How does this game compare to it's predecessors?

[jman0war]

I bought this game and DLC directly from the Slitherine website instead of Steam, so i don't think Steam will permit me to review it here.

I played SSI's original Panzer General (in DOS), Allied General (Win95) and then Panzer General 2, People's General and couldn't get Panzer General 3d Assault to work on my system back then.

Really enjoyed it when Slitherine made Panzer Corp and was looking forward to this one since it was announced.

But now that i actually have the game, i find i don't really play it and constantly pass it up for other games and early access titles i'm backing.

Maybe it's just me, but this game just doesn't have the same 'punch' as it's predecessors.
It's like the Allied units retreat too often, or just barely hang on with 1 health even after i've tried to kill it with 4 of my units.
I dunno, maybe i have to crank up the animation speed (I turned it down so i could watch the allied turn).

But i also find I am loath to start a new map, it's like a big SIGH now that i have to manage all my units, select Heroes and figure out upgrades and then spend even more time to deploy.
I kind of wish there were an Auto-Deploy option and an Auto-Manage your units toggle.

[Boredflak]

The vast majority of KILLS you will achieve in the game are from forcing a enemy unit to retreat when it cannot. It surrenders instead. In many ways this is historical as very few units were wiped out completely in a single engagement. So the zones of control and encirclement play a big part in doing this. Surrendering enemy units give you prestige as well, so again a big part of the design. There are heroes that will freeze a unit in place if you get one of them (envelopment or shock tactics) it makes it easier to force the a surrender when the enemy retreats. Another hero (overwhelming attack) makes an enemy unit that takes any damage retreat. The combination of these makes for a lot of out right surrenders. Normally you must kill 66% of a units unsuppressed strength to force retreat, so artillery and air play a big part of the PUNCH you refer too.

The supply system needs some work, that a unit simply needs to trace a path to any board edge is so wrong. OoB has the best supply rules of any game I have played. Each supply source can supply a set amount of command points ( core slots) and if there are more units tracing supply than supply ALL units are reduced in efficiency. The more units over the supply limit the more sever the penalty. A newly captured supply source will give you supply after a few turns it does nothing for you until then. As you move units it expands your area of control and units have to trace back along the controlled area to be in supply. It makes you watch what you have deployed and carefully manage it with out burdening you with every detail.

[jman0war]

Whether historical or not, the ZOC reminds me of some of the newer Civilization games, where they implemented something similar with "Culture" and it basically resulted in spamming your border with Temples that would generate and expand a 'Culture' influence and allow a player to literally take over whole towns and cities without any military units involved at all, Lame.

[jman0war]

Boredflak eredeti hozzászólása:

The vast majority of KILLS you will achieve in the game are from forcing a enemy unit to retreat when it cannot. It surrenders instead.

I wish someone had altered that to me before i bought as i would have passed on this game.
It's just not very 'punchy' (compared to predecessors) to strategize surrounding enemy units, compared to strategize using combined arms to attack and destroy.
--EDIT-- - sorry just going to edit this comment a bit--
I think what they have done with this game is they have implemented more of a passive sort of gameplay strategy compared to it's predecessors.

I just hope someone in the modding community can fix this.

[BigJohn]

I think the game was focused on new players not experienced wargamers. It was a major disappointment for me.

The game mechanics translate very poorly to MP, leaves way to much room for 'gamey" tactics. Supply from all 4 borders? Enemy ZoC negate a unit, so supply cant flow through a unit thus strange encirclements everywhere.

MP still only has the same lame original scenarios. If your winning in MP your opponent disappears 80% of the time.

I promised myself to 1) never buy a sequel without extensive research and 2) never trust a wargamer.com review again.

[danconnors]

I went to my old Panzer General 2 yesterday and played the final Russian scenario and it was great. My 5 stripe PZKW IVD tanks were able to handle inexperienced Russian T-34's, which was historically correct. It being early in the game the PZ 4d tanks were the best that I could get. I found a Stuka G attack bomber could put enough of a hurt on a T-34 unit that my 4D unit could overrun it in the same turn.

Being not bound by slot size I was able to build my attacking force as high as my prestige allowed, instead of having to laboriously ponder whether I would have enough core slots to assemble a decent army. On the final scenario I hit the Ruskies with 7 tank units, 7 heavy artillery units--all pulled by tracked vehicles--5 units of pioneers, 6 experienced fighter groups, and 7 experienced attack bombers. Plus 2 experienced recon units. That's 34 excellent units. I've never come anywhere near that number of units in a Panzer Corps game.

