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
madorosh
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 10:44 pm
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by madorosh »

I'll copy my response from the other forum since POS has monopolized the thread there with a scan of the entire tutorial...
This is interesting, if a bit off topic - 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.

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?

Deeper exploration of, say, small unit actions within the existing battles. Kharkov and Winter Storm were huge battles. If you had detailed historical accounts that never made it into the release - add them in. The danger becomes an appearance that you simply held back stuff to simply charge more later. Picking other actions on the front at the same time would get around that. A Stalingrad title might have a later expansion that includes Voronezh, for example. The ability to use GoogleEarth (as you did in your preview) and new access to Russian archives, and stuff like Jason Mark is doing down in Australia means you can really sell stuff based on the research, and it will appeal just as much to the average gamer who doesn't even care about fidelity to the history - just wants a good, evenly matched game with interesting terrain and units.
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 we are getting a map editor to play with, new maps would not be a big draw for me - though large, detailed maps of historical locations might be. Say a detailed map of the Red October Ordnance Factory in Stalingrad - identifiable locations that were well fought over, but which would be hard for third parties to quickly knock out on their own due to research material availability or just plain old time to do. The PC maps right now are very open - great for tank battles - but once we get into more urban fighting, I think I'd like to see more variety in elevations, close in terrain (invisible trees will help navigate through all that) and you would be able to sell extremely detailed maps as an extra add-on particularly if they were of named locations and included historical scenarios based there. Places like Nijmegen or Aachen or Berlin come to mind.
If you were in charge and had to decide on say three such mini-expansions, what would you pick?
At present? With the available forces, etc., I'd pick unit-themed campaigns. Grossdeutschland is always a big draw - maybe the GD at Kursk. GD in the winter of 1941 would be another.

I'd be willing to help research and work on such a project, *hint hint* though you need to know I have a reputation as a **** disturber and impossible to work with. :laugh: I did some GD scenarios for CM at any rate and while I can't do anything with 3D maps, I have some reference materials on the GD and a track record of scenario design - and an ability to collaborate in a supportive environment.

Oops. Am I off topic yet?
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

I don't think a subscription would appeal to me, but I think you'd get a wide variety of responses here, simply because my big appeal is in creating scenarios and playing campaigns rather than playing solo. I like the community aspects as much as the games themselves.
User avatar
himmelstoss
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 8:22 am
Location: CA, USA

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by himmelstoss »

destructable and enterable buildings! 
tell it like you think it is!

Image
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39324
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Erik Rutins »

ORIGINAL: himmelstoss
enterable buildings! 

Are you aware that buildings can be entered now? (Mount command when your <20m from the building)
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
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Terminus »

The Tunis campaign would be high on my list, along with Italy and the Caucasus.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
marcusm
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:42 pm
Location: Göteborg/Sweden

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by marcusm »

Crimea and Kursk would be in line with "small addon" rather than huge addon ;).

Kursk? All units are already in, similar terrain. What else? Destructable terrain ;).

As I see it, each small addon should be about adding something new to the base engine.
A minors pack for instance (which means covering some battles with Hungarians, Romanians etc).
Ski troop pack (Finnish campaigns)
Urban terrain, Railroad artillery and Naval Infantry. Assault on Sevastopol.
Factory Buildings, Stalingrad.
Soviet paratroopers and so on.

Marcus
Deus Vult.
Joram
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:40 am

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Joram »

ORIGINAL: James Crowley

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.


Well, i was speaking generically but I guess he did limit the discussion to this series. So my bad.
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39324
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Erik Rutins »

It's ok, I'm actually interested in general feedback as well. I'm reading along with interest. Let me reiterate that nothing is planned on these yet, it's all very preliminary and we're just seeing what you all would think of the possibility.

One comment on purely content vs. content + code changes is that the latter will create multiple revisions of the engine and I'm not sure how easy it would be to keep them all able to talk to each other or whether they could be released free if the content is charged for. Some issues to work out there. The reason I wondered about content-only expansions is that they would still mean that everyone has the "Kharkov Engine" and is kept up to the same version of that, but people can buy an extra campaign or three if they like, with additional units and maps. Those units and maps would of course also become available as part of the Random Battles and Random Campaigns. I like the idea of doing some maps of well known historical battles sites as part of each mini-expansion.

