AOredone updated

[DefiantXYX]

Yet, despite all of that, I still never could beat it in the highest difficulty level. Prestige became too difficult with the AI sucking it all up for itself.

Limited Stock feature fixed that for me. It also works on the allies and at some points they cant waste prestige. And ordering them to stop unitl the way is clear also helps a lot.

Probably my favorite special award in all of AO is being awarded the Verdaja tank in the Early Madrid scenario. It is incredibly useful at the time you get it and for a long time after that. I missed that when I played this mod too.

Definately top 3
My favorite is the Me 262 in Kummersdorf 1943!

[Andrea69]

[/quote]

Probably my favorite special award in all of AO is being awarded the Verdaja tank in the Early Madrid scenario. It is incredibly useful at the time you get it and for a long time after that. I missed that when I played this mod too.

[/quote]

Hello, I just want to point out that I didn't change the Verdeja event in Early Madrid, you can still have it for 2 CPs on turn 2 like in vanilla. The event works; if it didn't happen either you didn't have at least 2 CPs (unlikely) or I'm guessing you did a reload of the turn in question and in that case the event usually doesn't reload (you have to reload from turn 1 in this case)

[adiekmann]

Probably my favorite special award in all of AO is being awarded the Verdaja tank in the Early Madrid scenario. It is incredibly useful at the time you get it and for a long time after that. I missed that when I played this mod too.

[/quote]

Hello, I just want to point out that I didn't change the Verdeja event in Early Madrid, you can still have it for 2 CPs on turn 2 like in vanilla. The event works; if it didn't happen either you didn't have at least 2 CPs (unlikely) or I'm guessing you did a reload of the turn in question and in that case the event usually doesn't reload (you have to reload from turn 1 in this case)
[/quote]

Oh? Then yes, probably the latter happened to me.

[DefiantXYX]

I am done with 1940 again. Quite a lot changes after my last rerun.

The balancing is on point imo, while I could play DvsG in 1939 I never had a feeling in 1940, that I have to enable it, to make it more challenging.

I am still not happy with the repawning aircarfts.
You shoot them down like flies and this just feels wrong.
And there is no progress. You can never clean the sky at aleast for some turns. I am running 4 fighters, with double attack , rapid fire and galland and its like 1 shot, one kill, but still, you never can let your bombers alone. So you have to decide, either you fight the airforce and escort your bombers. The ai will always find your unguarded bombers, or a single art. gun, that is not protected. Its an really annoying playstyle.
I still think, there should be some delay if you kill the planes. At least one turn, until they respawn. Right now at the end of a scenary can you farm air kills. Move to the spawn point and kill as much as you want. Fells like a RPG game, not a role base strategy game.

Second point is the lack of proper airfields. Most of the time you have problems to field you level bombers. Tbh that is just ridiculous when you fight on small maps and your bombers cant reach the enemy or cant even get fielded.

My biggest criticism are the huge maps. Right now I have to say, I definitely prefer the vanilla version of 1940. Warsaw 1939 always was the worst mission in all my playthroughs. You in your version you can several missions like that. Why do you have to invade the whole country of Denmark? There was hardly any war there, now you have >30 turns to take the whole country, city after city. Denmark should be a little bonus piece in the campaign, something special, not huge a final battle.
There are plenty more of these scenarios, >30 turns, extremly boring gameplay. You have to take city after city, always vs the same units. Annyoing bunkers at the airfields, in 1939/1940 its really hard and annoying to kill them. And why whould any airfield be protected by massive bunkers? Why would any small village be protected by soldiers?
Since I thought you try to set the focus in historical correctness I would say thats not really appropriate.
And for me as a player, its just a waste of time. It feels like farming in a rpg game, kill unit after unit, just to get somehow the awards for your units.
And connected to that, the elite objectives and not really elite. Most of the time its just "kill everything".
Elite should be elite. Killing the fleet in Sealion is a good elite reward, not take every citiy in denmark.

Unfortunately with the last updates you are crossing a line, at least for me, the campaigns dont feel right. They are just longer, repetitive, exhausting. Its not Blitzkrieg, its slaughtering through europe.

