I was doing well on most of the scenarios; I think only one of them was something other than decisive victory. All was well, and I invaded East US with about 10,000 prestige in the bank.
The East US seemed a lot harder than the previous scenarios. The enemy gradually whittled away at my core units. I kept running out of prestige to heal (or hire) units. Somehow I managed to get a Decisive Victory.
But then Middle US was even harder. The first time I tried it, I ran out of time and lost. Again, I had prestige problems. On my second playthrough I won, but only barely.
West US was even worse. Again, I ran out of time. I took most of my tanks south, with the aim of sweeping up the coast. But they got bogged down around San Diego or LA (or whatever that SW city is; I wish the dev would add city names to the map!) and meanwhile the enemy invaded my eastern cities from the north. I restarted, and this time capture all but 3 VP before time ran out. I played more conservatively than normal, so my units were idle more, but they lived long.
I'm not quite sure how to beat the US. My feeling is I would need to go all the way back to the East Coast, and play "smarter", ending that scenario with more units intact and more leftover prestige. I don't know what "smarter" translated into, though. The more conservatively we play, the greater the risk of missing the turn deadlines.
I don't really want to repeat these three loooong US scenarios, though, but I am curious whether you felt they were harder than the European scenarios, and also what strategies you used to beat them.
For example, did you focus on having a few powerful core units, or LOTS of units? Did you focus on air power? Tanks? Infantry? Arty? What were your approximate ratios of troop types? Did you aim for Decisive Victories? Did you keep your armies together, or split them?
Panzer Corps - US scenarios much more difficult?
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Re: Panzer Corps - US scenarios much more difficult?
Hi Tripecac,
its not easy to answer your couple of questions. On the eastcoast you can live with a MV, and you should accept this and play more carefully and your primary goal must be the survival of your experienced troops!
Its possible, that you took too much damage with your core, because of missing experience. Did you play straight vio Sealion and early Moscow? That can be the key to your difficulties. You need a lot of well trained Aircrafts and Tanks to manage the US-Scenarios. In fact, the Maus and Tiger II are too slow to be your only tank-type. You need Panthers with lots of fuel to hurry. In Westcoast i rushed with Panthers and Jagdpanthers, i killed overrun Units with following Tiger II (movement heros on slower units?) and in the end i used the train to transport 2 Maus-Tanks closer to the front.
But essential was the strategy to get some Minor Victories on the eastern front to play as much sceanrios as possible! You need to train your troops for the final battle and you have to check the campaign tree, where you need a MV to proceed but not to shorten the campaign.
What priority of units you need to choose can not be answered easily. With 15 strength Panthers your oppenent do not need a prior air-attack. But if you have not educated Tigers, its vital to pound a Pershing with a Levelbomber before you attack them. And use mass-attack in the sky, not one fighter after another for the same enemy. this reduces your losts!
If possible by some levelbobombers for the eastcoast to destroy enemy fleet. You can sell most of them again in the deployment-phase of Midwest. But do not misprize a levelbomber-attack on enemy heavy-tanks! You need some of them.
I am sorry about my english, but i hope this will help.
Greets, Wild
its not easy to answer your couple of questions. On the eastcoast you can live with a MV, and you should accept this and play more carefully and your primary goal must be the survival of your experienced troops!
Its possible, that you took too much damage with your core, because of missing experience. Did you play straight vio Sealion and early Moscow? That can be the key to your difficulties. You need a lot of well trained Aircrafts and Tanks to manage the US-Scenarios. In fact, the Maus and Tiger II are too slow to be your only tank-type. You need Panthers with lots of fuel to hurry. In Westcoast i rushed with Panthers and Jagdpanthers, i killed overrun Units with following Tiger II (movement heros on slower units?) and in the end i used the train to transport 2 Maus-Tanks closer to the front.
But essential was the strategy to get some Minor Victories on the eastern front to play as much sceanrios as possible! You need to train your troops for the final battle and you have to check the campaign tree, where you need a MV to proceed but not to shorten the campaign.
