Guderian level of difficulty

[kokkorhekkus]

hello
It seems thats the Guderian level of difficulty is not popular (Rommel & Manstein ones have favors)
Because of the near impossibility of Decisive Victoies on most of scenarios, I think.
But if played with an easy or medium difficulty level, with an axis player with less cautious playing and less fear about losses, perhaps it's funny to play too...?
Does anyone try Guderian level for DLCs ? I've read a lot but have'nt see AAR about that...
Thanks

[Kerensky]

The trouble with Guderian is that it turns a game that is somewhat already about racing the clock, a pretty unpopular feature mind you, and really just takes it to such an extreme.
One of the first things we did with the DLC after the release of the original game was to experiment with the clock. Namely, we removed the need to race. We made it so that the difference between decisive and marginal victories was no longer measured by how fast you could wipe every enemy off the map.
Guderian actually de-evolves the game, in that sense, hence its relative unpopularity.

[dragos]

On the other hand, the DLCs, instead of rewarding a player for finsihing a mission faster (which requires skill and thought), encourages gamey tactics such us leaving a final objective unoccupied just to grab more prestige/experience with secondary towns.

Time was essential in all military operations and I'm not very happy it was seen as a nuissance in DLCs.

[Kamerer]

On the other hand, the DLCs, instead of rewarding a player for finsihing a mission faster (which requires skill and thought), encourages gamey tactics such us leaving a final objective unoccupied just to grab more prestige/experience with secondary towns.

Time was essential in all military operations and I'm not very happy it was seen as a nuissance in DLCs.

If you think about it, that's the same as a bonus for being faster. You have used your resources more effectively - the skill and thought you correctly comment upon. Thus, you can take more territory and rightly earn more resources and prestige for future use. It really has the same effect, but without making the less experienced/skilled player feel left out because they can't complete a scenario at all.

[soldier]

I wouldn't have minded having some scenarios in the DLC have more of a sense of urgency about them. It seems the concept of winning quickly and decisively as a matter of necessity was totally dropped for the DLC's and thats unfortunate.
Unpopular as it may be theres more than an element of truth behind the "race against the clock" in the more strategic main campiagn. Germany needed to win and win fast to stay alive and keep her strategic options open. She ran out of time during the 1941 eastern blitzkrieg and the rest is history.

[kokkorhekkus]

I think it could be a real good thing to see bonus pp points for each turn of DV before the last one (100 pp/turn ?)

It doesn't hurt the balance of play, it improves the urgency feelings and battle spirit : if you want to go faster, you can, but you may take some risks...ajd then a better chance to loss an unit or two in the process

Another hard choice and PZC is a game of many choices, it's his charm

[Longasc]

A race against the clock works nicely in the default campaign. Milking/waiting to capture another objective or even intentionally stalling to get another campaign path can happen regardless if you have a race against time or the more DLC style victory objective setup with special victory conditions.

Both systems should be in Panzer Corps! Yeah, definitely. But I think it was a good choice to focus less on speedy victories in the DLCs as the maps are usually smaller scale than in the default campaign and the need to rush there would be odd the way they are set up.

Guderian suffers from the single minded focus on speed, which makes it probably even harder than Manstein or Rommel if you have to win some scenarios decisively.
"Allied General" had an entire campaign that suffered from this, the Russian campaign had nice defensive battles and then it was a race against the clock versus an already beaten Wehrmacht. The message was clear, your enemy is Stavka, not the Germans, and it was too annoying in the end!

All in all I enjoyed the more varied objectives of Afrika Corps and the DLCs. I really didn't miss the turn-based victory conditions for minor and decisive victories.


I would advise against playing Guderian; IMO it's just a very annoying version of Field Marshal. Manstein and Rommel offer more interesting challenges IMO.

[monkspider]

I tried to replay Vanilla Corps recently and I just couldn't get past the Fall Gelb scenario. It just feels so obsolete compared to the DLCs/Afrika Korps. It is unfortunate though, I would like to see a campaign that has the same level of detail and scope as the Grand Campaign but have the branching paths of the main campaign. It is a tall order of course, but one can always dream.

But I agree with Kerensky, that the race against the clock aspect of warfare was much too over-emphasized in the default campaign. I felt like the DLCs got things just right in terms of balancing prudent strategy vs fast strategy.

[Kamerer]

I was disappointed that the built-in Guderian and Manstein levels weren't more useful as an added challenge. But the game evolved quickly and that's understandable. However, it would be fun to have something besides Rommel for single play without modifying equipment files heavily. Perhaps reconfiguring Manstein so it's Rommel plus a unit penalty - down 10% or 15% unit count vs. base game for any scenario. This would still allow you to win, just be exacting in tactics and unit management. Or a name a new level that is Rommel + penalty and call it "Kesselring" or something.

[monkspider]

I had always hoped to see super difficulty levels called "Clausewitz" or "Moltke".

[Kamerer]

I had always hoped to see super difficulty levels called "Clausewitz" or "Moltke".

Having recently re-read The Guns of August, I am certain you mean Moltke the elder, not the younger.

[monkspider]

I had always hoped to see super difficulty levels called "Clausewitz" or "Moltke".

Having recently re-read The Guns of August, I am certain you mean Moltke the elder, not the younger.

LOL, but of course! I actually re-read The Guns of August earlier this year too. I love that book. It is just written in such an interesting style that it makes actual historical events seem like they were conceived by the most fantastic fiction writer. Unlike any other book I have read, it makes the historical figures feel like "characters". It is just a great book, glad to see there is someone else here that enjoys it!

[balone]

Who was the author of "The guns of August"? I'm going on vacation
soon and could use some new reading material while on the flight.
John Keegans "the first world war" is pretty good also.

[huertgenwald]

Google is your friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_August

[Kamerer]

Yep, Barbara Wertheim Tuchman. Prolly the most famous alum of my history program ever. I don't think any of her other books ever touched the perfection of this one; I've read A Distant Mirror and Stilwell in China. Have not read The Proud Tower, though I should as it's an area I want to understand more - 19th Century European balance-of-power politics. And I completely agree, balone, John Keegan is a rare and impressive writer. I re-read the WWI book also recently, maybe the third time in the last 10 years?

Another writer that I'd like to mention that might interest this crowd is William Shirer. He's most well known for writing The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Which is a great, if flawed, work. He's not a professional historian, rather he was a radio journalist of the time. Murrow was in London, he in Berlin - together they were the CBS team for Europe. The work in particular that's interesting is Berlin Diary, where he really talks frankly about being present at some of the critical events (as a journalist, not insider or participant) of the late 30s and first war years. The "feel" you get for the time I just haven't got in another source.