What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

[AAntares]

It's nice to see Panzer Corps Multiplayer legends in this topic. Just a quick note, we do take MP seriously, and we do have plans to expand it in the coming months. Things like tournaments, ranked games and friend/foe lists are in these plans. Also, we'll never be able to replicate all functionality from things like Discord inside the game, but we are going to place a link to join game's Discord server straight into MP UI.

Very interested about MP news, quick question (I don't have the game yet), Can you play the campaign in MP (something like several scenarios for a final outcome) or just a single scenario?

[Dorky8]

All MP scenarios are single (no campaigns) scenarios, they are "balanced", you can pick sides and you can "join" to watch your opponents turn. The MP scenarios are 1) Competitive, 2) Co-op, 3) Random.

There are 8 Competitive MP scenarios 3 are historical, 4 fictional and 1- (4 player). Unless you know all 4 players you'll never complete a 4 player scenario. There is enough content here to start but more (fairly quickly) will need to be added to keep interest IMO. I play primarily competitive scenarios.

I haven't had success with the Co-op scenarios. This could be me.

The Random scenarios you can pick map size, map type, side, number of opponents & difficulty. The random maps certainly add content but I find them a little cookie cutter. I prefer historical scenarios.

There are lot of MP players never a problem getting a game. Opponent reliability is ok. I have found many reliable knowledgeable opponents but probably 1/2 my opponents don't play more than a couple tuns and the game goes dormant.

In PC1 the best MP scenarios were custom scenarios written by players. Hopefully PC2 will be pro active with "Community Content" and allow players to easily incorporate them into MP.

I think more MP content could be quickly easily added by taking the campaign (AI) scenarios and balancing them.

[AAntares]

Thanks for the detailed answer!

[Dorky8]

LOCK DOWN BLUES

[AAntares]

LOCK DOWN BLUES

So true!!!

Btw, I just bought PC2

Where can I find opponents to play with? After my previous SP run of course.

[SineMora]

A few reflections as a reasonable experienced PzC1 player (though new to the forums):

The Good:
Turn Limit: On Genralissimus with Guderian selected I feel the pressure to advance, but not that it's downright impossible. A good spot.
Core slot costs -- this is the single best design choice, as it actually forces you to think of the composition of your force.
Tethered aircraft -- generally good. Control of airfields is more important (especially with the initiative bonus). I was never a great fan of the godlike tactical bombers in PzC1. Paratroopers... gamey as always. There was a reason we banned their use in Hearts of Iron 3 MP games. However, something should be done about distance calculations, because right now it's dumb luck if your aircraft has the range to hit a target far away -- it depends on which side of the airfield it returns to.
Suppression -- making it last the entire turn (and longer if encircled) makes it far more useful, especially with the shift to more realistic artillery that doesn't outright murder everything.
Artillery -- now properly suppresses enemies instead of killing everything in sight. Enemies have to be dug out the hard way from urban hexes; no more Wurfrahmen 40 obliterating entire stacks.
AA/AT/Recons etc -- units that were effectively pointless in PzC1 are now fantastic additions to your force (well, AA might be debatable). A clear improvement over artillery/bombers/heavy tanks.
General traits -- needs rebalancing, but they provide interesting ways to customize the way you play.
Supply -- works well as designed. PzC always had more of a war-themed boardgame feel than simulator, so it doesn't really need an elaborate logistics model. It combines nicely with the new encirclement mechanic, but I think units should have to use their action or at least sacrifice some movement points to regain full supplies unless they are connected to a depot through a road or similar, because getting full supplies anywhere on the map as long as you aren't blockaded is a little too simplistic for my tastes. I imagine the MP community is raging about recons roaming behind enemy lines, but that is fortunately not my problem.
Towed units/motorised infantry deploying -- fantastic change. Some might feel it makes towed units in particular too mobile, but they still cannot shoot after moving, and the way they worked in PzC1 made them very unattractive. If you need artillery support for a deep, surgical strike you still need self-propelled units, but towed artillery is in a great spot now.

