Thoughts on expansions...

The highly anticipated second release in the Panzer Command series, featuring an updated engine and many major feature improvements. 3D Tactical turn-based WWII combat on the Eastern Front, with historical scenarios and campaigns as well as support for random generated battles and campaigns from 1941-1944.
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39324
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Erik Rutins »

On another forum, a discussion started up regarding the idea of "mini-expansions" between major releases in a series. These mini-expansions would be offered to gamers for a relatively low price and would contain some additional units, maps and scenarios but would be entirely additional "content" rather than changes to the game system itself (though they would incorporate any updates to that point).

We've discussed those kinds of additional revenue ideas internally from time to time. In some ways, they could be a good fit for wargames, but we're undecided on how many wargames would be interested in something like that.

To pursue this line of discussion, if we considered doing something like that (i.e. paid mini-expansions with extra unts/scenarios/maps) between the release of Kharkov and the next major Panzer Command release, what would you consider worthwhile?

As separate questions, how much content would have to be included to draw your attention? What price would you consider fair for that amount of content?

If you were in charge and had to decide on say three such mini-expansions, what would you pick?

On a tangent to discuss a different revenue model, what do you think about a subscription model that guarantees a certain number of such mini-expansions per year and perhaps discounts or makes free future releases? Would you consider "subscribing" to a wargame series and thus supporting a particular development team in future efforts as long as you received some regular additional content in exchange? If so, what would be a fair price for that and what would you expect to receive?

Regards,

- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
User avatar
Redleg
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Redleg »

Hello Erik.

Expansions that would hold my attention:

1. Larger maps with "realism" improvements such as buildings. Climate and time of day controls, etc. To me, the map is the backbone of a game. Good maps can help a mediocre game but bad maps can ruin a rather good game.

2. Open data with nearly everything editable by players..... i.e. time of day, visibility, fog, etc. Unit speed and breakdowns are some things I would like very much.

3. If you continue to flush out the features the way you are headed, I would purchase your expansions to support the effort.


User avatar
FNG
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Devizes, UK

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by FNG »

What Redleg said plus more units, maybe minor nations? I figure that a new theatre would require an expansion but perhaps adding minors would add longevity, especially to the random campaign (like Steel Panthers). If the content was reasonable (and price [;)]), I'd be happy to subscribe for such a service.
FNG
Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.
benpark
Posts: 3033
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 1:48 pm

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by benpark »

I'd think I would pay for mini-expansions if they contained new units graphics and maps specific to particular battles. I would like to see particular models that fit with theses battles, like the grain elevator in Stalingrad, etc. I would be less likely to buy something that was more abstract like ahistorical, generic maps and units.

It would be good as well to see fleshed out game play with each mini-expansion as well that would later be included in the next full version. These could be multi-floor buildings and such.

I would pay even more for a "base game" that would offer a core set of maps and common units on a more generic level: east front, west front, Med, and Pacific fronts. Then have these mini-expansions cover particular battles and units.

I wouldn't pay for any subscription service. I only pay for what's in front of me, when it's in front of me (as much as I trust Matrix, this rule still applies).
"Fear is a darkroom where the devil develops his negatives" Gary Busey
Joram
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:40 am

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Joram »

Reminds me of old TA except with fees. :)
 
Here's my thoughts as a consumer:
 
1.  Small charges for mini-expansions are not a bad idea per se but in highly moddable games the best new content tends to come from the fanbase anyway.  So why pay?  But if a company with dedicated resources wanted to do this and produces quality work that will generate a profit for them, then more power to them and I say let them try.
 
2.  While obviously not opposed to the idea, I'd wonder if this would ultimately encourage companies to parse out upgrades in these mini-expansions and essentially a consumer would wind up paying more than if he just bought a full fledged expansion pack.  While good for the company of course, would it really be a good move for the consumer?  Hard to say.
 
3.  I for one would not be interested in a subscription service guaranteeing a set number of expansions per year because I then have no choice in whether to decide if that particular update is of the quality or design that I am interested in.  Also, what constitutes an "expansion" is bound to be different in people's eyes and I could easily see some fans getting mad at the company for not providing what they expect.  Just sounds like a recipe for constant flamewars to me.  The only way this would work for me is if that it was so cheap (like around $5) I could care less if I threw away the money but then I would not see how the company would make a profit unless a really large number of people signed up.  But is that realistic for this genre?
 
From a Matrix perspective, I am assuming that besides the additional profit it would generate, you might be able to manage cashflows better with either of these models.  If you're not generating profit at least to generate your current margin then you may just want to try something else.  Of course you know that.  :)  Just bored and rambling.
User avatar
JMass
Posts: 2363
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:45 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by JMass »

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

what would you consider worthwhile?

I like the idea of mini-expansions as ASL modules.
how much content would have to be included to draw your attention?

New units, scenarios, maps and rules situation specific.
If you were in charge and had to decide on say three such mini-expansions, what would you pick?