Major changes like adding full city-fighting rules to me would be part of the next release rather than a mini-expansion. Believe me, I want to do something like Stalingrad, but it will take a bit more doing than I'd think reasonable for a small cheap mini-expansion.

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
madorosh
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 10:44 pm
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by madorosh »

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It's ok, I'm actually interested in general feedback as well. I'm reading along with interest. Let me reiterate that nothing is planned on these yet, it's all very preliminary and we're just seeing what you all would think of the possibility.

One comment on purely content vs. content + code changes is that the latter will create multiple revisions of the engine and I'm not sure how easy it would be to keep them all able to talk to each other or whether they could be released free if the content is charged for. Some issues to work out there. The reason I wondered about content-only expansions is that they would still mean that everyone has the "Kharkov Engine" and is kept up to the same version of that, but people can buy an extra campaign or three if they like, with additional units and maps. Those units and maps would of course also become available as part of the Random Battles and Random Campaigns. I like the idea of doing some maps of well known historical battles sites as part of each mini-expansion.

Major changes like adding full city-fighting rules to me would be part of the next release rather than a mini-expansion. Believe me, I want to do something like Stalingrad, but it will take a bit more doing than I'd think reasonable for a small cheap mini-expansion.

Regards,

- Erik

It's almost impossible to keep questions like these on topic because people immediately start bombarding you with all their pet wants, needs and desires. I think you absolutely have to stay within the functioning code. I love that you're making each release built on the previous one(s), incidentally. So yes, I think - for what it is worth - you are on the right track as far as content for supplemental products.

I'll reiterate the notion of unit-themed campaigns or even collections of un-connected scenarios - famous units to go with the famous places/battles you mention. I think that will tend to happen naturally as designers do their research in any event.

Assemble a really good set of 3D map builders and I think such products would have maximum appeal - pretty screenshots, and immersive gameplay. Your maps already have a jump on what is available in CM just by having variations on buildings and more "doodads" like teleophone poles, outhouses, etc. Throw in some scenic vistas, if possible without blowing the budget on these expansions, I think you'd have winners. As time goes on and the scenario designers' names get known in the community, if it progresses to that point, you can start to cash in on that as well. It happened in the CM community - Franko, Andreas, Berli etc., but they have to establish their own reputation for quality work with the units.
User avatar
himmelstoss
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 8:22 am
Location: CA, USA

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by himmelstoss »

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: himmelstoss
enterable buildings!

Are you aware that buildings can be entered now? (Mount command when your <20m from the building)

doh! no did not get that...hehe...shame on me.

thx,

pimmelstoss
tell it like you think it is!

Image
User avatar
tide1212
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:12 pm
Location: New England

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by tide1212 »

I just started playig the Panzer Command games and I like them alot. I would buy mini expansions. There are lots of great ideas. I like z1812's thoughts on the subject.
&nbsp;
Gary
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori
Image
dennisb55
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:50 am

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by dennisb55 »

Well I guess that blows&nbsp;my dream of this becoming a replacement for Steel Panthers WAW,&nbsp;but I realize you can't put that much content into a $40 purchase.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
I think you are walking a fine line, if you put too little into each release you'll become thought of as a cookie cutter product.&nbsp; You're already taking&nbsp;flak from some with all the old game&nbsp;re-releases, so I think you should be careful with this engine so people don't think you are just trying to create a cash cow to milk.
&nbsp;
On the other hand you can't be expected to continue to evolve this infant into adulthood without promise of fair profit.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
I know there are board/computer games&nbsp;that have their devoted following who don't mind paying for additional modules.&nbsp; However if you are wanting to hit it really big I think you are going to have to provide a huge amount of content.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
What was the question again?&nbsp;
&nbsp;
I guess if I feel if the expansion offers a good amount of game improvements and content for a reasonable price then I'd buy.&nbsp; But I wouldn't want to have to do that very often and wouldn't pay for a single battle (although I consider this original purchase as an exception so I could check it out).&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Perhaps:
Blitzkrieg/The beginning: 1939-40 (Poland-Low countries-France)
Barbarossa
The Western Front (D-Day to Berlin)
The Eastern Front (Stalingrad to Berlin)
North Africa/Med/Italy
The Pacific Campaign
Post 1945..(US vs USSR)
Did I miss any?
&nbsp;
With all of them backward compatible meaning that if I purchased all I would have the entire conflict covered.
Sorry, sometimes I think beyond the box!
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39324
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Erik Rutins »

ORIGINAL: dennisb55
Well I guess that blows my dream of this becoming a replacement for Steel Panthers WAW, but I realize you can't put that much content into a $40 purchase.

