Panzer Corps - Grand Strategy?

[El_Condoro]

This thread is inspired by the Grand Strategy threads that already exist, especially chris10's. I didn't want to hijack those threads so I started this one.

It has always been my 'dream' to see a game developed that is a mix of grand strategy, of which there are many, and tactical, which PzC clearly fits. A strategic map board covering all of Europe (or even the world) where counters representing armies or corps are moved around, technology researched, weather effects, etc etc. As I say, there are plenty of games that do that BUT...

when the strategic counters of Corps A and B meet Korps C and D, instead of the result being determined by the internal random generator, the player is offered the choice to let the game determine the outcome or play it out on a tactical level a la PzC. The Total War games that I've played do this very thing.

The game keeps track of the composition of each corps (strategic unit) and translates it to the various tactical units when the initial setup is being done.

The tactical game can be played against the AI or a human player can be sought for that encounter (again like in Total War) perhaps using the PBEM++ system. Alternatively the strategic campaign can be played against another player or even group of players where each takes their own nation. (This last might not be so popular if you get to play a largely dormant or militarily weak nation!)

The result determines the outcome on the strategic level; the strategic unit counter strength, morale and other aspects are updated according to the tactical outcome; the combat hex is taken or held by the victor etc etc

Does anyone know of a WW2 game like this or wishes one existed?

[airbornemongo101]

The only one that I know that ever even came close was the Axis&Allies PC game.

I would love to see it done

[Chris10]

Does anyone know of a WW2 game like this or wishes one existed?

yes..it existed and still exists in my head and in your head as far as I can see

BUT...
when the strategic counters of Corps A and B meet Korps C and D, instead of the result being determined by the internal random generator, the player is offered the choice to let the game determine the outcome or play it out on a tactical level a la PzC. The Total War games that I've played do this very thing.

I wanted this since I played PG for the very first time but life goes its own ways...ironically now more than 20 years later Iam on my way to get a degree in C++ in order to realize my very gaming dreams and some of my concepts...
In the beginning of the 90s I even had a somewhat finished concept very similar to what you describe with production, strategic considerations, menpower, different zoom (hexscale) levels where armys were moved around in one level and once clashing with another army the hexscale changed to PG tactical level for playing the battles out, units were only up for purchase if they had been produced, tanks for example only to be reinforced if in stock...player could withdraw from battle to avoid destrucion of to many units resulting in the zone being lost to the enemy and truckloads of other stuff which I dont remember instantly ...

[El_Condoro]

Sounds great, chris. At the strategic level Commander, Europe at War (CEAW) and the Grand Strategy mods/expansions do the strategic aspect brilliantly (at least, IMO) but that extra step - going from strategic to tactical level when desired (not every time) - would be great, too.

[boredatwork]

I also would desire a Grand Strategy version of PzC.

My main issue with the Total War/Tactical map approach is, particularly in a WW2 context IMO the battles might feel somewhat generic and repeatative. I enjoyed the Total War series of games but I ended up skipping the majority of the tactical battles because they become tedious - fighting with virtually generic forces upon generic terrain over generic objectives.

IMO the ideal approach (subject to designing an AI that could do a reasonable job at handling it) would be simply make the Strategic map at a sufficient scale that the PzC operational level of combat can be played directly upon it. ie so that the game plays out like a single very very very BIG PzC scenario with an actual front(s) that can be defended, advanced, penetrated and surrounded based upon the actual position of units instead of a series of disjointed, detached generic battles for control of zones. (Something approximating the scale of the Washington or Sealion scenarios of the original PG might be about right)

IMO when battling over a town or river or resource, fighting for the actual tiles themselves - be it a major campaign to take a strategic target or a minor skirmish to improve one's tactical position would be far more interesting, engaging and varied than fighting a generic all or nothing battle over a randomly generated tactical map for control of a strategic tile. Particularly since what starts as a skirmish can quickly evolve into something more as more forces are funneled into the area to join a battle in progress rather than waiting for the result of the first battle before participating in the "next all or nothing battle" on a new generic map for the same piece of strategic realestate.

Add in on map resources, a simple production system, a simplified transportation network along the lines of a simplified Railroad Tycoon, and slightly more involved logistics system and you provide a whole other layer of things worth fighting over/defending.

