Panzercorps 2 vs. Order of Battle

[canuckgamer]

With the winter sale starting today I am wondering what the differences between the above two are because they look the same and the play mechanics are similar. Panzercorps2 in my opinion has better graphics but Order of Battle has scenarios for the Pacific Theatre although there is a DLC for Panzercorps 2 coming soon for the Pacific.

[Grondel]

With the winter sale starting today I am wondering what the differences between the above two are because they look the same and the play mechanics are similar. Panzercorps2 in my opinion has better graphics but Order of Battle has scenarios for the Pacific Theatre although there is a DLC for Panzercorps 2 coming soon for the Pacific.

i own both and play both. The diffrences are mostly taste related.

If the "right" people read this post u might have started a flame war.

It is hard to give advice without knowing you. both are great games and sure worth owning them.

sers,
Thomas

[VirgilInTheSKY]

I'd say the two are completely different games, the only thing that's same is the background setting. My experience with OoB was like 2 years ago, so I would mainly talk about how things in PC2 are, with some comparison like "PC2 does not have XX" so you know it's in OoB but not PC2.

First of all, unit slot in PC2 does not split into ground, air and navy. You have all of them in the same busket.

You also don't get a discount for upgrading units in the same series (i.e. M4 Sherman to M4A1 Sherman). On the other hand, PC2 is much more generous at giving prestige, the vital resource for purchasing, upgrading or repairing units, so I personally prefer PC2 on this, it gives you more freedom to do whatever you want or need.

PC2 has a unique "Reserve" system, which means you can have more units than you can deploy in a scenario, so your army roster can be more versatile and flexible, switching from a full tank army to an air armada according to the requirement of the scenario, no need to give up using niche units just because they were not all-rounders.

There is no tech research in PC2, an OoB system which provides you with global bonus but requires time to progress as the campaign goes on. Instead, you have a Commander Trait selection that you can pick at the start of a campaign, and has to work with them until the end.

Heroes in OoB and PC2 work differently. OoB heroes are limited to the famous ones, rare, and only provides a bit of bonus status. OoB heroes have a chance to be "injured" whenever the unit he is assigned to takes damage, injured heroes are removed from the damaged unit and takes a few turns to heal before you could assign him again. One unit can only take one hero. PC2 heroes are split into two kinds, The famous ones provides both bonus status and multiple traits to the unit, while randomly generated heroes only provide one trait. The bonus status part in old games is replaced by "medals" and are bond to the unit earning it in combat, some medals also provide traits. PC2 unit can take up to 4 heroes. Heroes in PC2 can change the behavior of a unit dramatically, i.e. tanks are vulnerable in close terrain, but heroes with Vigilant trait completely removes this weak point.

OoB has better naval combat and amphibious landing related mechanics, since it started there in the Pacific, while PC2 is focused on land battles, starting from the Wehrmacht campaigns in the Europe, so other mechanics are just auxillaries.
Naval units in PC2 are basically naval artillery, their damage output can mostly be ignored by ground and air units, only dealing lethal damage to naval ones. There is no clear difference in ship types besides the most basic ones like aircraft carriers act as airfields and only destroyers can attack submarines.

The aircraft related changes in PC2 is something I dislike, this could somehow be merged into the one above, as the situation in the Pacific theatre is quite different from European continent.
Aerial combat is much simpler in PC2, with the fuel mechanic removed and your aircraft can only strike from one selected "base", which means that it is not possible to have scenarios like the Pearl Harbour, where no airbase is present but you have special points your aircraft can enter the battlefield and retreat before they run out of ammo or fuel. In PC2 you have to put an airfield in range no matter what, if you want to have aircraft being able to strike something, which damages the map layout and historical accurancy sometimes.
There is also no "move away after ground attack" basic rule, so a ground/naval target can only be attacked by one aircraft, except for a few rare cases like the incoming Fugaku F armed with Fritz X, capable of long range attacks without the need to occupy the airspace above its target. There is no torpedo bomber or bomb/torpedo mode switch, though the Pacific DLC does show one in store page.

[robman]

One (potentially) big difference is that OOB has no "undo" button. Whether that matters depends on your play style and your propensity for accidental mouse moves and clicks. Personally, I found the inability to "undo" so frustrating that I quite playing OOB. (I'm a wimp, I know, I know.)

[FunPolice749]

With the winter sale starting today I am wondering what the differences between the above two are because they look the same and the play mechanics are similar. Panzercorps2 in my opinion has better graphics but Order of Battle has scenarios for the Pacific Theatre although there is a DLC for Panzercorps 2 coming soon for the Pacific.

