DLC 44 Grand Campaign East arrives

[deducter]

Taking this to an extreme, why even bother having the unit stats have any historical basis at all then? Why not have the French equip themselves with M26s in 1940? Why not have a Panzer I with the same stats as a Tiger II? Why not give the Russians 30 15 strength JS2 per map in 1944? Why not give the Germans some F-22s Raptors, or some M1 Abrams, along equipping their infantry with P90s?

This game is supposed have a basis in WWII. Many of the players would like to see the game reflect this in some way. We don't expect 100% accuracy, or necessarily even perfect consistency on map scales, e.g. Stalingrad, a 40 km long city, is 2 huge maps, but the opening of Barbarossa with 500 km is only 1 map with fewer core units. I don't expect the game to have perfectly historically accurate maps with historically accurately placed units down to the battalion level, for every battle depicted. Even WITE doesn't have that level of detail. But I, certainly, expect the game to have some historical accuracy. The Russians should use lots of T-34s, along with hordes of conscripts. The Red Air Force should be very weak in 1941 and 1942, but get more and more numerous from 1943 on. All of this is done beautifully so far in the GCs.

I am not attacking the way you are playing the game Zhivago. But it sure feels like you look down on anyone who wants to have a different experience.

[Zhivago]

Taking this to an extreme, why even bother having the unit stats have any historical basis at all then? Why not have the French equip themselves with M26s in 1940? Why not have a Panzer I with the same stats as a Tiger II? Why not give the Russians 30 15 strength JS2 per map in 1944? Why not give the Germans some F-22s Raptors, or some M1 Abrams, along equipping their infantry with P90s?

This game is supposed have a basis in WWII. Many of the players would like to see the game reflect this in some way. We don't expect 100% accuracy, or necessarily even perfect consistency on map scales, e.g. Stalingrad, a 40 km long city, is 2 huge maps, but the opening of Barbarossa with 500 km is only 1 map with fewer core units. I don't expect the game to have perfectly historically accurate maps with historically accurately placed units down to the battalion level, for every battle depicted. Even WITE doesn't have that level of detail. But I, certainly, expect the game to have some historical accuracy. The Russians should use lots of T-34s, along with hordes of conscripts. The Red Air Force should be very weak in 1941 and 1942, but get more and more numerous from 1943 on. All of this is done beautifully so far in the GCs.

I am not attacking the way you are playing the game Zhivago. But it sure feels like you look down on anyone who wants to have a different experience.

Your argument does not make sense. When military equipment becomes available in the historical timeline in the game is not the argument here. The argument is what compliment of equipment a player purchases makes his core historical or not. My argument is that from the first scenario of DLC 39 forward, every player chooses what equipment they want to buy. This simple act in and of itself makes the game unhistorical. If the developers created a scenario that they wanted to be perfectly in step with history, they would need to identify historical German units, specify that one tank equals X number of historical units, etc., Players would only be allowed to use the equipment in the quantity and type that was historically available. You would not have the freedom to add more tanks of a certain type, or more aircraft of a certain type. You would have to use only what the game gave you. Following the argument further, if German Battalion X attacked city X in real life history, than the player should only be limited to doing the same in this game. The fact that you have the ability to chose what units you want to use in Panzer Corps, and even how you want to move them on the map, and even which units you attack, is all unhistorical. But my point is that because the player has the freedom of choice on how to build his core, how he wants to attack, is what makes the game fun. It is the challenge of trying new strategies in an attempt to do better than the Germans historically did is what makes the game enjoyable for me.

If you want a strictly historical game, go mod one up. Pull out a history book on the East Front in WW2, specifically identify the historical units, and how they are to be represented on the map in terms of size and scale, and then you are getting close to a historical game. I am not attacking a player who wants a historical experience, but my question is, what is a historical experience? Where is the historical context and scale to provide the historical context.

[robman]

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

Sob hysterically in my bunker as my best units die around me, I reckon.

[dks]

strickly historical....your right Zhivago. it just can't happen pure and simple with a game. to many variables to please all the different personalities that enjoy the game. 4key answered my concerns about the infantry being of value in 44' DLC. I enjoy using all the types of equipment offered and like I did with PG, I will be going back time and again to try my best using lesser equipment to beat the AI. that's the fun of the game I believe. not beating the AI but beating my last try at the campaign once I know the maps.

[airbornemongo101]

Hey guys,relax this is just a friggin' game.

We should all be happy as long as it sells (which means there will be plenty of future developer content) and we enjoy playing it (no matter how you play)

[ivanov]

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.

Maybe I am prejudiced, because I judge the game from the Panzer General II perspective, but I have a feeling that the custom made e-files and campaigns of the later, were much better balanced than the contemporary PC. Also the maps were much more diverse. Anybody tried the "Das Reich" historical campaign? It was just a pure poetry of war... I really don't think that making the game more realistic would damage the overall playability.