Lastly improve replayability by making it a WW2 era game not necessarily set in WW2. Random map generator, alliances outside of the historical examples, and technology that while themed on a given country is not necessarily bound by what that country achieved and when they achieved it but rather upon the player's own research and production choices: Germany with quantity over quality? Britain with Centurions in 1943? Soviets with a large heavy bomber force? etc.

The further advantage of the random map generator is the size of the game could be scaled to a player's preference - rather than having to deal with all of Europe on the scale proposed, simply scale back and deal with a half dozen countries, each with a handfull major cities and a couple of hundred units to keep the game manageable for the average player.





In otherwords based upon the game Civ5 should have been had the designers not done such a horrible, horrible job upon it.

[Zhivago]

It would be kind of a hybrid between Civilization and Panzer Corps and Age of Empires...

[El_Condoro]

I 'created' a game called Steel Storm that was played using custom PG2 scenario maps and configured with tactical units according to where the adjacent strategic units were - either adjacent to the combat hex, or adjacent to a unit in the combat. In that way units could be drawn in. e.g. a unit adjacent to a unit involved in the combat might appear on the map in turn 8, or whatever. That took a huge amount of time and effort. The scenario maps were specific to the strategic hex being fought over, so a Stalingrad map for that strategic hex etc. Luis Guzman was kind enough to create a function in his PG2 editor to export units from one scenario save file and import into a scenario but again it was a lot of mucking around. I had a separate Access database that tracked the tactical units in each strategic unit and I was able to use it to export to the scenarios. I have always thought someone who knew what they were doing, coding-wise, would be able to create an automated system to do that and a strategic layer to determine available equipment, technology, weather etc that interacts with the tactical battle. Just dreaming!

For me, a WW2-era rather than WW2 game would not hold the same attraction if player's were not faced with the same issues and restrictions as their historical counterparts, but that's just me. There should certainly be scope to change the way the war was prosecuted within those restrictions, though. I really don't like massive maps and would like to be able to play a focused battle that still affects the 'big picture'. Those maps do not need to be generic and random, though. If a 'master tactical map' was constructed and the battle map was a section of it, that would be great IMO. Again, just dreamin'

[johndoe2]

Love to see a hybrid between Axis&Allies and Company of Heroes

[Razz1]

Interesting.

I would like to see the graphic units applied to Time of Fury.

[deducter]

I'd personally be most interested in seeing a PzC/Unity of Command hybrid operational-level game. There really are a lack of such games, where you can have your turn playing as Zhukov or Manstein, commanding an entire campaign. The player would be in command of an Army or Army Group and fight in a theater. There'd be more consideration of logistics and less consideration of tactics.

One advantage of this approach is that there are already many grand strategy games, and many tactical games, but few true operational-level games. It would be a very good niche to occupy.

One problem I have with games like HoI II and Total War Games is that usually only the beginning is critical. Once the player gets to a certain critical mass, which usually doesn't take long, then he can steamroll the AI without much issue. After a while, it becomes pointless to continue playing, as it is obvious that the player has already won. I personally enjoy games that get more difficult as they progress, where the final outcome is in doubt until the last battle. Those 3 USA scenarios in the stock PzC campaign is a great example of what I enjoy.

There'd be a large strategic map to show the objectives for the entire campaign, such as the territory from Brest to Moscow for AGC during Barbarossa for instance. The player would start out with a core force of units and would be assigned to some early tactical battles around the scale of current PzC maps, but as he achieves victories, he'll gain prestige and have some freedom to decide what to do, but not total freedom of course.

Prestige can be used to request a few reserves from High Command for battles, but such actions are costly. If the player disagrees with High Command and wants to pursue a risky choice, he'd have to expend prestige to do so, for instance, rushing to Moscow in 1941 after Smolensk, or ordering an immediately breakout from Stalingrad after Uranus. Using prestige to access extra content is a good idea I think, because to change history should require doing more with fewer resources and makes the extra content harder.

Given the broad scope of the game, core units should rarely be destroyed outright. In a tactical battle, there should be suppression (ex. exhausted troops), like the way it works now, and permanent suppression (ex. shattered troops) that isn't reset until the next scenario. Unless a formation is encircled and destroyed, there should be relatively few outright losses.

What might be especially interesting is if a core force can be implemented for the AI too. For instance, does the player try to encircle and destroy as many opposing formations as possible, or should he try to dash ahead to objectives with motorized formations, but risk letting various AI units escape and fight in the next scenario. This adds an extra dimension to gameplay. Furthermore, the AI could be better programmed so that it treats its units as less disposable.