That's why I quit trying to play Panzer Corps. It's a niche game--for people who don't mind spending an hour just trying to assemble their attacking army for that particular scenario. In Panzer General 2 I use my entire army for each scenario--rather than having to laboriously pick and choose which units I have that will be of any use. If it's raining a lot in one scenario my aircraft units don't fly much--but they're there if I happen to get good weather.

[danconnors]

And as for prisoners the German encirclements in the first year of the war netted them MILLIONS of prisoners. Surrenders were not at all uncommon. That's because Stalin had slaughtered his army high commanders a few years before Germany invaded, and he ended up with an army led by political hacks and idiots. Instead, in this game, we immediately hit a well oiled, excellently led Russian army that fights to the last man. Didn't happen that way IRL.

[BigJohn]

Prokhorovka & Zitadelle were awesome in PG2

[Flopsy_the_rabbit]

People finding the game not very 'punchy', it might just be that you are early in the game with low XP units. XP makes a big difference in this game, even at 2-3 stars you will start to see a very noticeable change in killing power. You need to grind kills a bit in the early game and invest in elite replacements to get your core going

Units retreating is annoying, but realistically you wouldn't expect an almost dead unit to just sit still and allow itself to be destroyed. Managing retreats is part of the game, and adds quite a bit of depth. Don't forget that if you leave a handful of core slots free in deployment (or take Flexible Command) you will be able to split units to better encircle - this is really game changing once you get the hang of it and as far I know is unique to PC2.

Supply system is not the best but you get used to it, I do think the system in OOB is preferable. PC2 could be greatly improved just by having a supply overlay, it's very confusing for new players to work out where supply is coming from.

danconnors eredeti hozzászólása:

Being not bound by slot size I was able to build my attacking force as high as my prestige allowed, instead of having to laboriously ponder whether I would have enough core slots to assemble a decent army. On the final scenario I hit the Ruskies with 7 tank units, 7 heavy artillery units--all pulled by tracked vehicles--5 units of pioneers, 6 experienced fighter groups, and 7 experienced attack bombers. Plus 2 experienced recon units. That's 34 excellent units. I've never come anywhere near that number of units in a Panzer Corps game.

I take it you've never played PC1 grand campaign, you will have all that and more by the end

[Boredflak]

Flopsy_the_rabbit eredeti hozzászólása:

Don't forget that if you leave a handful of core slots free in deployment (or take Flexible Command) you will be able to split units to better encircle - this is really game changing once you get the hang of it and as far I know is unique to PC2.

Very good points. The encirclement concept actually comes from OoB. But the effects of being cut off in OoB are not as devastating. I think OoB got it right with how that works. In PzC 2 enemy units that are surrounded get devastated fairly quickly. There is no need for long protracted sieges like Leningrad or Sevastopol. I think surrounded units lose the will to fight much to quickly in PzC 2. The para units in Market Garden or the Americans at battle of the bulge, or Marines on Guadalcanal are examples of units surrounded that held out and fought for extended periods. The problem lies in the AI when it gets surrounded it has trouble with what to do. It will attack from the outside of the encirclement but the troops inside do not do a lot to escape.

dan is comparing late game PG 2 to early game PzC 2. If you play the campaign through you will have much higher unit counts by the late game, your units will be upgraded in equipment and have experience. So dan please go back and play the EARLY PG 2 scenarios then compare that to PzC 2. I expect there will be much higher unit counts in AO41 but we will see, EDIT> the number of core slots in the 1st AO41 is very low but then the next one it is in the 70's the 1st scenario of SCW it was 32 so yes our army is growing,

[GA01]

"I have played every Panzer General type game since the original. Each time a new one comes our and changes things someone says it is not as good as the original. PzC 2 is hands down the best game of its kind PERIOD."

I disagree - the best is the Order of Battle series.

[Magni]

danconnors eredeti hozzászólása:

Anti tank guns were useful for defending against tanks--which was there actual use. I always tried to get at least one very good anti tank unit to deal with the superior Russian tanks when I went into Russia.

Anti-tank guns in PC1 and the PG series were utterly irredeemable, useless garbage. There was literally not a single time in any of the campaigns they were remotely worth wasting prestige on instead of putting the same into just about anything else to better effect. The odd superior heavy tank was better taken care of via artillery/tactical bombers and/or sarming it with your own armor literally every single time.

AT units giving "support fire" is also entirely realistic given the scale of the game both in terms of unit sizes and the timeframe each turn takes up. They're not artillery-firing from miles away, they react to enemy armor movement by rushing forward and embedding with the defending unit to support along the actual main line of resistance.