Only three? I say at least six. In order of interest:

Tobruk, with Italian and Commonwealth units
Sedan, with French (and Vichy) units
Normandy, with American and Canadian units
Budapest, with late war German and Soviet units
Seul, with American, Chinese and Korean units
AG South, with Hungarian and Rumanian units
Would you consider "subscribing" to a wargame series and thus supporting a particular development team in future efforts as long as you received some regular additional content in exchange?

Yes, the price I would pay depends...



"Klotzen, nicht Kleckern!"Generaloberst Heinz Wilhelm Guderian

My boardgames collection: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection ... dgame&ff=1
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Capitaine »

I'd say an expansion with a new campaign theme (still Eastern Front though) with new maps and units etc.  Even if mods can be made, the "official" versions of the game carry a lot of weight with customers.
 
I agree that interesting new historical maps are the real meat of the game, so that is a necessity.
 
Not really psyched about a subscription model; I generally prefer to pay as I go.  It would depend on what is promised and what is delivered.  We still want work on the next main title of the series so we don't want all efforts going into just new content.
pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by pad152 »

I don't own either Panzer Command title yet, I'm waiting for full modeling of infantry, larger maps and better damage model for units (infantry/tanks/buildings/etc). I think addressing these issues first would be better than just adding new unit models or more areas of operation.



benpark
Posts: 3033
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 1:48 pm

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by benpark »

I forgot to add the expansions I'd like to see:

Budapest(excellent suggestion by JMass), including Operation "Spring Awakening"

Stalingrad

St. Lo

Berlin

the fighting around Caen post D-Day


"Fear is a darkroom where the devil develops his negatives" Gary Busey
User avatar
z1812
Posts: 1575
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:45 pm

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by z1812 »

Hi All,

I would pay for "mini-expansions" or modules so long as they provided reasonable content.

1. To address PBEM games you would have to be able to turn them off or on. In case the other fellow did not have them. So in effect they would be plug-ins.

2. To be marketable to wargamers they would have to offer some distinct and identifiable value.

3. As an example the actions between the Russians and Japanese in 1939 . The Russians called them Khalkhin Gol while the Japanese refered to them as the Nomonhan incident. So some troop types, maps and scenarios could be bundled and sold as plug-in modules. Same would be true for the Finnish Winter war and other situations. You could snowball the modules into complete theatres by adding different troops, oob's and terrain sets. To make it special the troop types and other components could be extremely well researched. So one might be happily waiting for the Gurkhas set to be released. Mind you the attention to detail would have to be very, very good.

The main part of the game would patch up with better graphics, gameplay and mechanics. All backwards compatible.

There is really no limit to what you might include. World War 1, The cold war, Vietnam.

John Tiller has been quite successful with this type of approach.........but you would be doing it in 3D and supplying a full scenario and map editor along with wego.

Now if you don't mind......................I will just take a minute to wipe the foam and drool from my computer monitor.

Gees I have not even had the time to install PCK yet........

Regards John

rickier65
Posts: 14241
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by rickier65 »

I've often wondered why Computer wargames DIDN'T get into the main game plus mini-module expansion kits. I think that would be a natural for some titles. PC:Karkov for example. The problem I think would be commuinticating clearly what distinguises the mini module explansion from the next full game in the series. and pricing both accordlingly. From resonspes I've read so far - you may end up doing yourself damage because it looks like most folks would want more thatn what I thought you described as a mini expansion.

If you were to do this, I'd suggest adding in data for some minor countries, or minor allies, addtional well modeled main country units and then some historical maps with mini-campaign tie in with 3-6 games in a campaign setting. But for PC:K modules - stick with Eastern Front - save other fronts for new games in series. (But you could add in Poland for example - and have a 1939 set). I'm not sure if this will work with the modding community - but depedning on resources, it might work.

As far as subscription - I'd probably go for it pretty quick, but it doesnt look like many others would. I had subscription to S&T (in fact I had a lifetime subscrition - that ended up being less than a year I think before they folded). I also had the General as well as Run 5. So maybe I'm just a sucker for subscription service.

Thanks,
Rick


User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by 76mm »

Modules are fine and could be a good fit for this game as long as you don't slice them too narrowly. How about:

1) "Environment" package: bigger maps, weather/night, destructible buildings

2) "Developer" package: map editor, end-game file editor, other dev tools.

3) "Late War" package: King Tigers, JSIIIs, etc., maybe toss in a few more units to round out the ToE.

If you're worried about interest, you could conceivably say that you'll begin work (and commit to finish) these packages if you get X number of pre-orders (as long as it's fairly low).
justiny
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:24 am

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by justiny »

[:)]I think this is a great idea and you could do it in number of ways or use a combination of them.
1). Linked Historical Battles for a German/Russian battalion to regiment sized unit(The smaller unit actions within larger battles such as Kursk) with all correct camoflague,equipment and insignia used. With emphasis on unique topography and terrain for each battle. Destructable terrain would also be good. The number of battles/missions would be limitless.

2). Towns and cities would introduce more unique terrain to the battle maps with multi-story buildings, stone bridges, rail infrastructure, industrial buildings and unique buildings depending on the location of the battles.