[Andrea69]

I am done with 1940 again. Quite a lot changes after my last rerun.

Hello, I take note of your criticisms, it is not the first time you have expressed a negative opinion on my campaigns and I am sorry, but unfortunately it is not possible to please everyone. It is clear that my preference goes to large maps (and consequently also to rather long scenarios) where it is difficult or in any case not obvious for the player to conquer every single hexagon. This is my philosophy in building scenarios.
I'll just make a small clarification about the map of Denmark: in fact it's a bit too large and I had already written elsewhere that I would reduce it in future versions. In any case you can still comfortably win the scenario in about half the turns if you're not interested in the elite objective

[adiekmann]

I am still not happy with the repawning aircarfts.
You shoot them down like flies and this just feels wrong.
And there is no progress. You can never clean the sky at aleast for some turns. I am running 4 fighters, with double attack , rapid fire and galland and its like 1 shot, one kill, but still, you never can let your bombers alone. So you have to decide, either you fight the airforce and escort your bombers. The ai will always find your unguarded bombers, or a single art. gun, that is not protected. Its an really annoying playstyle.
I still think, there should be some delay if you kill the planes. At least one turn, until they respawn. Right now at the end of a scenary can you farm air kills. Move to the spawn point and kill as much as you want. Fells like a RPG game, not a role base strategy game.

I have mixed feelings about this. At times I think it's appropriate, but not always. The Allies did not have vastly more aircraft in 1940 like they did in '44-45. I find it also an easy way to quickly inflate your kill totals for your fighters, even with the higher award standards set with this campaign over the vanilla.

But my way of playing always depended a lot on AA. I largely use them to protect my ground units while freeing up the fighters to rack up victories against the enemy's AF. Especially as you move forward in AO, this version or the vanilla, I rely greatly on the use of camouflaged AA/AT/ART. Add a few other heroes to increase their attack and they end up making most of the kills. Without that, I don't think I could have passed most of those late war scenarios even in the vanilla campaign (at high difficulty).

Second point is the lack of proper airfields. Most of the time you have problems to field you level bombers. Tbh that is just ridiculous when you fight on small maps and your bombers cant reach the enemy or cant even get fielded.

My biggest criticism are the huge maps. Right now I have to say, I definitely prefer the vanilla version of 1940. Warsaw 1939 always was the worst mission in all my playthroughs. You in your version you can several missions like that. Why do you have to invade the whole country of Denmark? There was hardly any war there, now you have >30 turns to take the whole country, city after city. Denmark should be a little bonus piece in the campaign, something special, not huge a final battle.
There are plenty more of these scenarios, >30 turns, extremly boring gameplay. You have to take city after city, always vs the same units. Annyoing bunkers at the airfields, in 1939/1940 its really hard and annoying to kill them. And why whould any airfield be protected by massive bunkers? Why would any small village be protected by soldiers?
Since I thought you try to set the focus in historical correctness I would say thats not really appropriate.
And for me as a player, its just a waste of time. It feels like farming in a rpg game, kill unit after unit, just to get somehow the awards for your units.
And connected to that, the elite objectives and not really elite. Most of the time its just "kill everything".
Elite should be elite. Killing the fleet in Sealion is a good elite reward, not take every citiy in denmark.

Unfortunately with the last updates you are crossing a line, at least for me, the campaigns dont feel right. They are just longer, repetitive, exhausting. Its not Blitzkrieg, its slaughtering through europe.

I have already mentioned frequently that I am not a huge fan of multiple, successive, huge map/scenarios. That is not to say that I don't like them. I do. But not one after another, after another... I agree it does get a bit tedious.

But I have already completed his Re-do of the re-do up until '43 (which I believe is the latest), and I told Andrea on Discord already that I felt he has accomplished what I feel is the primary goal of this campaign: That is to make it more challenging for an experienced player like yourself, and to offer a "new" experience with the vast array of changes.

With 1941-43 still ahead of you, I am not sure you will like those and instead find the same complaints. Wait until you run into groups of Su-152s and Su-122s!

But on balance, I still like his work a lot, as I do Storm Over Europe and PC1 GC Remake by Grondel. They share an equipment file which I prefer over the vanilla, though I have a couple objections there too. Nothing's ever perfect and to everyone's satisfaction.