To everyone who would like to get a little more from the current system ( and get it absolutelly for free ), I thoroughly recommend the Deducter's e-file. But be adviced - trying it may make you suffer

Anyway, I am eagerly waiting for the western DLC's. They would be in my oppinion, defining for the whole PC system.

[AgentTBC]

Where do you get this custom e-file?

[ivanov]

Where do you get this custom e-file?

Here you go:

viewtopic.php?f=147&t=30708

[deducter]

I freely admit my mod increases the difficulty, substantially. It tries to make the GCs more realistic, and realistically the Germans were doomed during and after Kursk. I think Kharkov43 was the last try DV, and the last glimmer of hope for ]some sort of draw with the Soviets, although even that was unlikely. So yeah, the difficult of my mod in 1943 is high.

Lots of things are changed. For instance, inspired by another thread, I will make all motorization soft targets instead of hard targets. Between that and buffed GDs/experience settings, infantry in half-tracks should be much less vulnerable when hit by tanks. Losses will still be significant (3-4 steps on average), but it won't be a crushing blow (7-8 steps).

I welcome input or feedback.

[ivanov]

Lots of things are changed. For instance, inspired by another thread, I will make all motorization soft targets instead of hard targets. Between that and buffed GDs/experience settings, infantry in half-tracks should be much less vulnerable when hit by tanks. Losses will still be significant (3-4 steps on average), but it won't be a crushing blow (7-8 steps).
.

That is superb!

[Zhivago]

Hey guys,relax this is just a friggin' game.

We should all be happy as long as it sells (which means there will be plenty of future developer content) and we enjoy playing it (no matter how you play)

We all would not be debating things about the game on here if we did not care about the game so much. I think healthy debate and the free-exchange of ideas is a good thing, and ultimately leads to a better game for everyone.

[ivanov]

Hey guys,relax this is just a friggin' game.

We should all be happy as long as it sells (which means there will be plenty of future developer content) and we enjoy playing it (no matter how you play)

We all would not be debating things about the game on here if we did not care about the game so much. I think healthy debate and the free-exchange of ideas is a good thing, and ultimately leads to a better game for everyone.

I couldn't agree more

[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.

Maybe I am prejudiced, because I judge the game from the Panzer General II perspective, but I have a feeling that the custom made e-files and campaigns of the later, were much better balanced than the contemporary PC. Also the maps were much more diverse. Anybody tried the "Das Reich" historical campaign? It was just a pure poetry of war... I really don't think that making the game more realistic would damage the overall playability.

To everyone who would like to get a little more from the current system ( and get it absolutelly for free ), I thoroughly recommend the Deducter's e-file. But be adviced - trying it may make you suffer

Anyway, I am eagerly waiting for the western DLC's. They would be in my oppinion, defining for the whole PC system.

I downloaded PG2 before playing PC, and played the hell out of what I could, up to the Novgorod glitch. THAT was a cool map, btw . I admit at that time I knew practically nothing of the mechanics, so I probably couldn't truly appreciate the game nearly as much as someone who does. The music, on the other hand, is another story. I still add it to my PC playlist every now and then.

[Bonners]

I actually think the developers have got it pretty spot on. Look at any stats you care to find for the Eastern Front in 1944 and see what happens to the German infantry - understrength, second class recruits, not enough anti tank weapons (despite the hand held weapons) etc... What happened? They got bled dry, this is fairly accurately reflected in the game.

As players we have a choice as to how we want to play, like I do, using the big and beefy units, only using a maximum of 3-4 infantry to hold city hexes and the like, or to have a more balanced core which makes for a more difficult game as the Landser get blasted to pieces by the hordes of T34s and conscripts. In other words there is room for all strategies and difficulty levels.

[eveready321]

I'm kind of enjoying the desperation of it all - having to figure out the best packages to fight the battle and husbanding of my resources. Now the King Tigers are in place, I have the heavy hitters I need to complete my missions. Once I get all my Tiger I's upgraded I'm going to await the into of the Me 262, Russian fighters are getting tougher and tougher and the FW 190 Ds aren't holding up as well as I hoped.

[soldier]

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.

I've read plenty on force dispositions in 44 and used to have tables on company make up and so on. Its not that difficult. Not including airforce your army should consist of about 70% infantry units with no transport, the vast majority of them being plain wehrmacht. 10% to 15% should go toward tanks and tank destroyers again the majority will be Pz IV's and Stugs. The remaining 15% to 20% goes to artillery, AA, AT and other auxillary stuff with the majority of guns being field pieces of around 75mm to 105mm calibre with horse transport.
there you have it.

The Germans on the eastern front had badly slipped behind in terms of mobility by 44 and relied heavily on horse transport (having used up there supplies of captured trucks at stalingrad). By now many more soviet units will be motorised. Strength ratios are strongly favouring the soviets with advantages of 5 or 6 to 1 in tanks and troops and much much higher ratio's for artillery and aircraft. The Germans had very few reserves so replacements would be almost impossible to get. Operation Bagration (as Kerensky mentioned) did not favour the Axis. It was in fact their worst defeat, a true military disaster.

[Zhivago]

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.

