Great Sim!

[pocatellodave]

After playing this game for about two weeks,I'm as pleased with my purchase as one can possibly be!It's the rebirth of Panzer General to the max.Now all I need is for someone to pick up the pieces of Air Warrior and give it a rebirth,and my sim wishes would be complete!I still dislike EA for dropping AW!!!
Dave

[edahl1980]

After playing this game for about two weeks,I'm as pleased with my purchase as one can possibly be!It's the rebirth of Panzer General to the max.Now all I need is for someone to pick up the pieces of Air Warrior and give it a rebirth,and my sim wishes would be complete!I still dislike EA for dropping AW!!!
Dave

Panzer General was much better.
Same with Allied General.

But panzer corps is ok. It's more like Panzer general 2.

[macattack]

Air Warrior?

Was that a turn-based strategy game?

[rezaf]

Panzer General was much better.
Same with Allied General.

But panzer corps is ok. It's more like Panzer general 2.

If I may ask, how was PG better, in your opinion?

I mean, I also disagree with most design decistions that were made to PGs formula.
I think it was better that XP mattered more in PG.
I think it was better that units were cheaper on the whole in PG.
I think it was better that you got prestige for fighting in PG.
I think merging of AD/AA was a mistake.
I think the PzC Strat Bombers are almost as useless as the PG Strat Bombers, except in PzC, Tac Bombers are useless, too.
etc.

I wish all those changes would have been implemented, but also an option to play just as in PG, at least utilizing modding.
But some things cannot be changed for now.

Anyway, on the whole, these things are all pretty small issues for me, and in the bottom line, PzC is basically a PG with slightly altered rules, but better/more modern graphics.
_____
rezaf

[Kerensky]

After playing this game for about two weeks,I'm as pleased with my purchase as one can possibly be!It's the rebirth of Panzer General to the max.Now all I need is for someone to pick up the pieces of Air Warrior and give it a rebirth,and my sim wishes would be complete!I still dislike EA for dropping AW!!!
Dave

Always a pleasure to hear this kind of feedback from newcomers. Welcome!

Just you wait though, there are even greater things on the horizon with more planned in the future too. For example, the first of a series of expanded campaigns is coming soon (release date is October 27th I believe) and these campaigns can link into a super campaign of potentially 100 scenarios!

http://www.slitherine.com/games/PzC_DLC_1
http://slitherine.com/games/PzC_DLC_2

[impar]

I think the PzC Strat Bombers are almost as useless as the PG Strat Bombers...

They are flying artillery. Quite useful.

[rezaf]

I think the PzC Strat Bombers are almost as useless as the PG Strat Bombers...

They are flying artillery. Quite useful.

They are flying artillery that needs airfield for support, can't fire when it rains, is (somewhat) vulnerable to AA fire and interceptors and usually has a lot less punch than any actual artillery piece.
I know some players deploy them quite efficiently, but for me, they are useless.
It pains me a lot more, though, that despite that, they are actually more useful in PzC than TacBombers.
_____
rezaf

[impar]

They are flying artillery that needs airfield for support, can't fire when it rains, is (somewhat) vulnerable to AA fire and interceptors and usually has a lot less punch than any actual artillery piece.

A lot more mobile than actual artillery, too.

On an objective city hex, use artillery to suppress\destroy enemy AA, strategic bombers to suppress\destroy enemy artillery, ground troops to finish the enemy artillery and AA, end turn.
The next turn that groun troop group will conquer the city easily, the strategic bombers will help another ground troops group.

Tactical bombers are just for harrassing enemy tanks and for targets of opportunity.

[Fimconte]

They are flying artillery that needs airfield for support, can't fire when it rains, is (somewhat) vulnerable to AA fire and interceptors and usually has a lot less punch than any actual artillery piece.
I know some players deploy them quite efficiently, but for me, they are useless.
It pains me a lot more, though, that despite that, they are actually more useful in PzC than TacBombers.
_____
rezaf

Ju88A has 111 fuel and 7 ammo. You can bombard and then move next to an airfield.
For me it's very rare that I need to move so far from a friendly air-field that I cannot bombard and return to one.

Rain is only a issue on a few rare maps.
In most cases it does not last longer than 1-2 turns, which is same as running out of ammo and needing to resupply on normal artillery.