You've been endlessly repeating this garbage trolling and hating on the game here for years now. If you hate PC2 so much, just do everyone a favour and go away aloready instead of regurgitating these same worthless old garbage arguments of yours that have been shot down a dozen times already yet again.

danconnors eredeti hozzászólása:

Historically every panzer division had its own anti tank guns, its own supporting, mobile infantry, and its own mobile artillery--plus recon units.. So, it was not vulnerable to the ambushes this game loves to spring on tank units that move ahead of their infantry.

That's great, but what exactly is even your point? Hint: A single unit in-game does not represent a full division. And guess what, elements of panzer divisions were in fact ambushed quite often throughout the war. Especially when they moved ahead of their infantry, very much a frequent mistake committed by tank units on all sides in the war. Including those vaunted panzer divisions.

danconnors eredeti hozzászólása:

Another thing this game has that I don't like are conscript divisions that are over strengthened to 15 or more even though they have zero experience. In PG and PG2 you couldn't over strength units until they had earned experience slots. The conscript infantry units are EXTREMELY hard to destroy and--instead of breaking and routing like they actually did in war they retreat, retreat, retreat, and keep on fighting. Meaning they behave more like an infantry unit with 5 actual experience slots.

So, in other words, PC2 is more hsitorically accurate in this regard, as being overstrength was if at all MORE common with fresh, green units than veteran ones. And LOL@someone actually having trouble slaughtering Conscripts of all things. (Also, 15 is BASE strength for infantry. 20 is base for Conscripts, and even with that they're still garbage cannon fodder units.) PS: At the scale and timeframe of the game, a retreat IS functionally a rout. So what if they end up rallying and taking a stand again hours later?

Also, for supposedly having so much experience with the old PG games, you sure seem to know little about them. Tanks doing overruns is supposed to be NEW? LAFFO. HInt: It wasn't even new in People's general.

jman0war eredeti hozzászólása:

Whether historical or not, the ZOC reminds me of some of the newer Civilization games, where they implemented something similar with "Culture" and it basically resulted in spamming your border with Temples that would generate and expand a 'Culture' influence and allow a player to literally take over whole towns and cities without any military units involved at all, Lame.

ZOC has been a staple rule for hex wargames literally since before computer games were even a thing. It's one of the most practical ways to depict that a unit isn't just a stationary chess piece, but actually maneuvers and reacts to enemy movement around it.

jman0war eredeti hozzászólása:

I think what they have done with this game is they have implemented more of a passive sort of gameplay strategy compared to it's predecessors.

What? The emphasis on flanking and surrounding enemies to efficiently take them out if at all requires a lot more active maneuvering than blunt frontal assaults. Being passive is about the absolutely worst thing you could do within that meta.

danconnors eredeti hozzászólása:

I went to my old Panzer General 2 yesterday and played the final Russian scenario and it was great. My 5 stripe PZKW IVD tanks were able to handle inexperienced Russian T-34's, which was historically correct. It being early in the game the PZ 4d tanks were the best that I could get. I found a Stuka G attack bomber could put enough of a hurt on a T-34 unit that my 4D unit could overrun it in the same turn.

Being not bound by slot size I was able to build my attacking force as high as my prestige allowed, instead of having to laboriously ponder whether I would have enough core slots to assemble a decent army. On the final scenario I hit the Ruskies with 7 tank units, 7 heavy artillery units--all pulled by tracked vehicles--5 units of pioneers, 6 experienced fighter groups, and 7 experienced attack bombers. Plus 2 experienced recon units. That's 34 excellent units. I've never come anywhere near that number of units in a Panzer Corps game.

In other words, you took advantage of PG2s comically unrealistic army "building" system in which logistics literally do not exist in the deployment phase and hence half the unit types (let alone units) in the game are completely worthless garbage nobody should ever bother with. As for never coming near that number of units in PC2? Um, yeah, if literally all you field is massive core slot-hogs for your entire lineup, sure?

Which is exactly why it actually makes sense now to build a more varied army instead of one composed out of only five different units. Gee, it's almost as if all those units that nobody with two braincells to rub together ever bothered with in PC1 or the PG series now actually have a real purpose.

That's why I quit trying to play Panzer Corps. It's a niche game--for people who don't mind spending an hour just trying to assemble their attacking army for that particular scenario. In Panzer General 2 I use my entire army for each scenario--rather than having to laboriously pick and choose which units I have that will be of any use. If it's raining a lot in one scenario my aircraft units don't fly much--but they're there if I happen to get good weather.