The Bad:
Heroes -- I'm not oppossed to heroes per se as a way to personify your force, but they are so overtuned it's unreal. Please reconsider the nonsense with Rapid Fire, Double Attack, No Retaliation, 0 Slots and similarly ridiculous abilities. I find playing w/o heroes is the only way to go right now, and that is a disappointment.
Scenario design -- whilst I will happily concede that the campaign is superior to the original PzC1 Wehrmacht one, I find many of the scenarios to be disappointing in their design -- the US ones are frankly horrible. I might just be spoiled by Africa Korps and the Grand Campaign from PzC1, but those scenarios were superior. The stand-alone ones are lovely, though, the Gothic Line being my favourite.
Debriefings -- literally nothing. In fact, beating the game throws you back to the main menu. It's not too much to ask for some flavour debriefings detailing what happened after the battle and the impact it'll have -- it's not a lot of work, provides immersion and is helpful for players who are not WW2 buffs (they do exist).
Disembarking -- what is with the full movement allocation with no suppression on paratroopers and amphibious landings? It makes it utterly trivial to secure a beachhead and nigh impossible for a defender to throw them back despite it being the exact opposite in reality. I suspect this is another horrible MP oriented design.
Infantry -- entrenchment is king, and engineers not only ignore it but have a fantastic close defence. Whilst this makes engineers great, it also makes other infantry largely irrelevant outside of very specific circumstances. It feels wrong to consider Wehr as nothing more than a cheap bullet absorber. Mountaineers often get outperformed by engineers because they lack their close defence and grenadiers are pointless as they are only superior in open terrain, and you don't ever want expensive mechanized infantry fighting in the open. Paratroopers have a decent niche but feel gamey.

Caveat Lector: I'm not big on MP or randomly generated scenarios in these games (subject to change), so this only pertains to the campaign and pre-made scenarios. I like the UE engine but the graphics are not a big selling point for me in these games. The old sprites in PzC1 felt dated, though.

I like the game and approve of most of the major changes, but certainly hope scenario design will improve in upcoming DLCs.

[MickMannock]

The Bad:
Heroes -- I'm not oppossed to heroes per se as a way to personify your force, but they are so overtuned it's unreal. Please reconsider the nonsense with Rapid Fire, Double Attack, No Retaliation, 0 Slots and similarly ridiculous abilities. I find playing w/o heroes is the only way to go right now, and that is a disappointment.

Completely agree. But it's not a popular opinion around here. A lot of players want their cartoony überunits it seems.

[Mordan]

There is something that I really like in PzC2.. Its the RNG..

I am playing PC1 again to compare and oh boy how do I hated PC1 for that. A full 10 tanks unit failing to kill a 2 infantry that was beaten from 10 to 2 on the same turn by all your units on open terrain.

I never had such stupid RNG in PC2 yet.. So that's basically the main reason why I won't play much PC1 anymore.

I want to play a game of chess tanking.. not some stupid RNG lottery.

[Kiane]

You really have to be more careful with your units in this installment, I feel. I'm a very aggressive player, and while I built up a decent prestige reserve in the early scenarios, I had burnt through it all by Crusader. I was only barely able to beat Gazala at all, simply because my core had collapsed from being exhausted in counterattacks from being overextended. I was only able to deploy my entire tank force fully upgraded on turn 10 of the 20 turn scenario . I had foolishly believed that the good times would keep rolling, so I had used elite reinforcements the way I did in PzC1 (elite reinforcements on artillery and all aircraft), but then didn't even adequately protect them by playing too forcefully, and that was a money sink. I'm learning from the school of hard knocks to keep all non-infantry under an AA or fighter aircraft umbrella.

I had considered restarting the campaign, but really it's a good opportunity to do the loss scenario route, and it's honestly pretty amusing to make a charge on the enemy with an armored spearhead of a 5 strength PzIV G and 2 6/7 strength PzIII Js. I feel like Rommel in all of the bad ways .

The lack of free replacements at the end of a scenario is brutal!

[econ21]

Infantry -- entrenchment is king, and engineers not only ignore it but have a fantastic close defence.

You make a lot of good points. I agree with you about engineers. Ignore entrenchment is fine and really strong now that you can't reduce base entrenchment. Making them inferior to other infantry in the open is ok for balance, I guess (wrong in reality). But I just don't get the 8 CD. Why does it make sense? Either for historical authenticity or balance reasons?

Reading the manual, it seems to imply infantry defending a city against other infantry use their CD? Is that correct? If so, going from 0 to 8 on such a stat seems a really big deal. I don't think of combat engineers as particularly defensive.

I preferred the PzC1 infantry balance - just take that balancing and add in core slot values, and it would be good.

Grenadiers also seem pointless in PzC2.

[SineMora]

Reading the manual, it seems to imply infantry defending a city against other infantry use their CD? Is that correct? If so, going from 0 to 8 on such a stat seems a really big deal. I don't think of combat engineers as particularly defensive.

Yes, a unit with Close Combat (all infantry) will target the enemy's close defence while fighting in close terrain, including cities. So engineers aren't just good at assaulting, they're hard to kill too when they're defending in close terrain.