What priority of units you need to choose can not be answered easily. With 15 strength Panthers your oppenent do not need a prior air-attack. But if you have not educated Tigers, its vital to pound a Pershing with a Levelbomber before you attack them. And use mass-attack in the sky, not one fighter after another for the same enemy. this reduces your losts!
If possible by some levelbobombers for the eastcoast to destroy enemy fleet. You can sell most of them again in the deployment-phase of Midwest. But do not misprize a levelbomber-attack on enemy heavy-tanks! You need some of them.
I am sorry about my english, but i hope this will help.
Greets, Wild
Re: Panzer Corps - US scenarios much more difficult?
As it has already been mentioned it is imperative *not* to defeat the USSR in 1941. Continue fighting until 1943 to get more experienced units. It also helps to save prestige on the Eastern Front where you don't really need that much. A substantial part of my forces in 1943 still consisted of PzKw III and BF 109. Iirc, I had about 12000 prestige prior to the American scenarios... and I needed that much.
Level bombers are very nice to destroy the US fleet. In fact, level bombers in general are very nice.
And play carefully, it is better to pull back your landing crafts in your first few turns so your precious core units don't get slaughtered. The time limit is tough but a MW is far better than severe losses.
In general, try not to advance too recklessly, keep your artilley support close to your tanks during the Midwestern scenario. Otherwise those hordes of Pershing tanks will eventually kill your poor tanks.
Level bombers are very nice to destroy the US fleet. In fact, level bombers in general are very nice.
And play carefully, it is better to pull back your landing crafts in your first few turns so your precious core units don't get slaughtered. The time limit is tough but a MW is far better than severe losses.
In general, try not to advance too recklessly, keep your artilley support close to your tanks during the Midwestern scenario. Otherwise those hordes of Pershing tanks will eventually kill your poor tanks.
Re: Panzer Corps - US scenarios much more difficult?
As people said, going straight for US after Sealion 40 and Early Moscow is - i guess - doable, but...
When aiming for US, I always go the following path:
Poland-Norway-Low Countries-France-Sealion40-Barbarossa-Kiev-Moscow41(minor)-Stalingrad-Kursk-Moscow43.
This way I have 11 scenarios to build up my core before heading out across the Atlantic, instead of 7 for the super-rush.
On the question of running out of time, I think people underestimate the number of needed artillery pieces. I'd say 7-8 is a good, healthy number (3 towed, 2 self-propelled, 2 Nebelwerfers, 1 STUG). Also, bring scouts.
Back in the day in PG (and later in PC as well) I lost too much time on things like capturing cities, diverting forces for minor objectives etc. You have to really focus and drive your forces forward all the time. Scouts are ideal for capping and killing of everything in your path.
And yes, the 6 movement of Panthers compared to 4 of Tiger II could make a difference between win and loss. My +1 movement heroes are reserved for Tiger IIs.
One more thing, I underestimated the importance of railroads. Now with 1.20 patch these even got better (or better to say, now they are useable).
When aiming for US, I always go the following path:
Poland-Norway-Low Countries-France-Sealion40-Barbarossa-Kiev-Moscow41(minor)-Stalingrad-Kursk-Moscow43.
This way I have 11 scenarios to build up my core before heading out across the Atlantic, instead of 7 for the super-rush.
On the question of running out of time, I think people underestimate the number of needed artillery pieces. I'd say 7-8 is a good, healthy number (3 towed, 2 self-propelled, 2 Nebelwerfers, 1 STUG). Also, bring scouts.
Back in the day in PG (and later in PC as well) I lost too much time on things like capturing cities, diverting forces for minor objectives etc. You have to really focus and drive your forces forward all the time. Scouts are ideal for capping and killing of everything in your path.
And yes, the 6 movement of Panthers compared to 4 of Tiger II could make a difference between win and loss. My +1 movement heroes are reserved for Tiger IIs.
