This is a Step DOWN from Panzer Corps 1

[phair2]

Even though this game looks better, the graphics, movement, water, weather.....and even though this game performs better: the combat, the effects of terrain, heros, weather, retreats, etc.......and even though the AI seems to play smarter than many previous wargames......the scenarios for the most part are cheap, disappointing, and not very engaging.

Where to start......The scenarios, except for Fall Weiss in Poland, seem to be put together in a hurry without much thought to strategy, realism, and history. The Fall Weiss scenario is pretty good and enjoyable as a game. Nice map, challenging enemy (the Polish get 12 fighter aircraft and 10 bombers--way more than they should get--but it made it fun.) The Polish play smarter than in most wargames adding to the fun factor. I would say that Poland should get more prestige points so they can generate some new replacement units and continue to repair damaged units. The negatives in this scenario ??....There are not enough turns to successfully duplicate what the Germans accomplished in real life. The first time I played, I thought the game was generous in the prestige that Germany is allotted ........until I experienced how large and effective the Polish Air Force is. In real life, Poland did not have a larger Air Force than Germany and it was not nearly equally effective. My Germans started out with 5 fighters and 6-7 bombers and had a very difficult time establishing air superiority. Because that took so long, they were not able to support the Army enough and I had to use "cheats" to hold the turns back in order to get the WIN. I needed an extra 14 turns to have complete control of the map. I was still beating Poland and winning in every sense except to run out of time. THe 2nd time I played, I had to increase the prestige and unit slots and make a few heros who can not only survive but get things done. A few Double Attack, Lethal Attack, Overwhelming Attack characteristics, Double move on 2-3 units, and the Germans could do what they did in reality. Needless to say, I made a much bigger German Air Force with 1 over-strength fighter group (12) and 1 over-strength Stuka group (12). One heavy bomber group gained greater status during the fighting.

IN THE CAMPAIGN GAME: The Polish sector is cheap and not very fun. How? The map is too small or large-scaled. The map should be larger in size but smaller in scale to accomadate more units. The Germans get about half the prestige that they will need to win and move to the nect scenario. As the Germans in real life won this easily, it shouldn't be designed to be near-impossible to win. Also, with a game like this, part of the fun is being able to use all of the different equipment available. With the low prestige and low maximum units allowed, if you didn't cheat and make more unit slots, you wouldn't even to get to use everything available and you may only have 1 or 2 fighter aircraft and bombers each. Which is not enough and not realistic on an operational level game.

The Polish only have 2 scenarios in the South and 2 scenarios in the North. Panzer Corps 1 had 12 Polish scenarios. Norway same thing. Map too small to accommodate many units. Too little prestige and unit slots, too few scenarios depicting the battles. Same thing in France. I just started playing a week ago, and started out with Fall Weiss and played it 3-4 times to get used to how the game works. Then I started the Campaign and I'm already into North Africa and Barbarossa. Not enough scenarios. Scenarios not big enough. Not enough prestige, unit slots, and turns to get the job done without cheating. Keep in mind, the Germans were winning everywhere from 1939-1942 without "cheating". No Finland Scenarios.

Sorry folks. I was eager to get Panzer Corps 2 also. But like movie sequels , it's not even as good as the original. This has less re-play-ability because of the flaws so that a war-gamer will be DONE with this game after 2 play-throughs. And what was this ? 70 dollars ?? Buy Panzer Corps 1 and stick with it until something better comes along.

[eddieballgame]

Even though this game looks better, the graphics, movement, water, weather.....and even though this game performs better: the combat, the effects of terrain, heros, weather, retreats, etc.......and even though the AI seems to play smarter than many previous wargames......the scenarios for the most part are cheap, disappointing, and not very engaging.

First, I own both & all DLCs per PzC1.
I agree that PzC1 is a fine product...& its' classic status was attained over time.

I also agree with the bulk of your first sentence, the latter part, not so much.
One thing that PzC2 offers (outside of a random map generator that PzC1 does not have) is a very powerful Editor.
Why not try to create some scenarios to enhance your game play.
The Editor is, actually, quite easy to use & offers the opportunity to create some fine scenarios limited by your imagination.
While the ability to create a Campaign does not appear to be available, atm...you can certainly improve/tweak the existing ones per your complaints (map sizes not so much) as well as the stand alone scenarios where you believe them to be disappointing.
Just load them in & tweak away.