At first, it may indeed cause less suppression than Artillery, but this changes with experience.
A Strength 15, veteran Strategic Bomber with 2-3 heroes can cause serious suppression and damage.
Especially if you use the He 177A's.

And not to mention the main benefit of destroying the enemies supply.
A veteran unit can bring most units to 1-2 ammo, after which they can be easily mopped up by ground troops, without fear of retaliation.
Excellent way to deal with pesky IS-2s.

[pocatellodave]

Tiger 3,I disagree with you about PG being better than Panzer Corps.You have your opinion,and I have mine.MacAtttack Air Warrior was a flight sim,that was played online.It was very popular,but EA bought it out,and then dropped it after a few mpnths!Most all of us AW vets fly Aces High now.
Dave

[edahl1980]

Panzer General was much better.
Same with Allied General.

But panzer corps is ok. It's more like Panzer general 2.

If I may ask, how was PG better, in your opinion?

I mean, I also disagree with most design decistions that were made to PGs formula.
I think it was better that XP mattered more in PG.
I think it was better that units were cheaper on the whole in PG.
I think it was better that you got prestige for fighting in PG.
I think merging of AD/AA was a mistake.
I think the PzC Strat Bombers are almost as useless as the PG Strat Bombers, except in PzC, Tac Bombers are useless, too.
etc.

I wish all those changes would have been implemented, but also an option to play just as in PG, at least utilizing modding.
But some things cannot be changed for now.

Anyway, on the whole, these things are all pretty small issues for me, and in the bottom line, PzC is basically a PG with slightly altered rules, but better/more modern graphics.
_____
rezaf

XP mattered more, it actually made a difference. Prestige for fighting was ok. PG strat bombers were campaign winners.
A 3 to 5 star strat bomber could supress and remove all ammo from AA guns, and the gun wouldnt be able to reload as it was underneath the bomber. In PzC it will supress some, and remove some ammo, but what does it matter, they can just reload whenever they want.

[soldier]

XP mattered more, it actually made a difference. Prestige for fighting was ok. PG strat bombers were campaign winners.
A 3 to 5 star strat bomber could supress and remove all ammo from AA guns, and the gun wouldnt be able to reload as it was underneath the bomber. In PzC it will supress some, and remove some ammo, but what does it matter, they can just reload whenever they want.

I found many of those features to be over powered in panzer general. Strat bombers could not be hit by flak and completely suppressed the big cats so that they could not hope to defend themselves. Also supply was totally cut off by any plane, even being adjacent in bad weather. I think the system of cutting supplies to the unit underneath is better. I had similar issues with experience being such a dominating factor in Panzer general' so that it tended overrule other factors like units stats or position. It was also gained far too quickly and could not be damaged leading to the snowball effect ( 5 star tigers on 15.. good fun but ).
I do agree however, that the reverse seems true in Panzer corps. The effect of experience is so subtle that a player doesn't even notice its effects and thus disregards its (minimal) importance when replacing units. I try to preserve it but mainly out of old habit and would probably do better with green replacements. I think it was a step in the right direction but probably taken a little to far. I'd like to see a happy medium for experience between the extremes of PG and PzC.

[Tarrak]

I found many of those features to be over powered in panzer general. Strat bombers could not be hit by flak and completely suppressed the big cats so that they could not hope to defend themselves. Also supply was totally cut off by any plane, even being adjacent in bad weather. I think the system of cutting supplies to the unit underneath is better. I had similar issues with experience being such a dominating factor in Panzer general' so that it tended overrule other factors like units stats or position. It was also gained far too quickly and could not be damaged leading to the snowball effect ( 5 star tigers on 15.. good fun but ).
I do agree however, that the reverse seems true in Panzer corps. The effect of experience is so subtle that a player doesn't even notice its effects and thus disregards its (minimal) importance when replacing units. I try to preserve it but mainly out of old habit and would probably do better with green replacements. I think it was a step in the right direction but probably taken a little to far. I'd like to see a happy medium for experience between the extremes of PG and PzC.

This are words of wisdom and truth .. couldn't agree more.

[gunhojr]

tiger i have to disagree this plays exactly like original panzer general exactly but just a better graphics.panzer general 2 you were able for example with tanks you could overrun and your planes were able to attack twice if they were elite.