One more thing, I underestimated the importance of railroads. Now with 1.20 patch these even got better (or better to say, now they are useable).
Re: Panzer Corps - US scenarios much more difficult?
Thanks for the tips guys!!! I was playing on a relatively easy level (so that I could get through the campaign with as few restarts as possible), and I think perhaps the main problem was this:
In general (no pun intended) I played each scenario very aggressively, trying to plow through the enemy and capture victory points as fast as possible. This is a habit from 4X games where aggression and risk taking are rewarded far more than patience and turtling. In each deployment stage I spent most of the prestige healing and overstrengthing my core units, and by the time I got to the US I was consistently failing to afford all the available core slots. (I think I still had about 10 slots free after I finished the US east coast deployment phase).
Another issue I had in the US was seeing some of the defenders' infantry slaughter my precious Maus tanks. Up until the US, infantry never really had a chance to dent my tanks. But I guess the US infantry had some killer tank attacking stats.
I really, really, wish that the stats for units would hover over them in a nice, easy-to-read box, instead of appearing somewhere on the right, where I never look. I know it's lame to blame a game's UI for our tactical errors, but sometimes I think Panzer Corps' adherence to a 20-year-old UI is holding it back from true greatness. With a few tweaks, Panzer Corps would be much easier to play. City names (and landmark names) would make the maps a lot friendlier, and unit hover info would make the scissors-paper-rock aspect much less headachy.
Sometime the UI reminds me of Dwarf Fortress, and that is a not a good thing! I wish the devs would take time to polish the UI before churning out more content. Grognards might disagree with me, and accuse me of "blaming the racket", but I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing this game would make information clearer.
(A little piece of information which might have been clearer was the fact that we don't always want decisive victories. When you are playing the game without reading campaign "spoilers", you are actively encouraged to obtain decisive victories each time. It seems a design flaw that in order to win the war you need to deliberately lose some of the battles. This, to me, is not only unintuitive, but unrealistic in terms of modeling real-life decisions. The game should make it clearer the pros and cons of a decisive victory, or, better yet, give you a choice of which scenario to play following a decisive victory. To me, that seems common sense. But again, the devs have a 20 year old precedent to follow. I just wish they hadn't followed it so closely.)
I think my only minor victory prior to the central US was the first attack on Moscow. I then did Kiev, and soon found myself attacking Moscow again, which I won. I don't remember which year it was.As it has already been mentioned it is imperative *not* to defeat the USSR in 1941.
In general (no pun intended) I played each scenario very aggressively, trying to plow through the enemy and capture victory points as fast as possible. This is a habit from 4X games where aggression and risk taking are rewarded far more than patience and turtling. In each deployment stage I spent most of the prestige healing and overstrengthing my core units, and by the time I got to the US I was consistently failing to afford all the available core slots. (I think I still had about 10 slots free after I finished the US east coast deployment phase).
Another issue I had in the US was seeing some of the defenders' infantry slaughter my precious Maus tanks. Up until the US, infantry never really had a chance to dent my tanks. But I guess the US infantry had some killer tank attacking stats.
I really, really, wish that the stats for units would hover over them in a nice, easy-to-read box, instead of appearing somewhere on the right, where I never look. I know it's lame to blame a game's UI for our tactical errors, but sometimes I think Panzer Corps' adherence to a 20-year-old UI is holding it back from true greatness. With a few tweaks, Panzer Corps would be much easier to play. City names (and landmark names) would make the maps a lot friendlier, and unit hover info would make the scissors-paper-rock aspect much less headachy.
Sometime the UI reminds me of Dwarf Fortress, and that is a not a good thing! I wish the devs would take time to polish the UI before churning out more content. Grognards might disagree with me, and accuse me of "blaming the racket", but I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing this game would make information clearer.
