The Impressions of a Long-Time Panzer Corps Player

[monkspider]

Hey folks, some of you may remember me as being a long time regular on the Panzer Corps forum. I was a beta tester and I created the popular "captured units database". I am playing as Japan and have just beat the Java invasion, so I feel like I am far enough in the game to post some of my own impressions.

I think the naval combat in particular is fantastic. I love the interplay between all the units, the destroyers providing support fire and protecting your bigger ships, the cruisers providing AA, and of course the CVs and BBs have their roles. The devs really nailed the modeling of compelling naval combat.

The ground combat is quite good, but so far I don't feel like it has the interesting flow of combined-arms tactics that Panzer Corps did. I think the loss of defensive artillery fire hurts here. I do like that the AT guns provide support fire though, and that they are easier to move around compared to Panzer Corps. I don't like that you can't reinforce captured units, which makes them pretty pointless.The supply system reminds me of Unity of Command, which is a good thing. The system of deteriorating morale/efficiency is good too. Still though, for ground combat I would give Panzer Corps the nod.

The air combat seems like it is the most opague of the game systems. It seems like there are a lot of hidden and indecipherable rules governing how things like fighters and torpedo bombers work. I feel like I need more time to work out how much I like this system. I do like that planes have the number of turns they can stay in the air instead of a fuel number, and I do like that there is a more diverse amount of planes with different properties (carrier based vs land based, dogfighters vs interceptors). I think despite how inscrutable it is, it might have a slight advantage over Panzer Corps' fairly simplistic and excessively lethal air combat.

One thing I feel that the game can use some work on is providing flavor, like being able to tell the names of cities you capture and providing names to your ships. The mission briefings lack the epic feeling that Panzer Corps provides, and it is disappointing that there is no post-mission briefing based on how well you did.

Overall, it is a great game, and I recommend it to all Panzer Corps fans, or fans of strategy games in general.

[Alexkfabian]

Interesting comments you add here, Monkspider.
I've also bought this game on the day it got released and I'm very satisfied with it. I also recommend it 100%.
I would like to join in requesting a little bit more flavour too (location names on the map and voice acting on briefings).

[zakblood]

should have signed up to the beta boys, but it's not too late as developers add an reads all and you never know what may get changed in the future

[monkspider]

A couple other things I forgot to mention:
I really like the specialization system. Panzer Corps could really use something similar. It is a great idea, and an example of flavor done right.
I miss the overstrength system but I suppose I can accept its demise.
One actually pretty big thing I forgot to mention, I feel like the missions for the most part take too long. I like that the turn counts are pretty generous, the last thing I would want in this game are "beat the clock" type scenarios, but I can generally beat a mission or two in a single play session of Panzer Corps or Unity of Command but so far missions in Order of Battle have been two or three play session affairs. Part of this may be due to the bug that is making the AI have such long turns, so hopefully this will improve in the future, but I think they will probably still be longer than I would consider ideal.

One other comment, even though Panzer Corps still holds the spot for top wargame for me, I think Order of Battle is a much stronger product than Panzer Corps vanilla was, and I think that with patches/expansions/DLC, Order of Battle might yet rise to the lofty heights of Panzer Corps.

[adherbal]

Thanks for the impressions monkspider. It's always useful to get well arguemented feedback on the game's strengths and weaknesses.

[monkspider]

Thanks adherbal, I am glad it was a day one purchase for me, and I am very excited for the future of the franchise!

One other thing I forgot to mention that I really like is that you use a point system for deployment, with separate point pools for land, sea and air. The fact that weaker units take up less command points makes a lot more cores strategically viable. Of course, there are players like me who would use historically accurate cores in Panzer Corps just for their own sake, but most players would use all Tigers/Panthers/ME-262s. Your system will make that not always the ideal choice.

[Pegon]

I agree on most of what you say Monkspider, i even find the aircombat system superior due to the turn based refuel. However, what makes this game better than PG and PC, is the supply/fatigue/deployment point system, that i find to be superior. I do hope that experienced troops will have a marked improvement in withstandind fatigue, as this is to be expected.
The most anoying thing for me so far is that i am not able to hoover over a square to se what kind of terrain it represents. Time after time i have moved a tank into terrain more suitable for infantry. Combined with the inability to regret my move, this will be a source for endless fustration.
And last, while i uderstand the reason for not giving me the ability to resuply captured equipment, i still want this option.

[monkspider]

Okay, a couple more things, sorry but they keep coming to me.