Your insights into your, perceived, flaws should help you improve/tweak existing scenarios & aid you in creating better ones.
This will, also, benefit the community per your contributions & ideas; as well as assisting the 'devs' in making improvements where needed.

[Kerensky]

The Polish only have 2 scenarios in the South and 2 scenarios in the North. Panzer Corps 1 had 12 Polish scenarios. Norway same thing. Map too small to accommodate many units. Too little prestige and unit slots, too few scenarios depicting the battles. Same thing in France. I just started playing a week ago, and started out with Fall Weiss and played it 3-4 times to get used to how the game works. Then I started the Campaign and I'm already into North Africa and Barbarossa. Not enough scenarios. Scenarios not big enough. Not enough prestige, unit slots, and turns to get the job done without cheating. Keep in mind, the Germans were winning everywhere from 1939-1942 without "cheating". No Finland Scenarios.

You are unfairly comparing Panzer Corps 2 to the Panzer Corps Grand Campaign.

Panzer Corps 2 has 4 Poland scenarios with the extra special large Fall Weiss scenario.
Panzer Corps had 1 Poland scenario. Period.

If your expectations for the base game to match the Grand Campaign, you are being unreasonable. Original Panzer Corps retail price was lower than the sum of the Grand Campaign DLC. That's how much content was stuffed into the Grand Campaign.

So if you make a comparison, make them fair. Compare base game Panzer Corps to base game Panzer Corps 2. And we'll see if Panzer Corps 2 gets a Grand Campaign, and then compare that to the original Grand Campaign.

[Owi]

Im agree with Kerensky. PC1 has a history of 10 years. Give PC2 10 years and we discuss again.

[PoorOldSpike]

..Sorry folks. I was eager to get Panzer Corps 2 also. But like movie sequels , it's not even as good as the original. This has less re-play-ability because of the flaws so that a war-gamer will be DONE with this game after 2 play-throughs..

I LURV PC2 to bits, especially its Random mission generator which gives us a fresh brandnew battle every time we crank it up, THERE'S replayability for you..

[BaronVonWalrus]

Even though this game looks better, the graphics, movement, water, weather.....and even though this game performs better: the combat, the effects of terrain, heros, weather, retreats, etc.......and even though the AI seems to play smarter than many previous wargames......the scenarios for the most part are cheap, disappointing, and not very engaging.

IN THE CAMPAIGN GAME: The Polish sector is cheap and not very fun. How? The map is too small or large-scaled. The map should be larger in size but smaller in scale to accomadate more units. The Germans get about half the prestige that they will need to win and move to the nect scenario. As the Germans in real life won this easily, it shouldn't be designed to be near-impossible to win. Also, with a game like this, part of the fun is being able to use all of the different equipment available. With the low prestige and low maximum units allowed, if you didn't cheat and make more unit slots, you wouldn't even to get to use everything available and you may only have 1 or 2 fighter aircraft and bombers each. Which is not enough and not realistic on an operational level game.

The Polish only have 2 scenarios in the South and 2 scenarios in the North. Panzer Corps 1 had 12 Polish scenarios. Norway same thing. Map too small to accommodate many units. Too little prestige and unit slots, too few scenarios depicting the battles. Same thing in France. I just started playing a week ago, and started out with Fall Weiss and played it 3-4 times to get used to how the game works. Then I started the Campaign and I'm already into North Africa and Barbarossa. Not enough scenarios. Scenarios not big enough. Not enough prestige, unit slots, and turns to get the job done without cheating. Keep in mind, the Germans were winning everywhere from 1939-1942 without "cheating". No Finland Scenarios.

Sorry folks. I was eager to get Panzer Corps 2 also. But like movie sequels , it's not even as good as the original. This has less re-play-ability because of the flaws so that a war-gamer will be DONE with this game after 2 play-throughs. And what was this ? 70 dollars ?? Buy Panzer Corps 1 and stick with it until something better comes along.

