Has PC2 made the same mistakes as Panzer General?

[Gaylord]

Old gamer here, been playing games like PG & PC since they were board games, Squad Leader anyone? Haven't bothered updating to PC2 as my initial impressions are they have done exactly what PG did when they went so called "3D", destroyed some aspects of the game I really like, for example scale. For me these implementations of 3D add little if anything to the experience whilst the trade offs greatly diminish the experience for this gamer. Change my mind.

[Ninja Bob]

scroll out and it goes to 2D.

[Metal Izanagi]

Originally posted by Gaylord:

Old gamer here, been playing games like PG & PC since they were board games, Squad Leader anyone? Haven't bothered updating to PC2 as my initial impressions are they have done exactly what PG did when they went so called "3D", destroyed some aspects of the game I really like, for example scale. For me these implementations of 3D add little if anything to the experience whilst the trade offs greatly diminish the experience for this gamer. Change my mind.

Replacing the 2D unit images with 3D models doesn't really change the scale of anything in PC2, and the models look pretty cool and can be customized with camo patterns. So no, they definitely didn't make a mistake.

[NAR1776]

Not a big fan of 3D. Why is it an improvement over good old fashion 2D counters?

[Nowhereman]

Originally posted by NAR1776:

Not a big fan of 3D. Why is it an improvement over good old fashion 2D counters?

When did Panzer General/Panzer Corps have counters?

[the eye has it, the eye has it.]

Originally posted by NAR1776:

Not a big fan of 3D. Why is it an improvement over good old fashion 2D counters?

You should read around what Flashback have said on the subject ..
tldr. its 2020, not 2005.

You're trying to isolate 3D as a discrete visual anomaly. It's not.

Its an entirely different ecosystem with different tools, workflows and opportunities. From what I can gather from previous interviews and dev diaries, they went 3D because it makes development of such a big and complicated game easier since all the professional level tools are, these days, 3D orientated.

Plus Flashback are a business and 2D games just don't sell as well as 3D or have the same marketing potential. Panzercorps has always been a light, beer and pretzel game so is marketed at that same, light wargame player, most of whom expect 3D because thats the norm in their world. Today.
People forget that version 1 was only 2D because at the time, that was the norm for this kind of game. In the good old days. Now its not. Times change.

3D or 2D is a non debate since the game IS 3D and somehow I don't think it will change ( other than changes to the strategic view ). So if you want that to improve then it would be more useful if you suggest where the 3D falls down, why and how you think it could be improved. The devs seem to listen to well thought out suggestions.

[Sierra]

Originally posted by the eye has it, the eye has it.:

Originally posted by NAR1776:

Not a big fan of 3D. Why is it an improvement over good old fashion 2D counters?

You should read around what Flashback have said on the subject ..
tldr. its 2020, not 2005.

You're trying to isolate 3D as a discrete visual anomaly. It's not.

Its an entirely different ecosystem with different tools, workflows and opportunities. From what I can gather from previous interviews and dev diaries, they went 3D because it makes development of such a big and complicated game easier since all the professional level tools are, these days, 3D orientated.

Plus Flashback are a business and 2D games just don't sell as well as 3D or have the same marketing potential. Panzercorps has always been a light, beer and pretzel game so is marketed at that same, light wargame player, most of whom expect 3D because thats the norm in their world. Today.
People forget that version 1 was only 2D because at the time, that was the norm for this kind of game. In the good old days. Now its not. Times change.

3D or 2D is a non debate since the game IS 3D and somehow I don't think it will change ( other than changes to the strategic view ). So if you want that to improve then it would be more useful if you suggest where the 3D falls down, why and how you think it could be improved. The devs seem to listen to well thought out suggestions.

Awesome Answer

[Econ]

Panzer General was my favorite game when it came out (yes, I'm old). I initially thought PzC2 had made the Pz3D mistake: I struggled to get the graphics to my liking (they were fuzzy and much harder to read than PzC). However, you can get it looking ok if you tinker with your graphics settings (a little hardcore as it is your graphics card settings, not the game's graphics settings - but there was a thread on the official forum that told me what settings to adjust). I got used to the graphics. (I admit some old timers did not get used to it). Watch some YouTubes videos if graphics matter to you.