Well, SPWAW was in effect the capstone for the Steel Panthers series - multiple commercial releases and tons of content among them. If we put as much development time into Panzer Command as went into the SP series culminating with SPWAW then yes, I imagine it would be pretty darn close content-wise.

Let me just reiterate that what's being discussed here is strictly ideas - there's no plan to definitely do mini-expansions, nothing has been ruled in or out. I was just curious regarding how this type of thing might be received _if_ we did something along those lines. The only thing I can say for certain now is that the next major release will be going to the Western Front.

Keep up the excellent feedback everyone, some great ideas in this thread so far and your suggestions will be taken into consideration whatever shape the future releases take.

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
Prince of Eckmühl
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:37 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Prince of Eckmühl »

I'd gladly pay $30 or $40 for a North African map/vehicle/skins pack. It'd have to include all the major AFV for the campaign in Libya and Egypt (1940-42). And of course, the infantry would all have to be dressed in shorts. [;)]

That said, it's gonna be hard to get where a lot of us want to go with this game unless/until the maps can be scaled up to at least 2K x 2K. You'd also have to make the anti-tank pieces tow-capable. Apart from those two items, I'm a buyer of your modules, as is.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)
Government is the opiate of the masses.
User avatar
madorosh
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 10:44 pm
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by madorosh »

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

I'd gladly pay $30 or $40 for a North African map/vehicle/skins pack. It'd have to include all the major AFV for the campaign in Libya and Egypt (1940-42). And of course, the infantry would all have to be dressed in shorts. [;)]

That said, it's gonna be hard to get where a lot of us want to go with this game unless/until the maps can be scaled up to at least 2K x 2K. You'd also have to make the anti-tank pieces tow-capable. Apart from those two items, I'm a buyer of your modules, as is.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

I believe I mentioned the inability of people to talk about simple expansions without throwing in pie-in-the-sky...[;)]

How can you simply redress tanks in tan paint and infantry in shorts and call it the desert? Dust, heat-haze, the poor off-road mobility of German vehicles in Africa in the early months - those are all things that need to be coded specifically in order to do the theatre justice. Otherwise - it really does look like nothing more than a cynical cash-grab.

Let's get back on track and talk about simple expansion in between major titles. North Africa deserves its own major title. Add to the above the unique terrain, and the unique nationalities involved - Free French, Vichy French, Italians, Germans, Australians, Americans, South Africans, New Zealanders, British, African colonial troops; there would be a whole lot to do, and not all of it has to go in the first title. Some of it would be worthy on its own as an expansion for a North African title - Vichy French, say, or a Middle-East expansion with Arab troops and maps/buildings.
User avatar
Prince of Eckmühl
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:37 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Prince of Eckmühl »

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

I believe I mentioned the inability of people to talk about simple expansions without throwing in pie-in-the-sky...[;)]

As is, I'm pretty happy with the mechanics of the Kharkov variant and I'm frankly not looking for a whole lot more from Matrix vis-a-vis the Russian Front. Were they to put out a vehicle or map pack, I'd probably buy it. But, I wouldn't be particularly thrilled about the prospect, as I'm no great fan of fighting in the East.
How can you simply redress tanks in tan paint and infantry in shorts and call it the desert? Dust, heat-haze, the poor off-road mobility of German vehicles in Africa in the early months - those are all things that need to be coded specifically in order to do the theatre justice. Otherwise - it really does look like nothing more than a cynical cash-grab.