I've only played campaign battles so far so can't comment on the standalone scenarios. However, even on my very first plays (General difficulty), I only started having to think hard and develop an understanding of the game's overall unit balance / mechanics on the Liege / Brussels map. Poland was straightforward enough - if a little costly in terms of dead soldiers - at the very outset. What specifically is forcing you to burn through your prestige? Urban assaults can be costly for sure, but suppressing the defending unit with artillery (and a medium bomber if you have one) before assaulting with Pionieres gets results.

I'd disagree in principle that the fun is getting to use all the available toys. The fun and dare I say challenge is choosing the right toys for the job (and your style) and then using them to meet the objectives on time without catastrophic casualty rates. Like the real war

[phair2]

No. The real war, on an operational level would have all the tools available. You can't skimp on fighter aircraft (unless you want to lose a great bomber unit with a hero) just to make sure that you have the pioneer and heavy artillery. The artillery will be destroyed from the air. I can see at a glance as a published wargame designer myself if the prestige or spending points are enough to get the job done.

[phair2]

Also disappointing : I get to North Africa in the Campaign Game and the first scenario opens up with 3 weak Italian units with no way to purchase more or upgrade the existing units. When the Germans arrived in North Africa, there were way more Italian units there then German. (I did the research on this as I had 4 of my designs published and used by the US Army.) I was shocked to see that in the purchase screen you can't buy Italian units. (Not all of which are bad. The Italians had excellent fighter aircraft, Navy, and elite ground soldiers too.) But we'd never know that just reading the mostly British accounts (read propaganda) of this part of the war. The British called the Italian M13/40 the armoured coffin. That's real funny. Considering that small arms could penetrate the British A-9 cruiser tank and their crews referred to them as death traps. The TRUTH is, that Italian tank had a 47mm ATG and better armour protection than everything except the British Matilda, Soviet KV-1 and T-34/40, and the French CharB 1 and 2 and Somoa-35. Out of the more common and numerous small tanks of the time, the Italian tank was the best. It was less reliable than the German Pnz 2s and 3s but German engineering and manufacturing was the best in the world.

[eddieballgame]

Also disappointing : I get to North Africa in the Campaign Game and the first scenario opens up with 3 weak Italian units with no way to purchase more or upgrade the existing units. When the Germans arrived in North Africa, there were way more Italian units there then German. (I did the research on this as I had 4 of my designs published and used by the US Army.) I was shocked to see that in the purchase screen you can't buy Italian units. (Not all of which are bad. The Italians had excellent fighter aircraft, Navy, and elite ground soldiers too.) But we'd never know that just reading the mostly British accounts (read propaganda) of this part of the war. The British called the Italian M13/40 the armoured coffin. That's real funny. Considering that small arms could penetrate the British A-9 cruiser tank and their crews referred to them as death traps. The TRUTH is, that Italian tank had a 47mm ATG and better armour protection than everything except the British Matilda, Soviet KV-1 and T-34/40, and the French CharB 1 and 2 and Somoa-35. Out of the more common and numerous small tanks of the time, the Italian tank was the best. It was less reliable than the German Pnz 2s and 3s but German engineering and manufacturing was the best in the world.

Actually, if you want to add more Italian units, simply load the 'Battleaxe.pz2scn' file (per North Africa backed up, of course) into the Editor & add The Italian faction to your Player Side.
You will, then, be able to purchase from a large selection of Italian Units.
It works, as I have done so.
Hopefully, this will unshock you.

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

Although I think I am wasting my time here, I want to answer some of your arguments, since I think you are trying to spread some (at best) half-truths here.

Even though this game looks better, the graphics, movement, water, weather.....and even though this game performs better: the combat, the effects of terrain, heros, weather, retreats, etc.......and even though the AI seems to play smarter than many previous wargames......the scenarios for the most part are cheap, disappointing, and not very engaging.

I will agree on this and one other point. I think some of the scenarios are actually quite lackluster and I would've liked to see more diversity in the goals of the missions. But if you compare it to the original PC1 Campaign, there was no real variation there as well.

The second point you made that I agree with is, that you usually have to few actual units. Even with panzer general, you still will not have enough units, to actually form a real front line in quite a few scenarios leading to enemy horsemen or tanks to get behind your lines and fucking up your support units. This was the same in OOB and I personally don't like it much.

I can't comment on Fall Weiß since I haven't played it yet.

