A question on the "tankiness" of AK and AC

[the_iron_duke]

Hi, I played the main Panzer Corps game and the first Grand Campaign expansion a while ago and am thinking of getting back into the game, perhaps by buying Afrika Korps or Allied Corps.

Now, I'm inclined towards historical accuracy and prefer a more realistic combined arms approach than the big tank-heavy battles which Panzer Corps favours from my experience of playing it. For example, a real Panzer corps was about 1/3 tanks and 2/3 motorized/mechanized infantry (not counting auxiliary units). I tried using a historical approach with the composition of my army while playing the game but found I was coming up against too many enemy tanks for this to be an effective course of action.

So, my question is whether Afrika Korps and Allied Corps continue with the emphasis being strongly on tank battles or whether they are more balanced and realistic with the make-up of the enemy forces encountered. The answer could affect which one I buy and also how I approach playing the game - in a historical way with a realistic army balance or just accepting it as it is and fielding loads of tanks.

Thanks in advance.

[Kalostaphor]

Heres my opinion from watching videos of playing and watching all the 3 panzer corps expansions,

The afrika korps campaign is HEAVILY centered on you getting a giant tank army if you want to get through the desert and all the way to India, the only real roadblocks you will meet that will stop your advance is minefields, but other then that the north africa campaign is just a giant desert, there are a few missions which will hurt you later on if you dont have enough infantry/mechanized (aka malta) but it should be relatively easy to 'abuse' the mobile self propelled artillery gun + tank bash to destroy fortifications and city defenders. Once you start getting 300-500 experience for your panzers and self propelled guns its just a easy whack-a-mole all the way to the end of the campaign (especially if you overbuff your units to 15 strength and upgrade them to the latest panzers).

I found in allied corps that although tanks are good early on when fighting the italians and vichy france that they are less of a priority to focus on then in afrika and the original panzer corps. Instead your real focus will be to maximize the strength of your air force, tank destroyers, and infantry. This becomes especially true when you are fighting far superior german armor with tanks like the sherman and churchill. You will also find tanks to be much more of a hassle to use in Italy, the bocage country side and towns of france in D-day, operation market garden (with all the bridges and stuff), and on the road to berlin. Although you will sooner or later come up with the problem of "just spam the latest allied tanks with 500 xp and over strengthened to the max" this will only happen in the last few campaign missions (and it really doesnt matter how many tanks you use to fight in west berlin with all those city towns to capture).

I think the one thing that stopped me from spamming so much tanks is by reducing the amount of prestige I earned in games (or just using rommel difficulty). Once you lower your prestige gain to around 50% rather than the normal 100% you will find it impossible to sustain a giant tank army and keep it over strengthened and supplied well, not to mention the cost of elite replacements too. This is easily doable with the custom difficulty settings, and I find it to be a much more 'realistic' experience for me to have to use cheap AT guns and normal US/British infantry in order to supplement my weaker flanks to have 'stop gaps' from where my enemy cant push on me. So I would say allied corps would be your thing if you want less focus on tanks and more focus on motorized/mechanized infantry units.

[the_iron_duke]

Thanks for the detailed response and suggestions, Gaurav251. It seems Allied Corps would be more to my liking. What about the enemy themselves in Allied Corps, though - are they very tank-heavy in composition?

[Tarrak]

I personally think the troop mixture in Allied Corps is quite good. Early you have to deal mostly with Italian Armor and they are quite weak anyway. When the German appear in the desert you face for a while a bit tank heavy opposition but as soon you move to Europe due to the different terrain the amount of tanks goes down. An appearing Panther or Tiger is still a major source of pain but it's more a single appearance then a constant spam. It certainly doesn't feel like in the GC on the eastern front where you get swamped by a constant stream of T-34s, ISs and SUs.

When it comes to the setup of your own forces it's up to your preference withing certain limits. My own core towards the end of the campaign was a bit tank heavy but not to bad. In the V1-Sites mission for example i used a following core: 2 x Engineer 43, 2 x HW infantry 43, 1 x SE SAS, 6 x Churchill Mk.IV, 1 x Sherman Firefly, 1 x Crocodile, 2 x Challenger, 3 x 7.2 inch guns, 2 x M7 priest, 2 x M12 GMC, 1 x Calliope, 2 x SE Meteor, 2 x P-47D Thunderbolt, 1 x Beaufighter Mk.IF, 1 x Wellington Mk.X, 1 x Mosquito Mk.VIS2, 1 x B17G Flying Fortress. I guess you could easily replace 2 or 3 of the tanks with infantry or fighters without any harm.

[the_iron_duke]

Looks like I'm sold on Allied Corps then, and I'll try and play it in a realistic/historical combined arms manner. I want to feel a frisson of trepidation when my infantry, towed AT guns and puny tanks come across a lone Tiger from time-to-time, rather than facing waves of tank hordes and experiencing something similar to the writer Hugo Dyson's response when listening to a reading of Tolkein's Lord of the Rings: "Oh, no! Not another f***ing elf!".