The truth is, you can't redress the areas that you cite above without an upgrade to the game engine that includes items such as larger maps and the ability to tow guns about the battlefield, the former offering the possibility of genuine maneuver, while the latter is an expression of that same possibility.
Let's get back on track and talk about simple expansion in between major titles. North Africa deserves its own major title. Add to the above the unique terrain, and the unique nationalities involved - Free French, Vichy French, Italians, Germans, Australians, Americans, South Africans, New Zealanders, British, African colonial troops; there would be a whole lot to do, and not all of it has to go in the first title. Some of it would be worthy on its own as an expansion for a North African title - Vichy French, say, or a Middle-East expansion with Arab troops and maps/buildings.

Agreed, but would you acknowledge that the possibilities for expansion are contingent on full-bore upgrades to the game? On the near term, the developer has an engine that appears capable of handling small, set-piece engagements fought in rural terrain. But, as has been expressed by another poster, you can't really do a North African variant without bigger maps and some other improvements.

Context?

I've been fiddling around with the last of Kharkov's "set battle" scenarios, Mobius' Tucheband. Apart from the delight involved in blasting a boatload of Uncle-Joe's T34/85 to bits, it's an excellent demo of how lethal some of the large-calibre weapons can be within the confines of kilometer-square map. The effect is so pronounced as to have produced not just five out of five "legendary" victories for yours truly, but in two of the five, I lost not a single Panther-G. And that's just the way those bad boys are gonna play so long as the maps are limited to 1K x 1K.

Thoughts?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)
Government is the opiate of the masses.
User avatar
madorosh
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 10:44 pm
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by madorosh »

I agree on all your points PoE (except I disagree that you need full-bore changes to the engine to make decent expansion titles - see my post on the last page on that subject - just make more battles from the same period, more historical maps, more campaigns from named units, that sort of thing, by harnessing decent or named scenario designers and map makers - low expenditure of resources, decent return on investment).

I think the tendency of all tactical games is to overemphasize armour in any event, to address your point about the map size. The key to making Panzer Commander good - the same as it will be with the new CM engine, really - is to make the infantry game interesting and realistic. That means more detail without overloading it with data. Give the infantry more to do and I think you'll worry less about engaging the armour 2 kilometres away...

Which isn't ignoring the fact some people just like large armour battles. To each his own. But right now the choice isn't completely there. Get the house-to-house in, more close-in terrain, more animations - Erik has said this is all on the to-do list - and I think that will be of more value than bigger maps, in my opinion.


User avatar
Prince of Eckmühl
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:37 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Prince of Eckmühl »

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

I disagree that you need full-bore changes to the engine to make decent expansion titles - see my post on the last page on that subject - just make more battles from the same period, more historical maps, more campaigns from named units, that sort of thing, by harnessing decent or named scenario designers and map makers - low expenditure of resources, decent return on investment.

I genuinely hope that you're right in this regard, and will continue to support the erstwhile developer and publisher as they proceed down this path.
I think the tendency of all tactical games is to overemphasize armour in any event, to address your point about the map size. The key to making Panzer Commander good - the same as it will be with the new CM engine, really - is to make the infantry game interesting and realistic. That means more detail without overloading it with data. Give the infantry more to do and I think you'll worry less about engaging the armour 2 kilometres away...

This is a tough one for me, as I'm to the point where I've come to look upon the two as (almost) mutually exclusive. Which is to say, you can create a good, squad/crew/vehicle armour game, or a good squad/crew/vehicle infantry game. but not in the same package.
Which isn't ignoring the fact some people just like large armour battles. To each his own.

Yeah, and they're noisy bastards, too. Gotta have everything their way, OR ELSE. Right now, I'm leaning towards the AFV-aspect because it strikes me that part of the game plays better, but I've got an open mind, regardless.
But right now the choice isn't completely there. Get the house-to-house in, more close-in terrain, more animations - Erik has said this is all on the to-do list - and I think that will be of more value than bigger maps, in my opinion.

I hear you, Michael. Please, no one take my comments as connoting negativity towards the soundness of this release. I am by nature an analyst of all things meaningful in this little universe of mine. That said, there's no point in bitching about the quality of the air when there's nothing else to breathe.