More to the point, 3D is not the selling point of PzC2. I dare say few people play retrostyle games like Panzer Corps for their graphics. The point of PzC2 is to bring lots of innovations and marginal improvements. The main campaign is better than the PzC main campaign - it's clearly been informed by the PzC GC and resembles it in some ways. PzC2 is similar or better quality to PzC, whereas PG3D was just awful. I think the appropriate comparison may be PG1 to PG2, not PG1 to PG3 (for example, tanks now have overrun and to me the units look rather like PG2 models). But I don't think the scale has really changed from PzC1. For example, you still fight the entire battle of Kiev, PG1 style, and it is awesome. I'm not sure but I'd wager it was closer to Pg1 scale than Pg2 scale, let alone Pg3. Axis Operations may well be smaller scale, as the GC was for PzC1. AO sounds quite promising in that it seeks to make enemy deployment and reinforcements unpredictable, which will increase replayability and avoid their being a simple replicable optimal solution to the usual PG style puzzle gameplay.

I'd say if you really like PG and PzC (e.g. you played the GC and replayed it), the PzC2 is no-brainer. But if you are going to be put off by graphics, don't buy it. (It's kind of ironic a retrogamer being put off by graphics, but you know what I mean).

[Night_Phoenix]

I rather disagree, if we look at PzC2 and Panzer General we can isolate each different aspect about the game and make an individual assessment on whether that's good/better/made the same mistakes. The graphics is just one individual aspect of that. But there are many more parts of the game that could go well or worse. Besides graphics there is still: sound, gameplay and storytelling/immersion.

Whatever you might think personally of the graphics, going 3D is quite defendable in current times. Whether it's easier to work with, i don't know. I personally think it's a problem that when zoomed out i can't get the graphics to look nice. One of the problems is that the game soaks up GPU like crazy. Despite me having a good graphics card it's...intense. Looking on the Steam forums, more people have this complaint.

Music: There is a topic on the slitherine forums where somebody compares the sound from older panzer games, and i think that above and beyond the older games had better sound. Everything in PzC2 sounds dull by comparison. I guess it's a personal taste, but i want my artillery to blast with a bang, not a dud.

Gameplay: PzC2 does things a bit different, which in itself isn't bad. Encirclements are a neat addition for example. But the game suffers from terrible AI, for example they introduced a new system for airplanes. But enemy airplanes don't switch airfields. Which means you always go from one zone of total air control, move to next airfield fight 2 enemy fighters, get total control, move to next airfield. It removes any potential danger from new enemy fighters. With new features, better and more complex AI needs to be created and i find the AI lacking in comparison.
PzC 1's AI was much more suited to the complexity of that game, and PzC2's AI can't handle the new stuff. Units are much more passive and idle than in PzC, and that's boring. You want interaction, an active enemy that actually does stuff. Not sit around 3/4's of the scenario until you get into its range. And even then only half of the units actually do something in the main campaign.

As for storytelling/immersion PzC2 also fails to be as good as it's predecessors: No endbriefings and bad ones in the DLC, no updates on strategical situation, no sidemissions in main campaign, and very few of them in the DLC. No meaningful branching paths in main campaign (except for 1 point), no victory/loss screen with outro at the end of the war and the list goes on.

PzC2 fails to be as good as its predecessors on almost any aspect. Yes it's 3D now, and for
current times thats good. But in the days of Panzer General, those graphics probably weren't bad for that time either. As for all the other elements i find PzC2 lacking compared to previous games like PzC1 or Panzer General. Whether that means it falls in the same mistakes? I don't know, but the game could sure use some improvement on those aspects for my part.

[Xenos]

PzC1 campaign was like 3/5 of the new campaign. The branching design mostly shortened it, with things like Sealion 1940 adn Early Moscow. Branching is nice, but I don't really miss that kind of branching. The new campaign is superior.

[Hexaboo]

The only 'meaningful branching' option from PzC that PzC2 lacks is the absence of Sealion 1940, which was removed deliberately (due to its very real potential to shorten the campaign for many players), and replaced with the North Africa/Barbarossa option, which makes so much more sense.

What other 'meaningful branching' did PzC, or the PG series offer? Aside from the 'if you lose, you get the "bad" historical branch/ending' option? PzC2 does the better thing, and lets the player decide if they want to go historical/ahistorical.

The main PzC2 campaign has its problems (like the optional objectives that do nothing), but it's hands-down better than the original campaign of PzC, and to a lesser extent, PG series.

[Sveroboi]

The old Panzer General 3D games (Western Assault and Scorched Earth) were my least favorite. Fortunately, thats not the case here. Panzer Corps 2 is a good game. The only thing I am bit torn is all the special heroes and feats. I still have to get used to the game, but my path to victory is so far to build totally OP units with 2 or 3 heroes and I have to try out if you can do it differently.

Despite the enhanced AT abilities, I feel sometimes its hard to build a bullet proof defense here against counter attacks and so on which I feel was a key feature in Panzer Corps 1. But this has to do more with the unit stats I guess. I wish AT would punch a bit harder.

The 3D graphics do not much IMO to enhance the game, instead sometimes it feels a bit crowded. But they are not in the way of combat.

