Boilerplate is why I dislike air-only missions

[Sequester Grundleplith, MD]

As an idea, they are a nice change of pace. In practice however...

In Scenario: because there is no ZoC, it's extremely hard to protect your most vulnerable assets. Then, even if you set up a nice flower around your fighters-- Surprise! Lighting Attack over-strength fighters, conveniently placed beyond scouting range, wreck what the fighters are supposed to defend

On the meta-level: I find strategic mode is the only way to reliably move air assets to the correct hex. But for some reason strategic mode is far, far more likely to ctd. So playing air missions, which generally have above average turns, is just constant ctd>reload>save to guard against ctd>ctd>etc pain

[Grondel]

As an idea, they are a nice change of pace. In practice however...

In Scenario: because there is no ZoC, it's extremely hard to protect your most vulnerable assets. Then, even if you set up a nice flower around your fighters-- Surprise! Lighting Attack over-strength fighters, conveniently placed beyond scouting range, wreck what the fighters are supposed to defend

On the meta-level: I find strategic mode is the only way to reliably move air assets to the correct hex. But for some reason strategic mode is far, far more likely to ctd. So playing air missions, which generally have above average turns, is just constant ctd>reload>save to guard against ctd>ctd>etc pain

in nearly 6k hours of PC2 i had 0 CTDs on 4 diffrent machines. I would try to solve that issue instead of trying to change the game.

sers,
Thomas

[Sequester Grundleplith, MD]

I've also played it on multiple machines. 99% of my ctds are in strategic mode, which on the surface seems weird, since the graphics are essentially zero

[VirgilInTheSKY]

Bodenplatte is designed especially for destroying your air forces if you dear to challenge it, it's the same as Minsk Offensive, just that this time you have to use your own Core units, as many people has complained about not being able to participate in the destruction of something big with no chance to win.

[Sequester Grundleplith, MD]

Bodenplatte is designed especially for destroying your air forces if you dear to challenge it, it's the same as Minsk Offensive, just that this time you have to use your own Core units, as many people has complained about not being able to participate in the destruction of something big with no chance to win.

If losing your air force because of the larger circumstances of the war is what it's going for, I would prefer the game just have some mechanic where you must choose five planes to keep or something because of "lack of fuel"

Losing planes you've spent years building up within a mission, because of deliberately cheesy opfor builds and range shenanigans is a less satisfying way to achieve the same result, imho

One version is an active choice by the player, the other feels like manipulating the game's mechanics to deprive the player of agency

[Kerensky]

Losing planes you've spent years building up within a mission, because of deliberately cheesy opfor builds and range shenanigans is a less satisfying way to achieve the same result, imho

If these kinds of impossible scenarios invoke feelings of anger, frustration, hopelessness... I apologize. Yet at the same time I just sort of imagine what Generalleutnant Galland felt actually go through it. This is why certain battles have been chosen, to explore these events from the uniquely German perspective on them that is so often missing from more typical WW2 games.

[Sequester Grundleplith, MD]

I don't particularly feel the need to emphasize with a guy who helped contribute to wars of aggression that ultimately cost fifty million people their lives.

In terms of how these situations are managed in the game we're playing, my position is designing situations where a player playing optimally will lose units they spent five-plus years in game and several irl years developing because of obvious cheese is not the best way.

Forcing players to make hard choices is the hallmark of good game design, and imho this fails that test because there is no choice present. The mission is "optional," sure, but we bought the game to play missions, so of course we'll play the mission.
As I suggested, an alternative method might be to force the player to pick a few air units to keep. This is both a difficult choice for the player, and fully consistent with the larger storyline of impending defeat, no fuel, limited parts and pilots, etc


In a future Panzer Corps sequel game, I think the discrepancy between the importance to the player of individual units and the reality of losses in combat could be resolved through the creation of a "formation" level above the units actually deployed on the map

An example: for tanks, you would purchase into your core a battalion of tanks, with 4 or so companies that would actually deploy to the map. The battalion level would be where experience is collected, so you could lose multiple companies in one battle and not lose years' worth of experience.
This would even encourage the creation of scenarios where the "smart" move by the player is to sacrifice a kampfgruppe of units as a diversionary attack or rear guard

[VirgilInTheSKY]

I don't particularly feel the need to emphasize with a guy who helped contribute to wars of aggression that ultimately cost fifty million people their lives.

In terms of how these situations are managed in the game we're playing, my position is designing situations where a player playing optimally will lose units they spent five-plus years in game and several irl years developing because of obvious cheese is not the best way.

Forcing players to make hard choices is the hallmark of good game design, and imho this fails that test because there is no choice present. The mission is "optional," sure, but we bought the game to play missions, so of course we'll play the mission.
As I suggested, an alternative method might be to force the player to pick a few air units to keep. This is both a difficult choice for the player, and fully consistent with the larger storyline of impending defeat, no fuel, limited parts and pilots, etc


In a future Panzer Corps sequel game, I think the discrepancy between the importance to the player of individual units and the reality of losses in combat could be resolved through the creation of a "formation" level above the units actually deployed on the map

An example: for tanks, you would purchase into your core a battalion of tanks, with 4 or so companies that would actually deploy to the map. The battalion level would be where experience is collected, so you could lose multiple companies in one battle and not lose years' worth of experience.
This would even encourage the creation of scenarios where the "smart" move by the player is to sacrifice a kampfgruppe of units as a diversionary attack or rear guard

Just pick Old Guard trait then, solves everything about sacrificing and losses as you can get destroyed units back with half exp.