[Gnosport]

I will say, I definitely prefer larger maps.

I have felt that larger maps allow more flexibility in terms of scenario design. A larger map definitely can allow us to capture areas more historically, including rivers and towns that may not be seen on smaller hex maps. In turn, these additional rivers and towns can create more difficulty in completing a mission.

[DefiantXYX]

Hello, I take note of your criticisms, it is not the first time you have expressed a negative opinion on my campaigns and I am sorry, but unfortunately it is not possible to please everyone. It is clear that my preference goes to large maps (and consequently also to rather long scenarios) where it is difficult or in any case not obvious for the player to conquer every single hexagon. This is my philosophy in building scenarios.

Yes, thats totally fine. Its your mod and if you have more positive feedback than negativ, just go ahead. I dont want to bash or something like that, we are not in social networks I think any feedback is useful feeback.

I'll just make a small clarification about the map of Denmark: in fact it's a bit too large and I had already written elsewhere that I would reduce it in future versions. In any case you can still comfortably win the scenario in about half the turns if you're not interested in the elite objective

Yeah, but that leads me again to the snowballing part. Its ok to miss some Panzer III G parts, or a foreign infantry unit. But if you dont get a very powerful hero, it will snowball until the end of the whole campaign. If I know I will only miss some parts, no problem, if there is a hero, its a must have.

I find it also an easy way to quickly inflate your kill totals for your fighters, even with the higher award standards set with this campaign over the vanilla.

Thats exactly my point. I dont want to farm kills, because I need them to get better. The germans lost the battle of britain. Why should I have a kill ration like 50:1? Its a just a game, yeah, but it feels extremly unhistorical.

I rely greatly on the use of camouflaged AA/AT/ART. Add a few other heroes to increase their attack and they end up making most of the kills. Without that, I don't think I could have passed most of those late war scenarios even in the vanilla campaign (at high difficulty).

Same. My gamestyles relies even more on OP hero combinations. Especially in this huge maps. Every infantry it entrenchend 10x. I move a provocator units close to a vulnerable unit and the AI kill itself. Or Pioneers with hit & run... I am farming cities, instead of trying to solve some interesinting puzzles.

I have already mentioned frequently that I am not a huge fan of multiple, successive, huge map/scenarios. That is not to say that I don't like them. I do. But not one after another, after another... I agree it does get a bit tedious

I just finished the second balcan map. Took me more than 2 hours I guess, something like 36 turns. For me it makes absolutly no sense to expand a like map this. The vanilla version was fine, it was about to conquer belgrad, with a special event.

With 1941-43 still ahead of you, I am not sure you will like those and instead find the same complaints. Wait until you run into groups of Su-152s and Su-122s!

Well see. But the last version of 1944/1945 very kinda meh. Fighting high end equipment all the time and farmings thousands of kills...might be hard, but not fun. But when your units are maxed out its more a gamestyle problem, the mechanics just dont work any longer...
I do like the new exp. caps so far. Less experience means less kills and requieres some more strategic thinking.

I will say, I definitely prefer larger maps.

I have felt that larger maps allow more flexibility in terms of scenario design. A larger map definitely can allow us to capture areas more historically, including rivers and towns that may not be seen on smaller hex maps. In turn, these additional rivers and towns can create more difficulty in completing a mission.

You dont get bored if you have to take 90 cities instead of 30? If there is no variety, thats not a problem for you?

[Andrea69]

I just finished the second balcan map. Took me more than 2 hours I guess, something like 36 turns. For me it makes absolutly no sense to expand a like map this. The vanilla version was fine, it was about to conquer belgrad, with a special event.

Hello, just another small clarification regarding Yugoslavia. This is a very similar situation to that of Denmark (although the Yugoslavia map is clearly smaller): if you don't care about the elite objective (which in this case gives you a HUInfantry41 gift unit and some minor prototype parts) you can win the scenario in about half the turns, still taking Belgrade with its special event. You do not have to play until the end of the scenario. And indeed, if you decide to play just to win the scenario, the strategy would change quite radically, with much more Blitzkrieg-oriented gameplay

[PawelW]

Hi,
first of all I really appreciate your work. For me, the whole non-historical campaign is actually more realistic and interesting from a strategic perspective. The concept of securing the “Volga flank” in ’44 makes sense, and finishing the whole “Soviet thing” with a single atomic bomb near Smolensk always felt a bit disappointing—so I really appreciate your follow-up scenarios.