IN THE CAMPAIGN GAME: The Polish sector is cheap and not very fun. How? The map is too small or large-scaled. The map should be larger in size but smaller in scale to accomadate more units. The Germans get about half the prestige that they will need to win and move to the nect scenario. As the Germans in real life won this easily, it shouldn't be designed to be near-impossible to win. Also, with a game like this, part of the fun is being able to use all of the different equipment available. With the low prestige and low maximum units allowed, if you didn't cheat and make more unit slots, you wouldn't even to get to use everything available and you may only have 1 or 2 fighter aircraft and bombers each. Which is not enough and not realistic on an operational level game.

Polish sector wasn't to fun for me as well, I liked later levels much more, BUT: the germans have more then enough prestige. It is not near-impossible to win. Are you playing on highest difficulty or something? If you advance properly with your units and use the right units for the right job, the maps are more than doable.

Yes, the number of unit slots is low, and yes, it is cool to use all the tools at your disposal, but imagine if you had multiple aa, anti-tank, fighters, stukas, strat bombers in addition to your 8 tanks and 6 artillery. The game would become hilariously easy. And 2 fighters are more then enough for the first 4 or 5 levels.

The Polish only have 2 scenarios in the South and 2 scenarios in the North. Panzer Corps 1 had 12 Polish scenarios. Norway same thing. Map too small to accommodate many units. Too little prestige and unit slots, too few scenarios depicting the battles. Same thing in France. I just started playing a week ago, and started out with Fall Weiss and played it 3-4 times to get used to how the game works. Then I started the Campaign and I'm already into North Africa and Barbarossa. Not enough scenarios. Scenarios not big enough. Not enough prestige, unit slots, and turns to get the job done without cheating. Keep in mind, the Germans were winning everywhere from 1939-1942 without "cheating". No Finland Scenarios.

Others have already commented that the base PC1 campaign only had 1 polish scenario. You can't compare Grand campaign with normal campaign.
If you were able to complete the PC1 grand campaign, you should be able to easily deal with the pc2 campaign, it is not particularly hard in comparision to the later levels in DLC 43,44 and 45. Cheating definitely is not necessary.
And just a few counter-points to your statement that the germans were winning everywhere from 1939 - 1942: Battle of Britain, Operation Crusader, Battle of Moscow and the following counter-offensive, Stalingrad.

Sorry folks. I was eager to get Panzer Corps 2 also. But like movie sequels , it's not even as good as the original. This has less re-play-ability because of the flaws so that a war-gamer will be DONE with this game after 2 play-throughs. And what was this ? 70 dollars ?? Buy Panzer Corps 1 and stick with it until something better comes along.

I was a bit disappointed as well, although for other reasons, but then I realized I had to compare it to the PC1 base game and then it is actually much better.

Also disappointing : I get to North Africa in the Campaign Game and the first scenario opens up with 3 weak Italian units with no way to purchase more or upgrade the existing units. When the Germans arrived in North Africa, there were way more Italian units there then German. (I did the research on this as I had 4 of my designs published and used by the US Army.) I was shocked to see that in the purchase screen you can't buy Italian units. (Not all of which are bad. The Italians had excellent fighter aircraft, Navy, and elite ground soldiers too.) But we'd never know that just reading the mostly British accounts (read propaganda) of this part of the war. The British called the Italian M13/40 the armoured coffin. That's real funny. Considering that small arms could penetrate the British A-9 cruiser tank and their crews referred to them as death traps. The TRUTH is, that Italian tank had a 47mm ATG and better armour protection than everything except the British Matilda, Soviet KV-1 and T-34/40, and the French CharB 1 and 2 and Somoa-35. Out of the more common and numerous small tanks of the time, the Italian tank was the best. It was less reliable than the German Pnz 2s and 3s but German engineering and manufacturing was the best in the world.

I think most people (or at least people interested in WWII) know that there were actually more italian units then german in north africa. But how would you balance that out? If there was a massive amount of italian units, you would have to place even fewer of your units. Or you could make your units upgradable to italians. I don't know why you would do that, since italian units are almost always worse than the available german ones, but let's say you could do that for some reason, ignoring the fact that the italian industry wasn't even able to build enough of their mediocre m13 and m14 tanks for their army), then it would actually be somewhat cool to keep those italian units with you into the caucasus and further. But on the other hand, after 1943 there are no real new italian units available.