Incidentally, this was my attempt to create a historically accurate WWII Panzer corps, made up of two Panzer divisions with independent supporting battalions and using the most mass-produced vehicles/aircraft of the war:

[Note: for the sake of completeness, I've added additional details below to my original post, which appear in italics]

=>Panzer Division 1

2-3 Tanks (historically, later in the war it was fixed at two, and I go for two from the start. Earlier in the war, one battalion, equal to one game unit, in each division would be anti-armour Panzer IIIs and the other anti-infantry Panzer IVs, although these roles reversed as the war progressed. Later in the war, there would be one battalion of Panzer IVs and one of Panzer V Panthers in each division, so in the game the Panzer IIIs can be upgraded to Panthers when they become available)

1 Panzergrenadier (w/ SdKfz 251/1 half-track)
3 Wehrmacht Infantry (w/ Opel Blitz truck)

2 Towed artillery (w/ Opel Blitz truck) - 15 cm sFH 18
1 Self-propelled artillery - Sturmpanzer I/Wespe/Hummel series

1 Recon - SdKfz 232 8Rad or SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
1 Anti-Tank - StuG III
1 Anti-Air - 8.8 cm FlaK 36 (w/ SdKfz 7 half-track)
1 Pioneer - Pioniere (w/ SdKfz 251/1 half-track)

=>Panzer Division 2 (same as 1)

=>Independent battalions:

1 Mountain troop - Gebirgsjager
1 Paratrooper - Fallschirmjager
1 Bridge pioneers - Bruckenpioniere (w/ Opel Blitz truck)

1 independent Heavy-tank - Tiger I or Tiger II
1 corps-level heavy artillery - 21 cm Mrs 18 (w/ Opel Blitz truck)
1 independent Nebelwerfer artillery - Nblwf units (w/ Opel Blitz truck) or Panzerwerfer 42

=>Aircraft:

1-2 Fighter - Messerschmitt Bf 109 (Focke-Wulf Fw 190 for second)
1 Tactical bomber - Focke-Wulf Fw 190 or Junkers Ju 87
1 Strategic bomber - Junkers Ju 88 or Heinkel 111/177

[Kamerer]

Just play on rommel, as mentioned (Montgomery in AC) and you'll not have the problem of "too many tanks."

Early on in AK, I would get to the final scenario 8 units down - meaning I had 8 unit slots empty, no prestige, and most of my units at 11 strength max, starting British India. Even later, squeezing all I can out of the game, i still can't fill all the slots AND have overstrengthed units. DV is still possible, but you have to work. You have to rely on air, artillery, and other arms heavily in AK if you used the advanced levels.

[brettz123]

Its certainly called Panzer Corps for a reason!

I would tell you that Allied Corps and Afrika Corps are pretty much going to be the same experience with the number of tanks you want. Certainly the "better" you are at the game the fewer tanks you can get away with.

[the_iron_duke]

Its certainly called Panzer Corps for a reason!

As I wrote earlier, a real Panzer Corps was one third tanks, two-thirds motorised/mechanized infantry and that's not counting supporting units like divisional artillery, anti-tank, anti-air, recon, pioneer/engineers, corps-level artillery. British armoured divisions (by the later war) had three armoured regiments and four motorised infantry battalions (all equivalent to one unit each in the game) along with the supporting units. United States armored divisions had three armored and three infantry battalions along with the supporting units.

[brettz123]

Its certainly called Panzer Corps for a reason!

As I wrote earlier, a real Panzer Corps was one third tanks, two-thirds motorised/mechanized infantry and that's not counting supporting units like divisional artillery, anti-tank, anti-air, recon, pioneer/engineers, corps-level artillery. British armoured divisions (by the later war) had three armoured regiments and four motorised infantry battalions (all equivalent to one unit each in the game) along with the supporting units. United States armored divisions had three armored and three infantry battalions along with the supporting units.

Uhhhh seriously try and take a joke next time...... you can obviously see the smiley face at the end of the sentence since you quoted it.......

[the_iron_duke]

Uhhhh seriously try and take a joke next time...... you can obviously see the smiley face at the end of the sentence since you quoted it.......

I missed the humour and interpreted it as you saying that as the game was called "Panzer Corps" that I should expect that it should be all about tanks and was thus pointing out that if it was called "Panzer Corps" then one might more reasonably expect it to be about a historical entity called a "Panzer Corps" (Panzerkorps) which wasn't all about tanks. My apologies for offending you.

[Kamerer]

Uhhhh seriously try and take a joke next time...... you can obviously see the smiley face at the end of the sentence since you quoted it.......

I missed the humour and interpreted it as you saying that as the game was called "Panzer Corps" that I should expect that it should be all about tanks and was thus pointing out that if it was called "Panzer Corps" then one might more reasonably expect it to be about a historical entity called a "Panzer Corps" (Panzerkorps) which wasn't all about tanks. My apologies for offending you.