I also enjoy the huge maps with an increased number of turns. They force me to approach the game with a more strategic mindset. Let me explain: in vanilla, scenarios often encourage a straight-line rush toward the objective, and unit/hero combinations become the main focus. With your larger maps, however, I need to plan offensives along railroad hubs so I can reposition units quickly using strategic movement. That adds a layer of planning I really like.

I do have a few suggestions for possible improvements:

* I agree with others on the forum that having a bunker on every airfield and a unit in every village can become a bit frustrating.

* I personally don’t like the hangar mechanic where new planes spawn immediately.

* And most importantly — this is just a subjective observation — but it feels like with each year and scenario your missions become more interesting. Your ability to combine fun gameplay with strong historical flavor is clearly improving. For example, the 1943 Baku scenario is completely new, and the presence of British troops adds nice variety.
In comparison, the 1944 Volga scenarios feel a bit “flat”: usually it’s about reaching a certain point while fighting off triggered enemy groups that otherwise just sit passively. I don’t know how hard this is to change in the mod, but maybe you could consider giving some enemy units more dynamic behaviour.
You might also consider more variety in scenario objectives—like in the Assault on Stalingrad mission, where you needed to keep a number of hexes under control. Some vanilla scenarios are also about destroying a specific enemy force, which mixes things up.
And one “air only” scenario per year would be great—I really liked that you gave us auxiliary units in the Bombing Stalingrad scenario.

Finally, one comment not about your mod but about the game in general: I’m not a fan of the unrealistic supply mechanics. The most ridiculous example I encountered was in the Sea Lion scenario: you can airdrop near the map border and magically receive supplies from deep inside Great Britain. Maybe you could place bunkers or units near map edges to make it feel more believable—though I realise you can’t really fix the core issue where a whole army can be supplied by a single swamp tile that happens to be outside the enemy zone of control.

In general — very nice mod. Keep up the good work!

[Andrea69]

I do have a few suggestions for possible improvements:

* I agree with others on the forum that having a bunker on every airfield and a unit in every village can become a bit frustrating.

Hello, as for the villages, the explanation lies in the balance of the scenario. If I leave them defenseless, it means that the player can acquire 20/50 prestige points for free each time (40/100 with Liberator) and since large maps generally also mean many villages this can create balance problems. The alternative is to leave them defenseless but with 0 prestige, and I prefer the first option.
As for airports, you all know how important they are in this game. Leaving them defenseless or in any case an all too easy prey doesn't seem right to me, always considering my gaming philosophy "you have to deserve every single hexagon"

* I personally don’t like the hangar mechanic where new planes spawn immediately.

The hangar mechanics is only present in some 1940 scenarios, in particular those relating to Sealion. I'm not a big fan myself, but somehow I think it works quite well in simulating the Luftwaffe's inability to achieve air supremacy

* And most importantly — this is just a subjective observation — but it feels like with each year and scenario your missions become more interesting. Your ability to combine fun gameplay with strong historical flavor is clearly improving. For example, the 1943 Baku scenario is completely new, and the presence of British troops adds nice variety.
In comparison, the 1944 Volga scenarios feel a bit “flat”: usually it’s about reaching a certain point while fighting off triggered enemy groups that otherwise just sit passively. I don’t know how hard this is to change in the mod, but maybe you could consider giving some enemy units more dynamic behaviour.
You might also consider more variety in scenario objectives—like in the Assault on Stalingrad mission, where you needed to keep a number of hexes under control. Some vanilla scenarios are also about destroying a specific enemy force, which mixes things up.
And one “air only” scenario per year would be great—I really liked that you gave us auxiliary units in the Bombing Stalingrad scenario.