Having played both a bit here is my breakdown of good things for each game

OOB:
- Massively better supply system. It allows for a much more logical way to encircle or constrict enemy forces. Panzer Corps 2 pretty much does not have a system that relates to this.
- OOB has a upgrade system for your army. This extends beyond just the regular upgrading of units and can be entirely unique things like "Order 227" which makes your units less likely to retreat or like Japan has a "Bushido" tech that makes units not surrender. It's a cool system that adds this further feeling of growing capability and power in the game. I do need to note here that it is underutilized in various points though. Several campaigns pretty much have nothing to add to it and are very generic in the upgrade system which is a letdown.
- Objectives are a bit more varied in OOB. Panzer Corps 2 very often has a "take X tiles" as their only objective. The Axis Operations improve on this quite a bit but from the campaigns I have done in OOB they seem to general be more varied. There are things like "deal X damage to enemy tanks" and "destroy X convoys in the river" provide what I found to be a more consistently different set of goals to work towards. That of course does not mean OOB doesn't have a lot of "take X tiles" as well but the secondary objectives of almost every scenario I found to be more interesting to do on average.
-Better air and navel combat. Panzer Corps 2 has a functional air system for the battles it does but i's more limited for things like say long range bombing runs or naval battles where it pretty much will break down and be super janky. OOB does this a lot better and it's set up allows all sorts of air battles. Also OOB has a functional naval combat system where panzer corps 2 doesn't have anything beyond "bigger ship win"

Panzer Corps 2
- Much better QOL. Things like an undo button, the endless variety of customization with the advanced settings and stuff like in game tons of camos to pick. You have far more control over how the game plays which feels a lot better to work with. OOB is old fashioned where you have very little to change in how the game actually plays and the lack of an undo button is honestly complete garbage (yes I know there is an undo movement but if that movement reveals fog of war it gets locked in and it just is not a good system for mistakes). It just overall feels better to do stuff in Panzer Corps 2 and it's easier to tweak how you want.
- More unique alt history scenarios. Both games obviously cover ww2 but I think so far Panzer Corps 2 has done a better job of creating new what if stuff. OOB did it's various European fronts and they pretty much just follow the historical side but then often veer into random fictional territory at the very end. It's a lot less developed and interesting then like what Panzer Corps 2 has done with it's alt history stuff.
- The game looks and runs nicer. OOB even on my super beefy PC chugs and drops frames on higher settings. It's just an older game and also has less unique models compared to Panzer Corps 2
- Better DLC. I think overall I have enjoyed most of the Panzer Corps 2 DLC as more quality designs rather then OOB which has felt kinda filler in several of it's designs. The Soviet campaigns I think are a good example where like the 1941 campaign is just like the same defensive scenario like 5 times in a row and it gets very boring once you figure out how to make it work. Panzer Corps 2 doesn't fall into the pitfall as much.

Overall I think Panzer Corps 2 would be my suggestion. OOB has several better systems in place then Panzer Corps 2 but I think it just being older really pulls the game down when comparing the two. I try to go back to OOB every so often and just stop because like the game takes forever to do stuff with it's low framerate, I have to slowly reload saves because I miscliked a command and can't undo it, and there is just less to do once you beat a campaign a single time. It's not bad but I have put a lot more time in Panzer Corps 2 then OOB even though I've had OOB since it came out originally.

[RVallant]

OOB is rubbish.

Quality control is quite poor. Their Russian campaign for example is an eye-sore of spelling errors and lack of care.

I didn't click with the mechanics of the game either tbh. I prefer Panzer Corps' system, either the first or the second game works well IMO, 2nd game is more in-depth, but the first is just a wealth of content that's worth playing IMO.

[cutydt02]

First, i want to inform that i love both PC & OoB, then there will be no flame here. (2000h in OoB, 750h in PC and 300h in PC2)

I like OoB more, but i understand most ppl will pick PC2 for deeper and more interesting mechanic.

OoB is just much more replayable with me, like playing chess. Mostly because of the supply mechanic, where well calculated infantries can lure mighty brainless tanks in to trap, to be cut off. Infantries also play a crucial role in OoB where in PC, they just stand in rugged terrain and laugh at tanks in plain.
The upgrade point is very interesting too, i know there’s some better than other but if you want, the next new game can be really different than the last.

I remember a mission in 1941, when the storm ducked off all my stukas, i hopelessly surround a KV2 by infantries without causing a scratch. That strict rule in gameplay prevents me to replay PC2 for a long time.

[88Flak]

Two great games. Both among my all time favorites. Visual and graphics go to PC2 by a mile. Audio to OoB - helps overcome the graphic shortcomings and add to an immersive experience.

PC2 much faster game play - OoB requires more strategic thinking as you can’t just send reinforcements to shore up a weak spot, but then again, breakthroughs are more difficult to achieve. PC2 really makes you build a balanced Corps. There will be times when you have to have the AT, Arty and AA support or you will be stopped cold.

Agree the supply rules in OoB are more sophisticated. Air combat in OoB allows for bombing a single target with multiple units - even if each bomber is less effective, it guarantees you the ability to take a critical hex if you concentrate on it.

Hated the single point suicide units in OoB. Damaged units will go kamikaze mode to break your supply route or take an important hex. Not realistic for units nearly annihilated so you needed to devote extra units to kill them dead or they will run around behind your lines creating havoc.