[Sequester Grundleplith, MD]

Because of how long experience takes to build, I would say Old Guard doesn't "solve everything about sacrifice and losses"

Accepting losing 2-3 DLCs' worth of experience, which cant really be feasibly regained, is necessarily a half compromise. This is the last DLC for the historical path, so who cares at some level, but I would definitely prefer to reload and try again if I lost a unit in AO 1943 or 1944.

But that's how the mechanics work in this game, which is why I'm suggesting alternatives, both for future (hopefully) Allied DlCs in this game, and (hopefully someday) a sequel game

[RVallant]

I kind of get your point, but the mission was basically the last air assault Germany could muster and it, as the Dev just said, crippled the German remnants of the air force.

They lost some 100+ veterans in that disaster of an operation that only brought forth minor tactical gains but effectively ended them on a strategic level.

If that's the feeling of frustration and desperation it has invoked, then the devs have done a good job at that IMO.

[dalfrede]

Some observations:
1) Bf109 don't survive in AO45 without the right heroes, most should be replaced by jets.
2) The prop fighter that does work is TA152 with SupMovHero. Use jets against P51s
3) Concentrate your forces, you do not have enough of the Aux Ground units to take out the Allied ground units.
4) Take your time grind down the Allied units.
4) Buy new/green aircraft to use a decoys, pick off its attackers. The AI does distinguish between old Core and Aux/NewCore. This is historical, both Germany and Japan ran out of pilots before they ran out of planes*.
5) If you have a Prudent Hero, put it on a green overstrength jet and see what happens. I have not tried this.

*I read somewhere that all American pilots were given 100 hours of flight time before they entered combat, late war German pilots got maybe 10 hours.

[VirgilInTheSKY]

4) Buy new/green aircraft to use a decoys, pick off its attackers. The AI does distinguish between old Core and Aux/NewCore. This is historical, both Germany and Japan ran out of pilots before they ran out of planes*.

AI does not check that, the only thing it checks is how much damage can it do to a unit, and green units are more vulnerable than elite units when using the same equipment.

[DefiantXYX]

I finally played this mission yesterday myself, so what is the problem with it? Beside the heavy infantriy units blocking the bridgeheads.
It is the first mission where you have ridiculously high core slots available, I could run overstrengh on everything without even all the work to reassign my zero slot heroes.
Sure, the reinforcements are annyoing but nothing is more satisfying than enemy planes carshing down after you took down all their airfields.
And I still think AI is cheating, if there is one bomber without protecting AI will find it as long as the planes can reach it...

Sadly the mission feels loveless again. No smalltalk between galland and wagner, caches, events, anything...

[adiekmann]

A good strategy that I use frequently is to camouflage a fighter with double support hero. Doesn't have to be a jet, but I prefer something that has 6 ammo like the He 219 fighter or Me 109k. Bait the AI fighters into an air ambush with a bomber or some other juicy target and that is how I effectively destroyed most of the enemy's fighters. My jets just come in and "clean up" the remnants and take out the enemy bombers.

[citizen6]

I have a question about this mission. If I've built my force around "Denied Airforce", how am I meant to complete this mission. Does the game just end here? If the sole purpose of the mission, as discussed below, is to destroy the German air power, why am I penalized as I never had any to begin with.

It seems a poor design choice. It's a mission that is incompatible with the base game options. Why can't I deploy my elite AA to complete the mission, or just skip it if I don't have an airforce.

[Kerensky]

I have a question about this mission. If I've built my force around "Denied Airforce", how am I meant to complete this mission. Does the game just end here? If the sole purpose of the mission, as discussed below, is to destroy the German air power, why am I penalized as I never had any to begin with.

It seems a poor design choice. It's a mission that is incompatible with the base game options. Why can't I deploy my elite AA to complete the mission, or just skip it if I don't have an airforce.

There are captured aircraft that players can deploy to this scenario, if you have any of those. But if you don't, yes this scenario would be a problem. That is why it is marked as an optional scenario, and even within the scenario itself, it has the true victory condition of capturing the signal hex.

All objectives to destroy the Allied aircraft and hangars are all optional objectives.

[citizen6]

My apologies....I was somewhat mistaken . I was referring to the Munich mission not Boilerplate. It is a dead end. And can't be played if you choose "Denied Air".

[Kerensky]

My apologies....I was somewhat mistaken . I was referring to the Munich mission not Boilerplate. It is a dead end. And can't be played if you choose "Denied Air".

While there is no safety trigger for Munich, there are many bounties of capture-able Soviet aircraft available in the scenarios leading up to Munich. Capturing any of these depots should yield enough fighter strength to bring down the critical 1 strength B-29.

But if all else fails, there is always the 'runany Victory 0' cheat code that will enable you to skip over that scenario and continue your campaign.

[VirgilInTheSKY]

My apologies....I was somewhat mistaken . I was referring to the Munich mission not Boilerplate. It is a dead end. And can't be played if you choose "Denied Air".

You should have some jets anyway, no matter if it is a new core with starting forces or an imported core, plus the caches Kerensky mentioned, Operation Puma has 3 stocks of soviet fighters to help you fight these air only scenarios.

[Ryba666]

I dont know where is problem, maybe you are noob? I dont have any problem, i use 3 15 str units with me 262a and no load and save method to complete this mission.