as I just don't see a huge difference in the features offered by this new version of your engine. Also, I am not convinced that you could really add an effective and challenging campaign at this stage of development - that would require the development of a new game model IMO...?