Expect interesting news from all these points of view in the new version of AO44 which will be available soon. I actually have even more ambitious plans for AO45 and AO46, in order to make the end of the campaign truly epic, I hope to be able to achieve them

[DefiantXYX]

Hello, just another small clarification regarding Yugoslavia. This is a very similar situation to that of Denmark (although the Yugoslavia map is clearly smaller): if you don't care about the elite objective (which in this case gives you a HUInfantry41 gift unit and some minor prototype parts) you can win the scenario in about half the turns, still taking Belgrade with its special event. You do not have to play until the end of the scenario. And indeed, if you decide to play just to win the scenario, the strategy would change quite radically, with much more Blitzkrieg-oriented gameplay

I see your point, but you forget the snowballing factor.
Turns are a ressource in this game. If you end a scenario early you basically decide to throw away prestige, experience and awards through kills.
If you do this all time it wont pay out in the end. A core that did all the secondary and elite objectives will be far stronger than a core, that rushed through all the maps. You cant balance the maps for both cores, and from my last playthrough I can say, your core has to be as strong as possible to master 1944/1945.
Of course I am not talking about easy difficutly!

Finally, one comment not about your mod but about the game in general: I’m not a fan of the unrealistic supply mechanics. The most ridiculous example I encountered was in the Sea Lion scenario: you can airdrop near the map border and magically receive supplies from deep inside Great Britain.

Yeah true, but doesnt matter if its great britain or somewhere deep in russia.
Imo paratroopers should always have the "no supply" trait. This could open up some new possibilities.

Hello, as for the villages, the explanation lies in the balance of the scenario. If I leave them defenseless, it means that the player can acquire 20/50 prestige points for free each time (40/100 with Liberator) and since large maps generally also mean many villages this can create balance problems.

How? At the end of the day it doesnt matter if you conquer the hexes or just take them, its the same prestige.
Lets do some math and say there are 50 optional hexes with 30 prestige for each.
Thats overall 1.500 prestige...thats nothing!
If you decide to take a normal hero (which means plus 1000 prestige because these heroes are useless) instead of a good hero (-5k) that in total a differnce of 6k prestige. Thats more than all the optional hexes in the extra large maps.
So, prestige cant be the reason.
I personally would prefer your alternativ suggestion. If you take something without fighting why should you get "prestige"?
Reduce it to 10 or something like that, but thats better that sieging any single village on the map

[Andrea69]

How? At the end of the day it doesnt matter if you conquer the hexes or just take them, its the same prestige.
Lets do some math and say there are 50 optional hexes with 30 prestige for each.
Thats overall 1.500 prestige...thats nothing!
If you decide to take a normal hero (which means plus 1000 prestige because these heroes are useless) instead of a good hero (-5k) that in total a differnce of 6k prestige. Thats more than all the optional hexes in the extra large maps.
So, prestige cant be the reason.
I personally would prefer your alternativ suggestion. If you take something without fighting why should you get "prestige"?
Reduce it to 10 or something like that, but thats better that sieging any single village on the map

Well, with Liberator (trait or hero) this calc becomes 50x100, so basically you can buy a top hero with it. Also consider that with the new campaign setting from 1943 onwards (with the cost of heroes doubled) stocking up on abundant prestige will be increasingly important, therefore it is always better to collect it where possible (but never for free, at least in my vision)

[o_t_d_x]

I am done with 1940 again. Quite a lot changes after my last rerun.

I am still not happy with the repawning aircarfts.
You shoot them down like flies and this just feels wrong.
And there is no progress. You can never clean the sky at aleast for some turns.

Yeah, it feels like work, not playing a game. Same for the bigger maps. I liked it at first, but if you play longer its just only more work. Of course thats only MY very subjectiv perspective. Others will enjoy what i dont. Objectivly viewed the modder did a very good job. Maybe i am just not patient enough at the moment.

My other point is that i dont like this new flak, arty thing that is a strong anti air, strong arty and it performs good in close combat too. (tried the aoredone spain maps) Does this thing have any weakness ? I am sure the modder has good reasons, that he did it that way. But for me its just better vanilla.

A modder has his own ideas thats ok, but for every good idea in a mod, i find something that i really dont like. Major reason i stopped using modz at all in pc2.

