Victory from first playthrough

[uran21]

This is a question about expectations, quite subjective ones. When you play new game on, let's say, default difficulty settings do you expect to be victorious from your first playtrough? Is potential loss something that motivates you for better try next time or something that frustrates you? Same can be said for a new content of already known game. If there are several types of victories we are talking about basic one here. I personally do not find losing a game is such a big deal. It even intrigues me when it happens and motivates to play better next time. What I love the best is either wining or losing for a swords edge. This feeling of uncertainty until the very end...

[Tarrak]

I usually do not expect a win on the first paythrough. Certainly not if i am new to the game. If i play new content for an already well known game i would expect on default settings around 50% win to loss ratio on the first attempt. If that's the case then the difficulty level seems balanced right to me. If i want less challenge i can always swap to lower difficulty setting or to higher if i want it tougher.

[jayman]

I haven't voted yet. Although I'm new to Panzercorps (have Afrika Corps too) I played the old Panzer General games in my youth. At the moment I'm getting DVs because I'm playing on sergeant level to get a feel for the game. I'll play on a higher level next time through!

[KeldorKatarn]

Well if you mean without reloads, then no, I don't expect that. Do I expect to be able to finish the game after restarting some scenarios a few times on default difficulty? Yes. But I know this game type and its mechanics so I know I should be able to handle the difficulty. My first time through I missed DV on USA West on Colonel, but I felt my core was not strong enough because I made some mistakes early in the campaign while I got used to some of the gameplay differences of PzC compared to PG. So I settled for that. But I do usually expect a game to let me at least complete the campaign and provide a learning curve that makes it possible for me to do so. And hey, I didn't do it on default but on Colonel, so it worked out fine, might have gotten the DV if I had settled for one lower setting.

I am however a friend of games that challenge me. They shouldn't be frustatingly hard, but they should force me to play well to win. They should also give me the chance to become that good too, but if I cannot handle a higher setting it's ok to force me into a lower one to start. it would be good however to notice early in the campaign if the setting I chose is wrong. It's frustrating to find out I cannot handle it mid-campaign, forcing me to start over.

[VPaulus]

I expect to win in the first playthrough. But if I have a loss I don't feel frustrated and will try until I succeed.

[airbornemongo101]

I expect to win in the first playthrough. But if I have a loss I don't feel frustrated and will try until I succeed.

+1

[bebro]

In general with new games I can live with losing the first game(s), unless it is caused by a lack of transparency of the game mechanics, esp. when there are shortcomings of the UI or the manual which make it difficult to figure out what's going on.

Of course with PzC it is kinda different since it is not all new when you played the PG series, which gave me the feeling of not being a total n00b here

I think in campaign mode there should be a nice progression in difficulty, so early on easier than later.

[Shrike]

This question is a bit too black/white. The answer would depend on the selected difficulty level, sticking with standard game settings like fog of war etc. Given that I only play on FM level, I don't expect an uninterrupted string of DV's for new content, for sure.

[VPaulus]

The answer would depend on the selected difficulty level, sticking with standard game settings like fog of war etc.

True. That's why I always choose to play in standard/normal (Colonel in PzC) difficulty on my first playthrough. In any game.

[Shrike]

Well, the thing is this: if you compare the various difficulty levels across the various available main campaigns and DLC's, then you will probably agree that the DLC's became progressively more difficult even though you played them all at the same difficulty level. This has little or nothing to do with the AI strength, but rather with the way scenario's are being created. That makes it extra difficult to gauge this question. In the end, how the difficulty levels are implemented is entirely up to the content creator.

[boredatwork]

Didn't vote. In a game like PzC I would expect to *playthrough* the first time I've played it - win or lose.

A loss would be no major issue except that under the current ecconomic model a loss would be synonymous with a gutted core which would most likely end the campaign anyways. In the case of a long campaign a prestige shortfall might not necessarily even be the result of a single bad battle, but the cumulative result of a string of expensive victories.

In a game like Civilisation for example in such a situation there is incentive to start a new game to challenge one to improve oneself because one game is randomly different from the next.

In PzC however having to replay 5, 10, 20+ scenarios that you've already won just to save a large enough prestige cushion to make it through later content isn't IMO ideal design because the content is **exactly** the same so you're not really playing "better" the second time through - but rather abusing the scenario because you already know exactly what to expect and thus can plan specifically around it.

[Iscaran]

Since being an old PG veteran my answer would be:

On "standard" difficulty (Colonel ?) - I would expect a win on a scenario in the first play run....though if occassionally it doesnt work out (happens ) then I definitely expect a win in the 2nd run.
If I would keep loosing I would get frustrated on that difficulty level.

[Vaughn]

I hope I don't sound too much like an arrogant ass, but I expect to win at the default setting.

As a Panzer/Allied/Pacific General veteran of hundreds of battles I completely expect to win. It is both rare and shocking when I do not.

In this game losing is usually a very slow process. It is an accumulation of much smaller losses. A key unit here or there. Replaying several scenarios over again to have the resources to win the former loss is a pain.

I don't really feel the same about other games. I don't mind losing in games I'm not as familiar with, so long as I'm getting better.

I hope that answers your question. Somewhere along the way I lost my train of thought.

[2010sjones2010]

I always player as Field Marshall with weather on, supply on and fog of war off initially and theres the point. There are so many standard variables as well as cheat variables that the replay value is immense. Therefore I aim to win each scenario/DLC first off purely as I enjoy the challenge of these initial settings. Then once I have played through the whole DLC once I will go back to the first scenario in the DLC and start again with the aim of maximising/changing my core forces knowing what I am going to need in future scenarios in a particular DLC. Then once that strategy has been honed I will replay the DLC using as little prestige as possible thus building up a large prestige for the later DLC's when the big equipment arrives. Then the final playthrough would be in the easiest mode to annialate the opposition and capture as many cities as possible to discover hidden equipment spots. Panzercorps is a tactical game of chess and to become the greatest General one should expect to play a scenario over and over again to maximise your winning potential. If the game was designed to win each time at the highest level with little effort then the challenge/interest would be limited. I dont know how they have done it but so far the designers have set the difficulty/replay value perfectly throughout all the DLC's