I forgot to mention one of my absolute favorite things, the feeling of consequence the game has. In fact, it might be the game's most revolutionary feature. I love that the effects of whether or not you met secondary objectives is felt far down the line. It really makes your strategic decisions feel like they carry real weight, and that you are actually fighting a real war, and not just a progression of scenarios. The next iteration of Panzer Corps would do well to copy this feature.

I also love the living battlefield. It is amazing to see ship graveyards accumulate on the ocean floor or the aftermath of bloody land battles.

And, to balance things out a bit, one more thing I don't like. The experience system seems much more bland and less meaningful than in Panzer Corps. The unique heros you would get would make your units in Panzer Corps a little bit unique from each other, and make you feel more attached to them. The same goes for the little medals you would get from time to time. You could also keep track of the unit history and see a history of the battles it participated in over the years, and it really made you feel like you and your little Panzer truppen have been on a real journey together. I wish Order of Battle could implement something similar. It wouldn't be hard honestly to even improve on this system, since it was really pretty bare bones. Imagine if you could get unique medals based on special achievements, like defeating a heavy tank with an infantry unit will get it a special medal. Maybe you could even have some choice in the bonuses that heroes grant you. Even with its current limitations, this system still added a lot to the game. The total absence of something comparable is fairly jarring.

[rezaf]

I also love the living battlefield. It is amazing to see ship graveyards accumulate on the ocean floor or the aftermath of bloody land battles.

Totally agree, though it's sad that wreckages are not saved. In the Midway scenario as Japan I amassed the most amazing debris field, but when I had to reload it was all gone.
In fact, I strongly suspect all the wreckages broke the game, as trying to load the save got me stuck on the loading screen.
Thankfully, killing the process and relaunching OOB and THEN loading the save fixed the issue.

And, to balance things out a bit, one more thing I don't like. The experience system seems much more bland and less meaningful than in Panzer Corps.

+1 indeed.
XP gain is too slow and it's effects are comparatively neglible. One could argue the overstrength in PG/PzC made XP overpowered, but the much more complex ruleset of OOB would allow for many moderately powerful advantages gained from XP - yet the implementation couldn't be more bland. Feels like almost no thought went into this part of the game.
And don't get me started on the weaksauce heroes. The best of the standard heroes in PzC were game changers, like the one sthat granted range or movement speed to artillery. Once again, OOB has systems that would allow for a variety of meaningul stuff heroes could contribute to. How about an admiral that would allow one more plane to fit on a carrier? Or a general that provided a special ability to all units in the vincinity? An air commander that increased the range of a bombers torpedo ability by one hex? The possibilities are endless.
Instead, it feels as if there was a meeting asking the question: A: What's the most basic and boring bonus we could let our heroes give? B: I guess we could go with +1 attack or something. A: Brilliant. Meeting closed, let's all go play softball.
_____
rezaf

[Pegon]

While i agree with what you say, i think you are a bit critical. While there still are rough edges, the core of the game is still a jewel. With work and time i think this game has what it takes to set a benchmark for PG clones.

[apec]

The experience system seems much more bland and less meaningful than in Panzer Corps.

100% Agree.
At least for ground units there is no evident benefit on combat results. However I cannot exclude more suble effects on efficiency etc.
Anyway, the developers did a great job with the combat mechanics and I acknowledge that the new system may require some tweaks before it gets a final shape.

For the developers: will it be possible to get the formula behind the combat results? I appreciate that this could be still work in progress and perhaps you cannot/do not want to show now, anyway thank you for any hint you can share

[Rikolus]

Very interesting Post.

I too am longtime P/C player, with over 50 multi-player battles completed in addition to the campaigns.
In general I find PACIFIC quite an enjoyable game that mostly improves on the winning formula of Panzer Corps and it's predecessor Panzer General.

However, here are a few items that bother me:
First and foremost, in P/C one can use Aircraft to scout for units hidden in citys.... end a turn on a city and a previously invisible unit is identified. This is logical, historic and gives aircraft another purpose, another choice of use, and more choices is always better. It irks me that I can end a plane on a town, see nothing, go to move a unit into town, and suddenly an enemy unit appears in town, ambushing my unit. PLEASE, Artisticrats, consider changing that!!!

I also find it odd that one cannot access important information about enemy units. If there is an enemy Artillery, I can't tell how many hexes it can shoot for, because I don't get that information! In P/C, one can get all the info on an enemy in a manner identical to the info available about a friendly.

In a similar vein, I wish the citys had their names when you run over them, like P/C. In several scenarios, your goals include taking important citys or locations by a certain turn number, but in some cases I'm like 'so where the hell is this city??' I am really surprised that something as important and obvious as a Victory Condition would be ambiguous. In real life, commanders would have no question at all as to location of towns, bridges and other objectives. Hopefully this will get changed in the near future.

