OOB vs Panzer Corps

[Igorputski]

I had actually tried OOB before I ever tried Panzer Corps, but with the new DLC I figured I would take a look at Panzer Corps.

I was a long time player of Panzer General back when it was new and shiny. many many hours I put into that.

Panzer corps is better than Panzer General was, by a good margin IMO.

but...

OOB is far better than either.

not just the graphics, mind, but the mechanics are better, and the AI is better. the maps are more interesting as well.

example of mechanics that are better: how attacking the same target with multiple aircraft works for example. I can attack the same target with up to 7 aircraft in OOB. which makes perfect sense, as it's not like they get in each other's way.

supply lines... a bit touchy in OOB, but they make sense and add a whole different layer of gameplay that really isn't in the Panzer games in the same way.

the AI in the panzer games was incredibly simple, rarely taking advantage of bad moves by the player, unless you ran your unit into a river. the AI in OOB has amazed me sometimes with the ability to try and outmaneuver the player.

OOB... it's just... better.

thanks for making it.

No just no the AI is not better. It sits and waits for triggers when it could be helping the front or the flank. It leaves 1pt units to escape and puts its own units in danger when low on hit points and stops in river hexes all too often. So, NO, the AI is not better than Panzer General or Panzer Corp.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I've modded both games enough to have figured out where the AI is good and where it is rubbish (I haven't released any OOB mods yet though - they sit on my hard drive still)

PzC AI is quite bad on a tactical scale - always attacking with certain units and in certain order. On a larger scale, it is quite decent, being able to find objectives and stuff without specific orders. So a large map with a blob of AI stuff set to "attacker" will end up being quite a good one.

OOB AI on the other hand needs to be led by the nose. If it sees some stuff, it will do quite well for dealing with them - but it cannot do anything more than just beat you on a tactical level. If you try to cut it off, it will let you (while PzC would find your stuff and at least try to kill it). I don't see any strategic planning at all in OOB.

So depending on situation, both games have better - and worse - AI.

- BNC

[Sourdust]

I wish there was a game that combined the best features of both games, and eliminated the annoying stuff!

OOB

good: -AT as a supporting unit
- deeper naval game
- CP system is more nuanced and better than PC's terrible "soft cap" solution for balancing force builds. A german OOB campaign could have Tiger tanks costing 6 CP and Hetzers costing 2 CP, forcing the player to decide between 3 hetzers and a tiger, rather than the current model of a tiger or a hetzer to fill a scarce core slot
- Attacks on fortified positions take longer, and the attacker will take casualties in most cases. Again unlike in PC, where you could fully suppress even a solidly entrenched defender and attack with impunity, destroying the enemy in 1 or 2 attack using elite pioneers or whatever. In OOB, at attack on entrenched troops in a city will take multiple turns, and will hurt/degrade the attackers, as it should.
- Love the efficiency dynamic
- good that units can't be completely rebuilt in a single turn of R&R
- air movement much improved, ditto recon dynamics
- supply system really good, adds a needed dimension of depth missing in PC

bad:
- I am baffled that artillery can't be used defensively, this is nearly a game-breaker for me. IN real life, a defensive line backed up by artillery was hugely more effective and costly than unsupported infantry trying to defend. But in OOB, I can march three Japanese units up to a Chinese city, launch three successive attacks...and the Chinese artillery sitting right behind the city does nothing at all. It just feels all wrong.
- no combat detail screen, where I can actually see how the mechanics played out. On the whole, the mechanics of combat are too opaque. I like to see the detail and know how a game works.
- experience seems to have too little impact on combat
- poor graphics performance
- no surrender mechanic, even for troops totally surrounded and at 0 efficiency
- some strange quirks like completely ineffective submarines
- campaigns too linear

PC

good
- well, there's so much that is good! Great campaign and scenario design - scenario and unit design are easy enough that there is a really rich set of both official and mod campaigns and scenarios. I suspect this is harder in OOB, simply because 3D graphics.
- clear mechanics, almost all of which are transparent (aside from Rate of Fire and soft cap and a few other hidden elements.)
- battles play relatively quickly, high degree of suspense and risk/reward
- deeply branching campaigns with dozens of scenarios and options

bad
- if artillery is too weak in OOB because can't be used defensively, artillery is arguably too strong in PC, where defenders can be totally suppressed with relative ease.
- AT not a supporting unit
- still not enough interesting trade-offs in core force composition. Almost always your core should be completely upgraded to top-of-the-line equipment, and there's too little incentive to buy or keep cheaper units

[Rood]

defensive artillery / artillery as a supporting unit like AT would be a good addition to OoB.

I play both games and love them both. OoB has a very good engine and I can't wait to see grand campaign in the ETO for OoB (no, still not tired of the eastern front ).

[benzidrine]

Panzer Corps is far better IMO.

Artillery is worthless in this game and that is game breaking to me. Especially since it leads to the game being more boring than other comparable games because one of the main tactical decisions (how to use artillery) is entirely missing.

[Mojko]

I don't think you actually know how to use the artillery in this game. It's very different from Panzer Korps, but artillery is very powerful here as well. In fact it was so powerful it got nerfed in recent patch. What does artillery do for you in this game? Here's the list:

- huge efficiency hits with long range (remember, this game is mostly about efficiency, unlike PzK efficiency is not recovered at the end of the turn (or after an attack))
- artillery does not lose efficiency while attacking (you can keep shelling the enemy all day long)

This allows you to:

- take on much stronger units (like KV-1 tank in Winter war campaign, because unit stats do not matter if the efficiency is low enough)
- keep enemy units from recovering efficiency (if you keep hitting them, they will never recover, this is also why Heavy infantry is now viable, because they have Artillery attack as well)