I've read plenty on force dispositions in 44 and used to have tables on company make up and so on. Its not that difficult. Not including airforce your army should consist of about 70% infantry units with no transport, the vast majority of them being plain wehrmacht. 10% to 15% should go toward tanks and tank destroyers again the majority will be Pz IV's and Stugs. The remaining 15% to 20% goes to artillery, AA, AT and other auxillary stuff with the majority of guns being field pieces of around 75mm to 105mm calibre with horse transport.
there you have it.

The Germans on the eastern front had badly slipped behind in terms of mobility by 44 and relied heavily on horse transport (having used up there supplies of captured trucks at stalingrad). By now many more soviet units will be motorised. Strength ratios are strongly favouring the soviets with advantages of 5 or 6 to 1 in tanks and troops and much much higher ratio's for artillery and aircraft. The Germans had very few reserves so replacements would be almost impossible to get. Operation Bagration (as Kerensky mentioned) did not favour the Axis. It was in fact their worst defeat, a true military disaster.

Then I invite you to go ahead and mod-up a historical scenario along these lines. Be sure to provide the player with info as to how much terrain a hex is comprised of, if one tank = one tank, or is representative of 5, 10, 20, etc., and so forth. Also, you should have the name and specs for each unit that is going to be deployed on the map for the specific scenario. For example, the 502nd Heavy Tank Battalion fought at Narva, so they should be represented in any scenario involving Narva, and in the correct historical proportions. Players of the historical scenario should not be allowed to buy any equipment other than what was given to them at the start of the scenario, nor should they be allowed to repair units that have been depleted unless it was actually done that way historically. Per your comment, 70% of all German units by 1944 should be infantry units without transport, so if the Germans can place 30 units on a map, 22 of them should be infantry of this type.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like a really boring game to me. I'd rather surrender after Kursk.

[ivanov]

I don't think that anybody here actally demands the game to be spot-on historically, acurate. The PC scenarios and campaigns can hardly be called historical, they are rather history based. The discussion about the core composition is really pointless, because there are as many different preferences, as we have have the players. It's really about the higher realism that some players would expect from the game. Some of the posters seem to be pretty happy with the current balance and the default e-file, which IMO is not very realistic and makes the gameplay against AI too easy. But that's ok. As I mentioned before, the balace can be quite well improved by using a custom e-files, like for example the Deducter's one.

[deducter]

By your logic Zhivago, since complete accuracy is impossible, why bother trying at all? Even history books aren't 100% accurate. German and Soviet sources contain plenty of mistakes and propaganda. All those history authors are lying anyway, since their sources are flawed, so they shouldn't even try writing any books. The only way you could get 100% accuracy is to build a time machine and go back to see for yourself what was going on.

This game is not historical in the sense that every detail is correct. But there are degrees of realism. For instance, what about giving the Germans Tiger tanks in France? Do you think that should be allowed? The game has the Tiger tank debuting in late 1942, which is a very close approximation to their historical introduction.

What about having the T-34 have better stats than a Tiger tank? Let's make the T-34 as good as a Maus. Because this game is not realistic, why shouldn't the game designers do that, for added challenge?

What we are really talking about is how good of an approximation of history the game should strive for. Some players, myself included, find that being able to afford all of the best equipment in 1943 and 1944 is ahistorical. It is also ahistorical if the German player could only get early panzers, say Panzer Is and Panzer IIs, for Kursk. Both these extremes are bad approximations. A better approximation would be to have the AFV portion of the core be composed of mainly Panzer III/Panzer IV/StuG, backed up by a few Tigers and Panthers. Is this 100% realistic? Of course not. But I would argue it is a better reflection of historical reality than the other two extremes.

The air unit system is completely unrealistic. Planes function more like helicopters. But is it an acceptable approximation? I think so, although it might be interesting in a sequel or a spinoff to have a "mission-based" air combat model for an operational/tactical hybrid game like this.

Even in the mod I'm working on, which aims to make things more realistic, I change values not based on historical data, but for gameplay reasons. Nevertheless, almost all changes are historically inspired. I have a reason for every change I make, although anyone is free to disagree and argue with me. I very much welcome such discussion.

I am often impressed by how well the game models the Eastern Front if you use a historically-inspired core. You do get the historical result (DVs before 1943, MVs + losses in 1943-1944), as it should be. I'd have a serious problem with the game if I could win in 1943 with Panzer IIs. I don't have a problem with the game being easy with all Tigers, as the Germans surely would have if they somehow massed 2700 Tiger tanks for Kursk. I think that's a good thing, even in a game with a "simple" model like this simulates potential outcomes very well.

[MartyWard]

To make any large east front engagement any where near historical you would need to field basically an infantry army with a few tanks and artillery units. There were something like 300,000 ground troops and 10,000 tanks on the Russian side in Bagration. Yet you don't face 30 infantry uits and 1 tank unit, you face gobs of armour and a few infantry. Why would you try to fight an ahistorical enenmy force with a 'historical' mix in your core?