DLC 44 Grand Campaign East arrives

[shawkhan]

Well, FM is the level that seems to work for me. Strangely enough I have never played the Vanilla campaign so the higher levels are not available to me anyway. DLC'39 came out shortly after I first bought PC so I just never had the inclination or time to try the original version. I know what you mean calling infantry cannon fodder, the elite troops I have had since Poland are melting away now. My only concession to historical acccuracy is not to have ever used Sturmpanzers as they are just too overpowered in the game. All of us are struggling I think, mourning our losses and moving on to the next scenario. Hate to admit it, but the game admirably reflects the reality of the latter part of WWII for the Wehrmacht.

[eveready321]

Romania is a mess - Generally I started my attack fine - pushing the Bolsheviks aside with ease - but I found my self diverting more forces away from my access of advance to help our allies. By turn 10, my forces were far too spread out and the Ruskies counter attacked in strength - particularly suprising were the air assets - Panther Gs are showing their limitations and generally I have to use them in support of the Tigers and Elefants who are doing the heavy hitting - Stuka Gs are working well but just too vulnerable to Soviet fighters so I'm leaning heavily on my 410s which just don't have the anti tank punch I need. Needless to say I may need to restart the senario - leave your infantry at home!

[4kEY]

If you don't want to use infantry as disposable cannonfodder, keep them in close terrain - swamps, forests, and cities - hold them back if you need to; back them up with wurfrahmens or nebelwerfers if you're gonna have 'em near the front or in the clear. The Nebel43 is really good at making enemy armor think twice about attacking whatever it's covering. Alternatively, in my experience, the Nebel15 is is about the only artillery capable of really supressing armor.

The only time I use the disposable cannonfodder strategy is when I first begin a campaign, where my infantry have no experience and I have insufficient numbers in artillery. Once I start getting stars on 'em I change my tactics.

I just played a turn where I forgot to cover one of my StukaGs (I only have three fighters, and four 12.8cm). He was attacked twice and only lost 7 str. I've also been not-so-lucky. I'm gonna try to keep them in the game as long as I can, but I'm afraid I'll have to hold them back more and more until it becomes a waste of core slots. I know that if the AI really set its mind to it, they'd be dead.

[Kerensky]

Well look at it this way. If you fight a historical battle with a historical force, you should probably get the historical result. For anyone who isn't aware, this was not a result in favor of the Wehrmacht.

[Zhivago]

Well look at it this way. If you fight a historical battle with a historical force, you should probably get the historical result. For anyone who isn't aware, this was not a result in favor of the Wehrmacht.

But what is a "historical force" in this game? My understanding of Panzer General, and now Panzer Corps, is that the player is given command of a small group of units (I will refer to them as the "core") to command and shape throughout the various campaigns. The player's core (as I have always understood it to be) is NOT representative of the German Army in WW2 as a whole. It is at most, a battle group--a small slice of the German Army. The player's core gains experience by fighting and surviving through each campaign. The more victories (especially decisive victories) a player wins, the more prestige the player's core receives as essentially a "reward" from the German high command as a sign of its faith in the player's ability to command his core.

The purpose of playing a campaign is to allow the core's units to gain experience with each battle, thereby giving the player's core an advantage with each successive battle. The purpose of gaining prestige is not only to repair damaged units, but in my opinion, to obtain the best units possible to give the player's core an advantage. The idea of restricting oneself to a "historical core", whatever that is, seems to me to be contrary to the point of the game. In Panzer General, and even in the main campaign that comes in the standard Panzer Corps game, a player can change the course of history by winning battles that were lost by the Germans in WW2, like Stalingrad, Moscow, Sealion, etc.

If the game developers wanted people to only be able to use a "historical core force", why allow players to upgrade units in the first place, or play with no infantry and all tanks, etc.? If this were the intent of the developers, each game should start with a certain number of infantry, tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc., that are chosen by the developers based on some real-life data about the strength of either the German Army as a whole, or a specific army or battlegroup within the German Army. Players should not be allowed to upgrade the units, or buy additional units.

So what if a player has 6 Tiger II's and 5 Panthers in their core? It is only one small part of the German Army, and it not necessarily a representative sample. If a general kept losing battle after battle, the German High Command would not reward them with more units, or prestige--they would be sacked. A player's core in this game gets to be over-strengthened and built up with the best equipment (or option to buy the best equipment) because the player is SUCCEEDING in achieving the goals of the game.

If people want to play with a "historical force" (again, I do not know what a historical force is supposed to look like), then the developers should create an option to do this. But for me, I'll keep upgrading my units to the best I can afford and keep trying to win each battle in as few turns as possible, because this is what I understand the goal of the game to be.

If you want a realistic, "historical force" buy War in the East.

[Kerensky]

That is even more true, given the more zoomed in scale of the DLC campaigns compared to the Vanilla game.