Speaking of Erik...dude, can we lose the pointed helmets on the Panzer Grenadiers? [;)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)
Government is the opiate of the masses.
User avatar
madorosh
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 10:44 pm
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by madorosh »

Agreed on all points. I'm not sure anyone really has made a good infantry game to date. The basics have always been there, but no one has gone in and expanded on the details. I hope PC will continue to expand and do that. And I don't mean useless data and procedures. CMX2 went the wrong way, introducting 1:1 rep and counting bullets in each gun and tracking stars in the sky and useless nonsense. I mean getting in more interesting things that infantry really do. Keep the squad-based focus but give them more abilities and more options of what to do in action. That can mean more ways to do battle - ambush drills, formations to advance in, for example, or other activities on the battlefield such as the ability to clear a path through a minefield or wire obstacle, engage in hand-to-hand combat, dig shellscrapes. It's possible to overdo it, I suppose, but if you're detailing armour slope, and whether or not tank commanders are buttoned/exposed, why not have infantry squads modeled at least to the level of being dug-in or not?

There are certain levels of detail you do not need, and that is including supply, and medical aid, and you can even skip prisoners and guards and interrogation and keep the infantry game lean in that respect, but I think field fortifications and engineering are very real tasks that would make things interesting. Add in assault boats and amphibious craft to the list, and new terrain such as bocage, tall hedges, the ability to area fire at targets out of LOS (including grenades over tall obstacles like tall walls), mouseholing in urban combat. Lots of stuff to add in to make the infantry game realistic and interesting without the need to lose the squad-based focus, and will help shift the focus away from the tanks. Oh, and of course new ways to close-assault tanks...(!) In the end, I think you can have a nice balance that will please armour and infantry "fans" alike, and perhaps do what no other PC game has really done - give infantry capabilities that they have in real life that to date haven't been adequately portrayed in a 3D tactical game.
rickier65
Posts: 14241
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by rickier65 »

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

Agreed on all points. I'm not sure anyone really has made a good infantry game to date. The basics have always been there, but no one has gone in and expanded on the details. I hope PC will continue to expand and do that. And I don't mean useless data and procedures. CMX2 went the wrong way, introducting 1:1 rep and counting bullets in each gun and tracking stars in the sky and useless nonsense. I mean getting in more interesting things that infantry really do. Keep the squad-based focus but give them more abilities and more options of what to do in action. That can mean more ways to do battle - ambush drills, formations to advance in, for example, or other activities on the battlefield such as the ability to clear a path through a minefield or wire obstacle, engage in hand-to-hand combat, dig shellscrapes. It's possible to overdo it, I suppose, but if you're detailing armour slope, and whether or not tank commanders are buttoned/exposed, why not have infantry squads modeled at least to the level of being dug-in or not?

There are certain levels of detail you do not need, and that is including supply, and medical aid, and you can even skip prisoners and guards and interrogation and keep the infantry game lean in that respect, but I think field fortifications and engineering are very real tasks that would make things interesting. Add in assault boats and amphibious craft to the list, and new terrain such as bocage, tall hedges, the ability to area fire at targets out of LOS (including grenades over tall obstacles like tall walls), mouseholing in urban combat. Lots of stuff to add in to make the infantry game realistic and interesting without the need to lose the squad-based focus, and will help shift the focus away from the tanks. Oh, and of course new ways to close-assault tanks...(!) In the end, I think you can have a nice balance that will please armour and infantry "fans" alike, and perhaps do what no other PC game has really done - give infantry capabilities that they have in real life that to date haven't been adequately portrayed in a 3D tactical game.

I'm hoping that some of these things do come to fruition as this series develops. Eric has mentioned on more than one occasion that he'd like to improve the Infantry model as he moves forward.

I'm looking forward to this, but I'm enjoying what PCK offers right now as well. I see they do offer formations, though I haven't had occasion to use them yet. Seems like there is quite a bit in the game now that I haven't touched on. I have high hopes for this series.

But I see I"m getting off subject here.

Rick
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39324
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on expansions...

Post by Erik Rutins »

Very interesting suggestions. Let me just add one note - when we go to larger maps in the future, it doesn't mean smaller maps will become unavailable. We'll be expanding the possible map sizes not limiting you to a new larger size only. I think that continuing to improve the infantry side of the game is definitely possible while also making it an even better armor game as well.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

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

Freedom is not Free.
Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Command: Kharkov”