It's a game. It's not a "historical simulation." And it is indeed an effective combined-arms game and exercise.

[borsook79]

Actually minefields change a lot in AK, it is simply not possibly to go through some of the missions with only tanks, you will need at least some Pioneers. Not the same as having a balanced unit proportions, but at least it prevents you from going 100% tanks.

[the_iron_duke]

I've been re-doing the main Panzer Corps game. I had previously got a few scenarios in when the Grand Campaign came out and so I switched to that.

I've been using historical Panzerkorps organisation and unit balance (on Field Marshal difficulty). That means I've only got six tanks - 2 Panzer IVs and 2 Panthers (in the Panzer divisions) and 2 additional attached independent King Tiger battalions (one regular and one SE). There's a couple of Stug III tracked AT guns also. It's been working well so far but I've just started Bagration so things may change as the tank notch has suddenly ratcheted up.

The Grand Campaign (from what I played of it) was more "tanky" than the main game, if my memory is serving me correctly.

(Also, I've updated my earlier post on what I consider to be a realistic, historical Panzer Corps in case anyone's interested).

[the_iron_duke]

Ye gods! Bagration is more "tanky" than a triple-decker tank sandwich with a side serving of tank fries in a reinforced fish tank inhabited by a heavily-armoured sturgeon called "Mr Panzer". Needless to say, I'm getting annihilated.

[Longasc]

The thing about Bagration is, it's hard no matter what you do and that every medium Panzer IV and StuG is outclassed by the Russian T-34/85, IS-2 and assault guns.
Only your very best tanks can make a stand, backed up in favorable defensive positions by Infantry placed in close terrain and backed up by artillery.

You can do it with a more historical core, but there are unfortunately quite some scenarios where the best and most expensive in slot approach usually works better.

Edit: If you mix your tanks with a few weaker tanks, you can control where the enemy will attack. That's quite playing the mechanics of the AI, but even if Panzer Corps has a historical core and portrays units as far as possible quit accurate, it's still a game in the end and the game mechanics rear their head in such situations.

[the_iron_duke]

I'm going to try the scenario again and deploy deeper, allowing the infantry more time to get entrenched in favourable terrains.

I know that at the end of the day "it's just a game" but great attention has been paid to historical accuracy in other areas of the game that for a grognard like myself it's disappointing that it can be completely unhistorical in terms of the balance of units deployed. As I've written elsewhere, chess doesn't get more exciting if you replace all the pawns with queens.

I think that if I had designed the game I would have imposed limits on how many of each unit type could be deployed (like with the Digital Army Generator in Field of Glory) so as one grows one's core it's more balanced and historical. The composition of the enemy would, of course, be historically balanced too. I don't think this would have made the game any less exciting - in fact, I feel it would probably have made it more so as there would be more tactical deliberation in considering how to best utilise one's combined arms tool-kit.

[Kamerer]

I think that if I had designed the game I would have imposed limits on how many of each unit type could be deployed (like with the Digital Army Generator in Field of Glory) so as one grows one's core it's more balanced and historical.

If you want that, just add deducter's mod pack and you can achieve it. He has efficiently "rationed" units by inducing higher per-unit costs. Not a problem, just add the mod. He put an exceptional amount of thought, effort, and testing into it and you can just unzip it and have that effect within the game.

However, if you can't get a DV at Bagration playing from '39 forward on Rommel settings, I suggest you wait a bit to add that mod or it might get too discouraging.

[the_iron_duke]

If you want that, just add deducter's mod pack and you can achieve it.

I can't find the mod so I can't comment on the mechanics of that method. I would have had an in-game page for one's core units where there would be a number of slots available for each unit category, say 0-8 tanks, 0-6 aircraft and so on. It would also be a handy way to keep track of one's core units and one would be able to click on an empty slot and purchase units that way.

Can one create scenarios for multiplayer? If so, I might be interested in creating games with balanced historical army organisation. If so, can it be done where the initial units are pre-determined but one can deploy them on the battlefield where one chooses? Also, is there a way of setting the game up so one wouldn't be able to buy additional units and would have to play with what one starts with?

[the_iron_duke]

If you want that, just add deducter's mod pack and you can achieve it.

Found it.

Looks interesting...

I've begun work on my multiplayer scenario and have opened a relevant thread in the scenario design section.

[shawkhan]

Bagration is often referred to as the 'Destruction of Army Group Centre'. If you play this one with an historical core you will get historical results i.e., a real slaughter. I have noticed that the Russian forces become more and more ahistorical from 1944 on, with ISIs and Kv-85s everywhere when in reality, T34s proliferated, with only a couple battalions of the real heavies on hand. It is a shame that one is forced to upgrade in order to effectively compete with the Russian Supertroopers. Even in 1945 the Russians were still using some Sherman tanks in their assault on Berlin for example.