Despite small gripes, on balance, a very impressive piece of work.

[Erik2]

I think if a air unit stayed a whole turn in one spot, it should have a good chance of spotting a land unit in the same location.
Select a friendly unit and put the mouse cursor over an enemy unit. You should see the enemy range.

[Falke_MatrixForum]

I also find it odd that one cannot access important information about enemy units. If there is an enemy Artillery, I can't tell how many hexes it can shoot for, because I don't get that information! In P/C, one can get all the info on an enemy in a manner identical to the info available about a friendly.

I agree in General with Information missing regarding enemy Units. Your example is not good though, place the mouse over the enemy art unit and then the range is shown just like for your own,although the ring is somewhat faint.

[bebro]

First and foremost, in P/C one can use Aircraft to scout for units hidden in citys.... end a turn on a city and a previously invisible unit is identified. This is logical, historic and gives aircraft another purpose, another choice of use, and more choices is always better. It irks me that I can end a plane on a town, see nothing, go to move a unit into town, and suddenly an enemy unit appears in town, ambushing my unit. PLEASE, Artisticrats, consider changing that!!!

Personally I would keep it in general, since I imagine cities would indeed allow to set ambushes quite well, but give the player at least some opportunities to scan for these unis either by:

1. Using dedicated recon units that would be able to spot those units - would spice up recon a bit IMO.
2. Introducing a leader trait that would allow to spot them, so the (ground) unit having this leader attached could see them too, regardless of class

This is just throwing ideas around, since I'm not the one who has to implement this I can't say whether this is feasible.

[Rikolus]

Thanks guys, I did not realize I could get enemy range by running mouse over the enemy unit. Helpful to know....

Bebro, I appreciate your explanation about units hidden in citys, but as a student of military history (probably 20 books on modern warfare), on THIS scale, you could not 'hide' a significant enemy force from virtually any Air unit, except perhaps in extreme weather conditions, and then for only a short time.

[gunnergoz]

Thanks guys, I did not realize I could get enemy range by running mouse over the enemy unit. Helpful to know....

Bebro, I appreciate your explanation about units hidden in citys, but as a student of military history (probably 20 books on modern warfare), on THIS scale, you could not 'hide' a significant enemy force from virtually any Air unit, except perhaps in extreme weather conditions, and then for only a short time.

Since so many of the Pacific war ground units are infantry, it would not be impossible to effectively camouflage their presence in a major urban/jungle/rough terrain area, given the recon technology available back in WW2. What often happened, though, was that the presence of enemy troops was known after a recon operation, but their numbers were not always certain. This led to some serious underestimations of enemy strength, discovered only once ground contact was established. This was a chronic problem in the Pacific as the US often underestimated enemy troop strength levels prior to launching an operation.

I would prefer to see a successful air recon op identify an enemy unit with a vague marker (eg like a "? symbol") in the spotted hex, without details of its size, condition or possibly even nature, other than perhaps foot-mobile or motorized/tracked. This would require caution approaching an urban/jungle/rough terrain area, which was how they actually did it in wartime, less they get an unpleasant surprise.

[apec]

Thanks guys, I did not realize I could get enemy range by running mouse over the enemy unit. Helpful to know....

Bebro, I appreciate your explanation about units hidden in citys, but as a student of military history (probably 20 books on modern warfare), on THIS scale, you could not 'hide' a significant enemy force from virtually any Air unit, except perhaps in extreme weather conditions, and then for only a short time.

Since so many of the Pacific war ground units are infantry, it would not be impossible to effectively camouflage their presence in a major urban/jungle/rough terrain area, given the recon technology available back in WW2. What often happened, though, was that the presence of enemy troops was known after a recon operation, but their numbers were not always certain. This led to some serious underestimations of enemy strength, discovered only once ground contact was established. This was a chronic problem in the Pacific as the US often underestimated enemy troop strength levels prior to launching an operation.

I would prefer to see a successful air recon op identify an enemy unit with a vague marker (eg like a "? symbol") in the spotted hex, without details of its size, condition or possibly even nature, other than perhaps foot-mobile or motorized/tracked. This would require caution approaching an urban/jungle/rough terrain area, which was how they actually did it in wartime, less they get an unpleasant surprise.

I would agree with this. There are many cases in WW2 in which aerial recon failed to spot even large concentration of troops or failed to spot the main offensive drive.

[Rikolus]

Yeah, gunner, have to admit, that is an excellent suggestion....

[Erik2]

The land recon could function with ie a helmet symbol similar to the air/naval symbols we already have for non-indentified units.