[Zhivago]

That is even more true, given the more zoomed in scale of the DLC campaigns compared to the Vanilla game.

I like to imagine I have built up a Panzer force similar to the 502nd Heavy Tank Battalion in WW2 with Otto Carius at the helm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/502nd_heav ... _(Germany)

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_hea ... battalions

[4kEY]

Good points, Kerensky and Zhivago.

[ivanov]

By the "historical core", I understand a core that would reflect more less historical proportions between the particular types of equipment and weapon types. If PC is an operational scale game, then the units are regiments or maybe battalions. And there is no way that anytime, anywhere during the WWII Germans employed 6 Tiger battalions on a particular section of the front. Of course the players can build their cores as they please, but the problem is that in order to be able to survive the subsequent scenarios, they need to invest in the best equipment. What happened to the promises after the DLC 43, that the DLC 44 would be more infantry-orientated? It seems that the players unanimously declare that it's better not to deploy the infantry at all. I realize that probably most of the people prefer to see the tank-heavy battles conducted by the best available hardware, but I am getting more and more disillusioned with the game. There are many reasons of that situation - one of them is the bad AI, that requires the map designers to compensate for it with endless masses of the AI units. That has been already addressed many times on the forum. Another problem is the map design itself. We have scenarios either featuring a flat terrain battles, or completely urban battles like Stalingrad or Sevastopol. I would enjoy the scenarios much more, if the map featured more diverse terrain, just like in the reality. There could be some "open steppe" tank battles (particularly in the DLC 43 ), but it would be much more interesting, if the average map included a higher proportion of the close terrain and that would make the infantry units more useful.

It seems that most of the people are happy with the DLC's as they are, but from my point of view the later war campaigns are worst than their predecessor. The best one so far, was IMO the DLC 42.

[shawkhan]

I think the problem is that people want a 'realistic' game on the Eastern Front yet still want to 'win'. The reality is that by 1944 no possible way for the Axis to 'win' still existed. There is a way to beat the system by using the best possible equipment but it exists in the world of fantasy as no Panzer Corps ever had the level of equipment one can deploy in this game. Because of the core system used in this game it is not possible to lose a battle and be able to function in subsequent scenarios. It would be nice to see a 'Kampfgruppe system in this game whereby units are Never completely destroyed so that players could have some hope of rebuilding their forces for the next battle. Then we could play historically and finish out the war. I myself have tried to plan for this situation with a healthy prestige savings account and a larger core than necessary in order to absorb the unpreventable losses I anticipate. If you think '44 is bad what will you do in '45?

[deducter]

Because of the core system used in this game it is not possible to lose a battle and be able to function in subsequent scenarios.

It is very possible to lose a battle and continue on. Only a few scenarios each year are must-wins. And the MV requirements are generally very lenient.

The problem is, if you lose a good part of your core, the difficulty INCREASES, not decreases. This is because each scenario is predetermined without a self-adjusting difficulty. Ironically, it takes the most skilled players to persevere under a situation where the core force has been crippled. But those skilled players don't get themselves into a situation where their core would be crippled anyway.

Kerensky plays the vanilla game on Manstein without all Tigers and Panthers and arguably gets better than the historical outcome (9 DVs vs 2 MVs). Charonjr did it on Manstein with all heavy panzers and won all DV easily. Both approaches seem fine.

I am actually very impressed by how well this game models historical realities and military operations for most of the GCs and even some of the multiplayer maps.

[deducter]

If you want a realistic, "historical force" buy War in the East.

Why can't this game have two settings? One is the current one, and one is historical. It might even be more like having 2 games, but having 2 games for the price of 1 sounds like a good thing to me.

[dks]

I am/was a rabid PG player. I am really enjoying DLC 42'. on last scenario now. as I read the comments here I am left with no doubt that infantry in PzC have no place in the near future. this is a reversal of the spirit of PG of combined tactics and strategy of arms. if infantry are to be of no value as I read DLC 44' to be, I will be a dissapointed PzC fan. why have them introduced in a campaign at start to only have them removed later? satisfy what reasoning of having them in the equipment file of your Core? why not have them only as aux. units? up to 44', PzC seemed to be well thought out, now there seems to be a contridiction to that thought.

[deducter]

I am/was a rabid PG player. I am really enjoying DLC 42'. on last scenario now. as I read the comments here I am left with no doubt that infantry in PzC have no place in the near future. this is a reversal of the spirit of PG of combined tactics and strategy of arms. if infantry are to be of no value as I read DLC 44' to be, I will be a dissapointed PzC fan. why have them introduced in a campaign at start to only have them removed later? satisfy what reasoning of having them in the equipment file of your Core? why not have them only as aux. units? up to 44', PzC seemed to be well thought out, now there seems to be a contridiction to that thought.

I beg to differ. During GC44 testing, I used infantry very effectively. I felt infantry was actually overpowered. On the map Narva, for instance, I wrecked 20+ Soviet AFVs in close terrain with only 2-3 infantry.