So, in other words, you now have to actually THINK about your unit lineup and make actual choices instead of putting together an "army" of literally five units spammed a few times? And that's supposed to be BAD? ROFL.

danconnors eredeti hozzászólása:

And as for prisoners the German encirclements in the first year of the war netted them MILLIONS of prisoners. Surrenders were not at all uncommon. That's because Stalin had slaughtered his army high commanders a few years before Germany invaded, and he ended up with an army led by political hacks and idiots. Instead, in this game, we immediately hit a well oiled, excellently led Russian army that fights to the last man. Didn't happen that way IRL.

Yes, a "well oiled, excellently led" Russian army that frequently fights in a disjointed, uncoordinated matter, lets us slaughter their airforce on the ground en masse and instead of a true high-level coordinated defense fights mostly seperate tactical-level actions with varying degrees of competence that may give you a bloody nose if you mess up and give them an opening. Hmm, sounds exactly like, you know, the Red Army during Barbarossa. And they fight to the last man only if you give them the choice to, which is entirely on you and your mistakes made.

Frankly, all your posts here point in the same direction: That you dislike PC2 because it can't be broken quite as trivially as the older games, and actually requires a bare minimum of thinking beyond buying a bunch of big tanks, big arty and pioneers and throwing them frontally into the enemy's teeth to achieve the best outcomes.

[Boredflak]

It can be broken quite easily ... CHEAT CODES. But then it becomes to easy. Well said Magni.

[jman0war]

Magni your tone sucks.

You personalized the dicussion personally attacking danconnors just because you don't agree with him? Maybe you could just leave this thread.

And yes, encircling, cutting supply and ZOC are passive stategies or if you prefer SOFT strategies.

You also miss the point of my comment about ZOC.
I didn't say there should be no ZOC ever, i said this game is weighted to much toward such Passive or SOFT strategies.

[Edmon]

Magni eredeti hozzászólása:

You've been endlessly repeating this garbage trolling and hating on the game here for years now. If you hate PC2 so much, just do everyone a favour and go away aloready instead of regurgitating these same worthless old garbage arguments of yours that have been shot down a dozen times already yet again.

Do not attack other posters.

The general tone of the rest of this post was not great, either. Write to educate, not demean, other posters.

What is powerful or not powerful depends can be totally different depending on the mission and the types of enemies on the map.

It also depends a lot on your strategy and traits.

jman0war eredeti hozzászólása:

Magni your tone sucks.

You personalized the dicussion personally attacking danconnors just because you don't agree with him? Maybe you could just leave this thread.

Please just report such posts and keep to the topic, thanks. It just encourages arguments otherwise.

There was an otherwise very good discussion in here, lets keep it that way.

[Boredflak]

BigJohn eredeti hozzászólása:

I think the game was focused on new players not experienced wargamers. It was a major disappointment for me.

The game mechanics translate very poorly to MP, leaves way to much room for 'gamey" tactics. Supply from all 4 borders? Enemy ZoC negate a unit, so supply cant flow through a unit thus strange encirclements everywhere.

MP still only has the same lame original scenarios. If your winning in MP your opponent disappears 80% of the time.

I promised myself to 1) never buy a sequel without extensive research and 2) never trust a wargamer.com review again.

3 points here:
1 A game does not control the behavior of the players so in no way should a negative view of the game be made. That is blatantly unfair.

2 Supply. I agree that supply is wrong in the game. That said, there is a general trait that allows you to trace through an enemy ZOC if a friendly unit is in the hex. Also Encirclement's have happened in every war since 1900. It is also a huge part of PzC 2.

3 The game is aimed at new players. In many ways this is true but I believe from reading the threads here that the majority of us are experienced gamers. ANY new game aims to hit the market that is already out there and HOPES that new players will play said game. That is in the best interest of all of us gamers, as more sales promote more games down the road. If a game only appeals to a small group what happens when said group dies off? You have no one to buy your product. This is something that war gaming has faced for decades. In the begining there was a very small market to sell to. Then more people started to play the games. Wargaming would have died off completely, as we the gamer got married and had families our ability to sit down for several hours was very much gone. Enter the PC, for the 1st time we could play a game with out having to set it up and have another human across the board. We could play a game a little at a time then save it and pick it up later. This made it possible for the old Gaming Companies to continue to develop games and more people to enjoy them. But now those of us who started wargaming in the 60's are in our 60's or older. Game developers must get younger people into their game or soon they have noone to sell games too. Please consider these things before you make it a negative, it is REALITY. You may not like it but the game developers must do it.