[ErissN6]

You really have to be more careful with your units in this installment, I feel. I was only barely able to beat Gazala at all, simply because my core had collapsed from being exhausted. I had foolishly believed that the good times would keep rolling, so I had used elite reinforcements the way I did in PzC1 (elite reinforcements on artillery and all aircraft), but then didn't even adequately protect them by playing too forcefully, and that was a money sink. I'm learning from the school of hard knocks to keep all non-infantry under an AA or fighter aircraft umbrella.
I had considered restarting the campaign.
The lack of free replacements at the end of a scenario is brutal!

Yeah that's really a trap. As a game, there should be warnings; if not, it may disgust players.

[Kerensky]

Yeah that's really a trap. As a game, there should be warnings; if not, it may disgust players.

The lowest difficulty setting has a tooltip right on it that says 'free elite replacements between missions.'

[econ21]

You really have to be more careful with your units in this installment, I feel. ... I had foolishly believed that the good times would keep rolling, so I had used elite reinforcements the way...

I am going Russia rather than North Africa - only up to Sevastopol. I wonder how much prestige I need to accumulate? So far, i have been liberally using elite reinforcements, both between and even within scenarios.

The PzC I played the most was the GC and there it seemed you should try to bank say 30,000+ prestige for 1943+. Partly because of all the expensive upgrades and partly because late game Soviets would take really big bites out of your core each scenario. Prestige management was really challenging on Rommel - I don't think I mastered it.

[WarHomer]

I´ve played PC a lot and was really looking forward to PC2, but so far after 3-4 attempts I just dont feel it.

Its the graphics for me, blurry for half a sec after scrolling gives a headachy feeling, and there´s just something off about the overview compared to PC and OOB.

[Lifever]

RNG is basically the limited ruleset of PzC1.

PzC1 had its not so great moments - especially for Iron man playthroughs or MP.

---

Heroes

...really break the game.
A modified OPTION would be great down the road
+2 Inf Attack for example is a big deal. Big enough for a good player to take serious advantage of
+5 on the other hand is just ridiculous... it is like in PzC1, where you need to penalty yourself to still have fun.

It would also work to give the player a list of hero traits to unselect at the start of the game, so he doesn't encounter the ones he doesn't like.
Least effort to get there - same result.

---

@ Warhomer

It takes a little for PzC1 veterans to get into...
The graphics definitely seem like the biggest roadblock to get the same level of easy enjoyment.
By now I feel comfortable to focus on the gameplay, but yeah - it takes a little.

@ Rudankort

Great to hear about MP!

[Mordan]

I´ve played PC a lot and was really looking forward to PC2, but so far after 3-4 attempts I just dont feel it.

Its the graphics for me, blurry for half a sec after scrolling gives a headachy feeling, and there´s just something off about the overview compared to PC and OOB.

You get used to it.. But for me, even after many times using them, I have a hard time recognizing tanks from each other. Crusaders, Cromwell etc etc.

Tiger is easy. Panther as well. Luchs and Panzer III or IV???? Not so easy.

The game is worth it for the gameplay changes though. But even then something is off on that front.

More experience with good players in MP is needed to judge. But right off the bat, artillery is weak.. and I don't like that Artillery does not fire in support from an armored attack. It should be settable by the player.

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

I´ve played PC a lot and was really looking forward to PC2, but so far after 3-4 attempts I just dont feel it.

Its the graphics for me, blurry for half a sec after scrolling gives a headachy feeling, and there´s just something off about the overview compared to PC and OOB.

You get used to it.. But for me, even after many times using them, I have a hard time recognizing tanks from each other. Crusaders, Cromwell etc etc.

Tiger is easy. Panther as well. Luchs and Panzer III or IV???? Not so easy.

Is it a bf109 fighter or a scout? Pioneer or grenadier?
Often hard to tell at a glance, which is why I am giving different units different camo, although thst ruins immersion quite a bit.

[MickMannock]

Is it a bf109 fighter or a scout? Pioneer or grenadier?
Often hard to tell at a glance, which is why I am giving different units different camo, although thst ruins immersion quite a bit.

Yeah, different camos is the way to go at the moment.

[ErissN6]

Is it a bf109 fighter or a scout? Pioneer or grenadier?
Often hard to tell at a glance, which is why I am giving different units different camo, although thst ruins immersion quite a bit.

Too, it's difficult to know about reco, which may use light tanks.
So yes, you have to play on the strategical map, as the 3D lovers devs prefered good looking than playable game.
I feel Slitherine goes the Paradox way, which I almost no longer buy.