I don't like the idea of randomly generated maps, but I'd rather see a large map of an entire theater constructed and specific battles can take part in various parts of the theater.

[ivanov]

What do you think then of the Strategic Command "The Great War"? You have the whole Europe, North Africa, Middle East, Atlantic and the east coast of US there, so it is possible to play the whole WWI or WWII campaigns there. The basic unit is corps, so there are a lot of units involved on each front. There is research and diplomacy present, but they are not overly complicated and the game is relatively easy and very playable. Especially the WWI campaignas are masterpieces in terms of the balance and scripting. The only defect of the SC series were some technical issues but as much as I know, they are working on SC 3 system as we speak and those are supposed to be addressed.

To be honest I much more enjoy such a broad strategic approach, than purely tactical like it is in the PC. I guess I am more Eisenhower than Patton type ( using German WWII personas as an example here, would be extremelly politically incorrect I guess )...

[OmegaMan1]

Ivanov, the SC series of games is indeed excellent, and I enjoy playing them very much. I recommend them highly!

As for El Condoro's idea of a "strategic" PzC that switches to a tactical option, that concept definitely intrigues me. I was imagining something of a compromise -- an operational-based "campaign" that takes big maps and large chunks of time. For example, the first scenario would be Poland 1939, with a map stretching from the Franco-German border to the eastern border of Poland. The German player would need to defeat Poland in X number of turns, before the French units in the west would be "unfrozen" and allowed to attack Germany (simulating Germany's fear that the Allies would attack while the Polish campaign was still going on). The next mission would be western Europe 1940 (map includes France, Low Countries and Norway), where the German player could either decide to attack Norway (gaining bonus prestige but risking naval assets) before going after France, or instead just going straight for the western Allies. After the west '40 mission was complete, the German player could choose between a Med mission (perhaps invading Spain) or the historical Balkan campaign, which could then lead either to a '41 North Africa mission or a Barbarossa '41 mission, and so on and so on. This would be a way to enlarge the scale of Panzer Corps without straining the current game engine on strategic-level details.

In any case, I would like to see a larger-theater campaign for PzC... thankfully it seems between the wonderful mod makers here and the devs working on future additions to the PzC game system, the wait for such a campaign may not be a long one.

[alex0809]

Definitely not a bad idea... and I think it would be rather easy to do as well, of course apart from getting the real forces in the real places.

[MikeAP]

It would be kind of a hybrid between Civilization and Panzer Corps and Age of Empires...

Panzer Corps on the Civilization 5 engine would be amazing!

[Chris10]

In any case, I would like to see a larger-theater campaign for PzC...

something like this ? I merely post it here cause its touching on the subject and there is lots of people who unfortunately never look into "mod" or "scenario making" subforums...

[Zhivago]

In any case, I would like to see a larger-theater campaign for PzC...

something like this ? I merely post it here cause its touching on the subject and there is lots of people who unfortunately never look into "mod" or "scenario making" subforums...

Exactly...you could pick and plan your way across Russia.

[El_Condoro]

In your mod, chris, I understand this map will be a concurrent move at a time. So, 100s of units would need to be moved each turn. What I envisage is perhaps 10s of units (corps level?) being moved and then optionally dropping into tactical battle when the corps units meet. The amount of scrolling and time needed to play a turn is decreased. Obviously some sort of overarching strategic model would need to exist, too. Perhaps two maps exist - this tactical level map and a larger scale strategic map. When the strategic units meet the hex determines which part of this tactical map to use for the battle?

The map is amazing, btw - a huge time investment and effort. Well done!

[Chris10]

What I envisage is perhaps 10s of units (corps level?) being moved and then optionally dropping into tactical battle when the corps units meet. The amount of scrolling and time needed to play a turn is decreased. Obviously some sort of overarching strategic model would need to exist, too. Perhaps two maps exist - this tactical level map and a larger scale strategic map. When the strategic units meet the hex determines which part of this tactical map to use for the battle?

...correct

The map is amazing, btw - a huge time investment and effort. Well done!

thnx,very kind....I still cant believe I pulled it out...it was a character test

[VPaulus]

Yes Chris, the map is indeed looking great.

[billmv44]

I've had the same thoughts too. I'd love to see it developed.