3). Introducing different vehicles to the battlefield. For example introducing say these three German half-track variants together Sdkfz 251/2 mortar, Sdkfz 251/7 Engineer, Sdkfz 251/10 37mm anti tank gun with missions related to there primary use(For example storming the bridge in Arnhem, recon, fire support, light anti-tank.).. Perhaps different camoflague schemes depending on season and date.

4). I would support a magazine type format were you subscribe over a year and in return obtain various additional battles, maps, vehicles and historical facts as long as the majority were still avaliable to the general public.

User avatar
Hertston
Posts: 3317
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:45 pm
Location: Cornwall, UK

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Hertston »

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Modules are fine and could be a good fit for this game as long as you don't slice them too narrowly. How about:

1) "Environment" package: bigger maps, weather/night, destructible buildings

2) "Developer" package: map editor, end-game file editor, other dev tools.

3) "Late War" package: King Tigers, JSIIIs, etc., maybe toss in a few more units to round out the ToE.
The third is OK. The first two belong either as standard in a new game or as a free update or people will get upset, I think.



I'm not impressed with either model suggested, to be honest.

In the first instance I just think it would be perceived as asking people to pay for patches. I'm not against a modular system per se, and have wanted to see HPS sell their stuff that way for years, but I think modules need to be rather more than 'mini expansions'. Personally I'd actually rather pay more in the first place in anticipation of later free content, but I understand that approach wouldn't help your bottom line much.

In the second instance I just own far too many Matrix games for it to be an attractive proposition. Gamers always want to "keep up" with available content, and Matrix publish too much. In the case of a one-product self-publishing developer, maybe.

User avatar
McGlu
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Texas

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by McGlu »

I'd be interested in expansions covering Stalingrad, the Normandy invasion (Paratroopers), and perhaps more of the Russian counter-offensives (battles not so slanted toward German victories. :) )

I guess depending on the number of additional missions, I could see anywhere from $10-$20 being a fair price.
-McGlu
marcusm
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:42 pm
Location: Göteborg/Sweden

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by marcusm »

Kursk would be the obvious one due to it's closeness.
How about the Crimean Campaign? Both sides (Manstein then retaking of the peninsula).

I would also like to see some campaigns from the end war. How about Bagration?
Battles around Budapest?

Balcan Campaigns. To get some partisan modules  as well ;).
Deus Vult.
Alan Sharif
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:00 am
Location: UK.
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Alan Sharif »

I think mini expansions would/should be limited to the Eastern Front ( to include all Axis minors and Poland 39 please ). Western Front, North Africa and Japanese ( to include China and Russian battles) I suspect would be seperate games. I should also like to see Korean and Arab-Israeli wars using this system. If I am honest I would like all this NOW but can see this is not being realistic:). I would be happy to subscribe and within reason am not price sensitive.
A Sharif
Alan Sharif
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:00 am
Location: UK.
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Alan Sharif »

Sorry, add the Spanish Civil War to my list too. Greedy I know but I love this game and I want all the above before you commence work on the WW1 modules.
A Sharif
jamespcrowley
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:58 am
Location: Chichester UK

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by jamespcrowley »

I haven't got PCK yet (due mainly to my PC exploding - well big bang and smoke) but expect to shortly.
 
No disrespect to any of the above posters but might I suggest that some of them read what Erik has actually proposed:
 
 "These mini-expansions would be offered to gamers for a relatively low price and would contain some additional units, maps and scenarios but would be entirely additional "content" rather than changes to the game system itself (though they would incorporate any updates to that point)."
 
I think this is an excellent idea and agree with Alan Sharif that they should apply solely to the Eastern Front and am equally not price sensitive.
 
They could be used to gradually fill out virtually all the vehicle/weapons/squad types for all participants in that theater, going perhaps even further than CMBB by including more captured equipment and rarities.
 
New maps and variations on existing ones would add hugely to the random battles and campaigns and new, tried and tested, scenarios speak for themselves.
 
As to modders providing all of this, well..... with a totally moddable system I do see some potential problems.
 
I remember, with Steel Panthers, there was a huge amount of revised OOBs, weapons stats, etc. Uncontrolled, it all became a beggars muddle with various parts clashing and causing incompatability problems.
 
While CM limited modding to graphic skins, the huge number of mods became overwhelming. Some mods were truly excellent, others not so. This applied to user made scenarios and got to the point where, beyond a small number of excellent designers, I didn't bother with most of them.
 
I personally prefer to use tried and tested additions which, having paid for them, I can expect to work properly and be corrected if they don't. With mods, unfortunately, you do not always know what you are getting and what negative effects that they can cause. Of course, over time, the super modders will emerge and their work will be every bit as good, if not better, than the original, as with CM. But for the time being I would be happier buying quality additional content.
 
Cheers

Jim
Grell
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 8:16 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Grell »

Hi Erik,

I am sorry to say but I never buy expansion packs. I'm just not interested in them.

Regards,

Greg
Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Command: Kharkov”