[Xenos]

In the original Panzer General you're actually punished for getting decisive victories. You could conquer Moscow in '41 and then be shipped to Washington in '45, with a severely under-equipped and under-experienced core. The game also offers you the option of paying prestige to skip Kiev, and thus getting even less prestige. I was a child at the time and found it extremely challenging because of these quirks. It was a great game but the campaign was designed terribly.

[ArcturusRising]

I'm a huge fan of Panzer General and Panzer Corps and I also don't like the new 3D graphics. I was excited when they announced Panzer Corps 2, but was disappointed by the images I saw. Many of the units are tiny and blend into the terrain. I feel my eyes straining constantly to see the units and am frequently using my mousewheel to zoom in and out, which I never did before in Panzer Corps or Panzer General. I also cannot distinguish the difference between BF109 and Stuka models, so I have to change my fighters to (Red Baron) bright red and my bombers to bright blue, so I can see where my airforce is at a glance, and also know which ones are fighters.

I like the music in Panzer General and Panzer Corps, but find the music in Panzer Corps 2 to be uninspired and annoying after awhile, so I have permanently turned the music off while I play, which I did not do in older games. I am also disappointed in the dull sound effects, particularly when large caliber guns are firing, such as the battleship. It is shockingly bad. I saw a thread on the Slitherine forum where another user posted links to the sound effects in Panzer General and Panzer Corps. There is a noticeable difference. Big guns have a deeper sound and you can hear the clink of metal as the tanks drive over ground.

With the negatives out of the way, I do like the new system, how supply works, the airforce, heroes, and commander. The base game mission is boring victory hex capture and seemingly fewer branching options. However, the new Spanish DLC is a huge improvement in mission variety and I'm excited about future DLC if the trend contnues. I always preferred the grand campaign in Panzer Corps.

[Night_Phoenix]

Originally posted by Hexaboo:

The only 'meaningful branching' option from PzC that PzC2 lacks is the absence of Sealion 1940, which was removed deliberately (due to its very real potential to shorten the campaign for many players), and replaced with the North Africa/Barbarossa option, which makes so much more sense.

What other 'meaningful branching' did PzC, or the PG series offer? Aside from the 'if you lose, you get the "bad" historical branch/ending' option? PzC2 does the better thing, and lets the player decide if they want to go historical/ahistorical.

The main PzC2 campaign has its problems (like the optional objectives that do nothing), but it's hands-down better than the original campaign of PzC, and to a lesser extent, PG series.

The great thing about games like Panzer Corps and Panzer General was that every branch was in a way meaningful. -> You did poorly at Stalingrad? -> historical path, you go to kharkov 43' and then Kursk -> You did poorly again? Bagration it is. You did well? -> Moscow 42/43'.
You got punished like the Germans did in the actual war for not or actually performing well. Eventually making your way towards Berlin or Washington, or anything in between.
Stopping the Western allies at Normandy, but failing in the East? totally possible. Halting the Allies from destroying Germany and getting a reasonable peace deal? Totally possible. So many different outcomes based on your skill, or what you think would be fun to do.

PzC2 main campaign has none of this. You can't influence the war based on your skill except for 1 branching point. If you lose a battle, it's straight up game over.

You fail to capture Moscow in 41? -> Game over screen. Win = next mission
You can't capture El Alamein? -> Game over screen. Win = next mission
Fail to take over Washington? -> Game over screen. Win = next mission
Fail to take Antwerp in Battle of the Bulge -> Game over screen. Win = next mission No explanation of how the war went, how you fared, nothing. Let's Compare that to Panzer General 20 years or so ago:

Fail to capture Moscow in 41? -> Sevastopol or El Alamein. Win = Washington/Sealion
You can't Capture El Alamein? -> Operation Torch. Win = Sealion 43'
Fail to take over Washington? -> An end where the Americans force a peace treaty through the A-bomb. But Europe remains in German hands.
Fail to take Antwerp in Battle of the Bulge? Last stand at Berlin. Win = Peace with Allies and go to Budapest to lift the siege.

I don't see how it's better that you get to choose? PzC2 feels like a treadmill with horse flaps on. All you can do is look straight ahead and run. And if you don't run fast enough (fail a mission) you fall off and have to start all over again. Can't look left, can't look right. it's all a straight dull line ahead of you.

[Black_Hole]

Yes, unfortunately Panzer Corps 2 did a very poor job to create immersion and interactive storytelling. The base game missions feel more like one skirmish after another but hardly connected in any way.

The new Axis Operations may have less branches - for obvious reasons. But are far better in storytelling and immersion so far. While I don´t enjoy the base game PC2 too much, I really enjoyed SCW.