But thats not only a panzer corps 2 problem. I can count the mods i like on one hand for ALL games out there. There is only one game out there, where the mod is so good that i would never touch it without: X-Com 2: Long War of the chosen. Can play it Iron Man because i have ZERO Bugs and i love everything about it. This mod should be an official add on. Its perfect.

But thats enough off topic.

[88Flak]

Very intriguing debate. Some good points. As for me, I really like the larger maps - seems to give more of an operational or even strategic feel to the battles. Definitely more work - calculating how and where to rebase air units requires some real thought as does your choice of avenues of advance. It’s not a fast run through kind of mod which I really appreciate.

Good points on the garrisons in every town. It slows game play considerably but I get the balance argument.

Denmark doesn’t make a lot of sense to me except to collect prestige. Since it was a walk over historically, maybe introducing something ahistorical would enhance it. My thought is to add French and British expeditionary forces to give the Danes some backbone. Something like Norway or Greece.

Combing the Kursk scenarios made it seem like a mine clearing exercise that lags but I think that’s what happened historically. The ahistorical battles that follow are fantastic.

Beyond those minor complaints from my perspective, I will never go back to vanilla. The mod is such an improvement and enjoyable that I find myself restarting it when I finish it.

I look forward to the new content. Thank you for the hard work and speed of the new chapters!

[adiekmann]

I am done with 1940 again. Quite a lot changes after my last rerun.

I am still not happy with the repawning aircarfts.
You shoot them down like flies and this just feels wrong.
And there is no progress. You can never clean the sky at aleast for some turns.

My other point is that i dont like this new flak, arty thing that is a strong anti air, strong arty and it performs good in close combat too. (tried the aoredone spain maps) Does this thing have any weakness ? I am sure the modder has good reasons, that he did it that way. But for me its just better vanilla.

This messed me up plenty when I was first playing with one of the Big 3 mod campaigns, but you get used to it. There's always an adjustment when playing under a heavily revised equipment file. For me going back to the vanilla equipment file then requires a "re-adjustement" and I ultimately miss (most) of the changes. Honestly though, the thought that the famous "88" should be available as an artillery piece occurred to me long before I first encountered it in these campaigns. Why? Because it really was used in this capacity too so it is historically correct.

[Gnosport]

Very intriguing debate. Some good points. As for me, I really like the larger maps - seems to give more of an operational or even strategic feel to the battles. Definitely more work - calculating how and where to rebase air units requires some real thought as does your choice of avenues of advance. It’s not a fast run through kind of mod which I really appreciate.

Good points on the garrisons in every town. It slows game play considerably but I get the balance argument.

This is one of those things about larger maps, it definitely does give more of an operational or strategic feel to the battle. There is a fine balance that goes into creating these larger maps, balancing turns, number of auxiliary units, core slots available, etc. And yes, it is not a fast run through mod, either in creating or playing through. Building these maps definitely requires a lot of time (thankfully I love the terrain aspect).

Regarding garrisons, I've created weaker Polish units "National Defense" units that definitely weaker than normal infantry. I think they are a good compromise of garrisoning almost every town.

[o_t_d_x]

The first spain map of AO Redone compared to the vanilla version, is like djeppe compared to dday.

Defenitly more strategic feeling. More complexity, many good ideas and a good looking map. Think i was just tired. I expected a small starting map and got so much more. Too much for a quick test.

But i am so far behind you guys, i have to play through vanilla, because i never played the non historic way and so i never played AO46.

I stopped my last playthrough because it was so boring and easy. Then i started with super über diff and had no chance with no heroes, no experienced troops and no prestige. At least it felt very historic.

When i am done with AO 46 i will start AO Redone for real.

[DefiantXYX]

But i am so far behind you guys, i have to play through vanilla, because i never played the non historic way and so i never played AO46.

I stopped my last playthrough because it was so boring and easy.

Thats exactly my point. Vanilla 1946 could be reduced to like 12 scenarios. After the invasion with japanese fleet its the same all over again. Move from West to East and just kill everything. You wont remember the maps, it feels like work.

And because of that I see no reason to extend maps to > 25 turns, if you are doing all the time the same.