(A little piece of information which might have been clearer was the fact that we don't always want decisive victories. When you are playing the game without reading campaign "spoilers", you are actively encouraged to obtain decisive victories each time. It seems a design flaw that in order to win the war you need to deliberately lose some of the battles. This, to me, is not only unintuitive, but unrealistic in terms of modeling real-life decisions. The game should make it clearer the pros and cons of a decisive victory, or, better yet, give you a choice of which scenario to play following a decisive victory. To me, that seems common sense. But again, the devs have a 20 year old precedent to follow. I just wish they hadn't followed it so closely.)
Re: Panzer Corps - US scenarios much more difficult?
It was bothering me to have almost, but not quite, finished the main campaign, so I went ahead and loaded an old save game, from the end of US East.
For US Mid (and West) I used a different strategy for replacements. Instead of elite replacements, I used the free green replacements. I overstrengthed a couple of planes but left all the other core units at 10. I therefore had a lot of prestige to spent, so I bought more tanks and infantry, and ended deployment with 2,000 prestige in reserve.
I used the prestige to heal units liberally, always with green replacements rather than elite replacements. My units therefore lost XP each time they got hurt, but by healing them quickly, I let them fight again, which earned them more XP.
This strategy worked. I was able to finish US mid faster than before, and with almost all my core units intact.
US West wasn't exactly a breeze, but I did manage to win with a couple turns left. I made some tactical mistakes in the North East (cross the river too soon and got smashed by the enemy tanks), but with the larger core army than before, I was able to take the south and middle parts much faster. My north east wing stalled, never even making it across the mountains, but the middle army ended up capturing the north western victory point, and the southern army swept up the coast as planned.
I feel much better now that I've finally won the vanilla game. Now I'm ready to tackle Africa!
For US Mid (and West) I used a different strategy for replacements. Instead of elite replacements, I used the free green replacements. I overstrengthed a couple of planes but left all the other core units at 10. I therefore had a lot of prestige to spent, so I bought more tanks and infantry, and ended deployment with 2,000 prestige in reserve.
I used the prestige to heal units liberally, always with green replacements rather than elite replacements. My units therefore lost XP each time they got hurt, but by healing them quickly, I let them fight again, which earned them more XP.
This strategy worked. I was able to finish US mid faster than before, and with almost all my core units intact.
US West wasn't exactly a breeze, but I did manage to win with a couple turns left. I made some tactical mistakes in the North East (cross the river too soon and got smashed by the enemy tanks), but with the larger core army than before, I was able to take the south and middle parts much faster. My north east wing stalled, never even making it across the mountains, but the middle army ended up capturing the north western victory point, and the southern army swept up the coast as planned.
I feel much better now that I've finally won the vanilla game. Now I'm ready to tackle Africa!
Re: Panzer Corps - US scenarios much more difficult?
@tripecac
To be quite honest, the Northeastern US West is a counter-offensive by US forces, it's meant to be stopped at that river to prevent them from recapturing the victory hexes. Breaking through that counteroffensive does not lead to Seattle. Or at least not quickly.
I usually deploy an artillery and an infantry unit to help the 3 armored units that are already close to that location and perhaps you can add an anti-tank towed gun.
To be quite honest, the Northeastern US West is a counter-offensive by US forces, it's meant to be stopped at that river to prevent them from recapturing the victory hexes. Breaking through that counteroffensive does not lead to Seattle. Or at least not quickly.
I usually deploy an artillery and an infantry unit to help the 3 armored units that are already close to that location and perhaps you can add an anti-tank towed gun.
Re: Panzer Corps - US scenarios much more difficult?
Ah, so I played it right the first time... Setting up behind the river. Oh well, no harm no foul, I guess!
Re: Panzer Corps - US scenarios much more difficult?
Yeah, I found the 5-star special forces to be the stopping point for a few turns. you can deploy two rail
artillery, which with Gustav make three. great for breaking Salt lake and then LA.
artillery, which with Gustav make three. great for breaking Salt lake and then LA.