Naval combat in OoB was surprisingly good - something PC2 doesn’t have figured out yet.

Love the ability to modify units especially the camo in PC2. Just a visually superior game - who could not love watching your Tigers rock back after letting its 88 rip and seeing the enemy tank explode and burn.

Both games are tough on your computer. PC2 requires some significant hardware to run at its best. OoB seems to take forever to load and AI turns take much, much longer.

[kverdon]

Went back and played the last Allied campaign in OOB and found the mechanics much superior to PC2. PC2 needs to be scrapped and a replacement found. OOB does a much better job with land/Air/Naval. OOB handles supply much better and has a superior Ai. The only bad part of OOB was the ability of 1pt units appearing from nowhere and cutting the supply of your entire army, along with the bug of Self Propelled Arty being able to ignore ZOC and do the same. Both could be fixed by removing the ability of 1pt, out of supply units to flip hex ownership and making self propelled arty observe ZOC rules.

Heroes in OOB were rare and as such, very special. In PC2 they are a dime a dozen. Yes you can opt to 1per unit but then you get nagged every scenario that you are not using them. They should have scrapped the single trait heroes and just left the special, multi trait heroes.

The AI in PC2 is so bad that DLC designers resorted to hamstringing the player with AI allies the hamper them. The most abysmally painful turns in PC were watching the Ai “Allies” try to fight the AI enemy. It was like watching ”Dumb and Dumber” or the keystone cops.

The narrative part of PC2 was a bit better with the ability to interact with the game map. Pity it was used to highlight the developer’s fanciful views to make a whitewashed version of the 1930’s/1940’s German National Socialist aggressive agenda.

All in All, I’d rather see an OOB2 than any expansion of PC2.

[Hubbfrosch]

I played both games... a lot. I have fun with both games but I tend towards OoB more. This became a long post:

Heroes: OoB gives you a mall number of heroes. They provide noticable bonuses but nothing too crazy. In PC2 you get a ton of heroes. Some of them are almost useless, others can transform a unit. Certain hero combinations can be totally crazy. Its a fun system but at the same time hurts the game balance.

Difficulty: OoB has a simple system of 5 difficulty levels. It offers a suitable challenge for 99% of the players. Some scenarios have nasty event triggers. If you do not approach them as intended, it can really hurt you. PC2 has 'multi- layered' difficulty settings: Base difficulty, general traits and special challenge settings. Then there are the randomly assigned heroes. It seems impossible to design balanced scenarios for this mess.

Historical accuracy: Both are casual games but OoB stays closer to historical events. You are encouraged to deploy a combination of infantry, artillery and tanks. PC2 has a tendency to get really tank heavy. It has a deep dive into alternate history and paper project land (e.g. E-series tanks).

AI: OoB seems to be better in this regard. On the downside the AI turns can take a while. PC2 is much quicker but does really poor moves. In both games the AIs are unable to break a well setup defense line. The only way the AI can cause trouble, is by overwhelming you with absurdly high numbers of troops.

UI: OoB is far better in this area. Once you learned the usage of the UI, it is quick and very easy. I always struggle with PC2, especially during the deployment phase. Managing reserves, active troops and heroes is way too complicated. Some information is redundant, other is missing and I have to do a lot more searching for tiny icons and way more mouseclicks are required. OoB feels like a game, PC2 reminds me of an office product.

Supply: The OoB system is logical and easy to understand. Still the impact is low in most scenarios. Typically you fight along a frontline and do not have a chance to cut off the enemy forces. But the AI loves to cut off your supply. An almost dead unit, slipped through your lines, can cost you a certain victory. PC2 has encirclements and thats it.

Unit types: PC2 is the clear winner. It has much more different unit types. More than you could utilize. However: technically many of the units are just copies with different names / graphics. Still it is nice. Some units in OoB are strange and and not consistent: e.g. some AA guns can be used for ground attack while others can't.

Quality and bugs: I did not have game breaking problems with both. But OoB has still some minor issues that probably will never be fixed.

Other stuff:
- Neither game uses a fixed scale. Stalingrad can be a single tile or a whole map covers only half of the city. This causes some problems e.g. artillery range, movement speed...
- Planes are handled differently. OoB planes can stay in the air for several turns, PC2 planes always return to base each turn.
- Recon is handled differently. PC2 units see everything within spotting range. In OoB you have to be more careful because city or forest tiles can hide units.

[canuckgamer]

Thanks to everyone for their very detailed replies, quite informative. The most important feature for me is multiplayer. PC2 has a very limited number of multiplayer scenarios that come with the base game and I don't see any two player multiplayer scenarios in the scenarios/mod thread.
Also the DLCs for PC2 are all single player whereas there a a couple of DLC's for OoB such as Allies Victorious that are 2 player multiplayer.
I also find the scenarios in PC2 to be so abstracted that they bear no resemblance to the historical scenario that they purport to be. A good example is the multiplayer scenario Ardennes.
My preference is for games like War Plan which is less complex than Grisby's games but more complex and detailed than either OoB and PC2.