Also, infantry is very important for MP. Just read my latest AAR for the Frozen North. My opponent lost 46 infantry, and I lost 18. It was by far our most common unit.

[dks]

I beg to differ. During GC44 testing, I used infantry very effectively. I felt infantry was actually overpowered. On the map Narva, for instance, I wrecked 20+ Soviet AFVs in close terrain with only 2-3 infantry.

I hope this is the case rather than the opposite. as I am a human vs. AI player. enjoy the heck out PzC so far and infantry is a very important part of that enjoyment.

[ivanov]

If you think '44 is bad what will you do in '45?

Ha! The Eastern Front is pretty easy to model. If you play as the German side, you face the masses of the "stupid" enemy units and inflict horrendous loses on them. But I am really interested, how the Western DLC's will be resolved, where the Germans faced well organized, careful enemy and where unlike in the east, the casualty ratio wasn't anymore in Wehrmacht's favour...

I think the solution would be to focus on the smaller engagements, where due to the better tactical skill, the Germans were still able, to get an edge over the Allies.

[deducter]

Increasing the ability of the AI won't help as much as you think. Even if the AI is as good as a human player, a historical Red Army would still lose horribly against all heavy panzers. And in the current scenarios, if the German player uses a historical core, the AI is plenty challenging if you want all DVs. The AI is not really the problem here.

[4kEY]

Ivanov, I have to disagree on a couple things. Just because some people claim infantry are obsolete does not mean that they are obsolete. I am using infantry to great effect, while taking the least casualties of any ground unit in my core. Also, I believe the map design is opposite to what you claim; it is very diverse with many opportunites to use terrain to exploit an individual unit's strengths, or weaknesses.

The only reason someone might think infantry are obsolete is because they're trying to attack, or are being attacked by enemy armor in the clear. This is a problem of tactics, not design.

[Zhivago]

By the "historical core", I understand a core that would reflect more less historical proportions between the particular types of equipment and weapon types. If PC is an operational scale game, then the units are regiments or maybe battalions. And there is no way that anytime, anywhere during the WWII Germans employed 6 Tiger battalions on a particular section of the front. Of course the players can build their cores as they please, but the problem is that in order to be able to survive the subsequent scenarios, they need to invest in the best equipment. What happened to the promises after the DLC 43, that the DLC 44 would be more infantry-orientated? It seems that the players unanimously declare that it's better not to deploy the infantry at all. I realize that probably most of the people prefer to see the tank-heavy battles conducted by the best available hardware, but I am getting more and more disillusioned with the game. There are many reasons of that situation - one of them is the bad AI, that requires the map designers to compensate for it with endless masses of the AI units. That has been already addressed many times on the forum. Another problem is the map design itself. We have scenarios either featuring a flat terrain battles, or completely urban battles like Stalingrad or Sevastopol. I would enjoy the scenarios much more, if the map featured more diverse terrain, just like in the reality. There could be some "open steppe" tank battles (particularly in the DLC 43 ), but it would be much more interesting, if the average map included a higher proportion of the close terrain and that would make the infantry units more useful.

It seems that most of the people are happy with the DLC's as they are, but from my point of view the later war campaigns are worst than their predecessor. The best one so far, was IMO the DLC 42.

The idea of a "historical core" is not compatible with how this game is played. First of all, what is a a historical core? Has someone done the research to definitively state how many of what kind of tanks were at this battle, as opposed to that battle, how many infantry units, how many aircraft and what type, etc? No, of course not.

Second, from the very first campaign in DLC 39, the player is given the power to build their own core with whatever units they want to purchase. As such, the game is not historical from the very get-go. The game is about a player selecting whatever units he thinks will produce victory.

Third, as was discussed previously, the player's core in these campaigns is only, at best, a battalion sized force--not the German Army as a whole. There are many instances in WW2 where the Germans put together battalions with the best men and equipment available for certain offensives. Why would a player's battalion, equipped with the best equipment available, be any different from what was done in history?

Fourth, why play a campaign from DLC 39 forward and bother developing units, gaining heroes, over-strength points, etc, if you want to restrict yourself to a historical core? There is already an option in place for players who do not want to import their core from a previous campaign--use the default core. However, I have seen no historical evidence that the default core is actual a historical core in the first place. It is just the developers' selection of units they think are appropriate.

This game involves at most one or two battalion sized forces, not an army. There were definitely heavy tank battalions (as the links to wikipedia I posted previously show) that were made up exclusively of Tigers, Panthers, and Tiger II's.

[Zhivago]

If you want a realistic, "historical force" buy War in the East.

Why can't this game have two settings? One is the current one, and one is historical. It might even be more like having 2 games, but having 2 games for the price of 1 sounds like a good thing to me.

Again, what is the definition of "historical"? Where is the historical research to show what is a historical force as it applies to this game. See my response to ivanov in this thread.