The italians did not really have excellent fighters, navy and elite ground soldiers. They had good ones. Except maybe the Macchi c202 and c205. They were really good. Their navy was actually quite outdated. Sure, they had some good stuff like their frogmen, but not excellent. Their ground troops weren't actually bad because they were italian or something, if they were ably led, they fought good, maybe just as well as everyone else, but they were extremely badly led, their equipment was mostly bad and their training was also very bad.
Leading me to your comment on the m13/40. Yes, for 1940 it was an acceptable tank, which can be also seen in the fact that the australians and british actually equipped some of their forces with the m13 and m14. The problem is, it was a light and "small" tank, but it was used like a medium or lets say main battle tank, and it was not really suited for that. Apart from that, they - again - had little training and were mostly badly led.

But we'd never know that just reading the mostly British accounts (read propaganda) of this part of the war.

Last point: The equation "british accounts = propaganda" is just wrong. Please read what propaganda actually means. And I can assure you that the german and french accounts differ very little in their review of the italian tanks.

[phair2]

I'll try it. If it's not too complicated or time consuming. It's good if we can do this. But they should've told us that we could and how using this very example. Otherwise, WE are designing or re-designing the game. And we shouldn't have to pay 70$ to have to make such large and important corrections.

[phair2]

""Polish sector wasn't to fun for me as well, I liked later levels much more, BUT: the germans have more then enough prestige. It is not near-impossible to win. Are you playing on highest difficulty or something? If you advance properly with your units and use the right units for the right job, the maps are more than doable. ""

""Yes, the number of unit slots is low, and yes, it is cool to use all the tools at your disposal, but imagine if you had multiple aa, anti-tank, fighters, stukas, strat bombers in addition to your 8 tanks and 6 artillery. The game would become hilariously easy. And 2 fighters are more then enough for the first 4 or 5 levels.""

In Fall Weiss, even though the prestige and unit slots appear very generous, it turns out that there are not enough turns to get the job done. I like it because it's a big map, you get to have lots of units, the Polish have lots of units, and I actually think the Polish should get more prestige so as the battle progresses they could repair some units and build a few more units. The 2 (4) Polish Campaign game scenarios do have enough to get the job done because the maps are tiny.

Hilariously easy? We are depicting history here. The Germans should not have to decide between having artillery or having bombers or having Bridge Engineers. They had them all. So if you are going to depict history with a game, the player also should be able to have it all. In Fall Weiss the stand-alone Polish scenario, the Polish player gets 12 fighter aircraft units and about 10 bomber units. If the German only had 2 Fighter units, you'd spend the whole game trying to diminish their superior air numbers and not supporting the ground troops at all. The Polish did not have a larger, much larger air force than did Germany. So right off the bat you need a bunch of German aircraft if you hope to achieve air superiority and then support the ground troops. Which the Germans did in real life. But, the Fall Weiss scenario does allow for generous prestige and unit slots, so that with no cheating, you as the German player will be beating the Polish EXCEPT that you will run out of turns and not get an official victory. Either you must cheat by turning the game clock back and giving yourself more turns, or build an even larger ground force with unit slot cheating. And give yourself heros also to help.


""And just a few counter-points to your statement that the germans were winning everywhere from 1939 - 1942: Battle of Britain, Operation Crusader, Battle of Moscow and the following counter-offensive, Stalingrad.""

Well, I disagree with you. Germany was winning the Battle of Britain until Britain started bombing civilians and Germany felt compelled to reply which was a mistake that led to Britain rebuilding it's Air Force. Crusader is up for debate with some people saying Britain won because Germany and Italy retreated. Others say the Allies lost because the amount of equipment lost was awful and not replaceable immediately so they were just holding on. While the Germans and Italians retreated to be closer to supplies and not stay out there and disintegrate -----which is what happened to the Allies when the Germans re-captured the area before Gazala. The British made the same mistake in the spring of 1941 after Wavell's victory. They tried to hold the ground with hardly anything left and 4th Armoured Brigade literally destroyed itself through movement. Every vehicle broke down and was abandoned. Rommel didn't want to do that himself so they retreated. Moscow was a defeat mostly by weather but they were within 2-3 Km of the city. I wouldn't call that a resounding defeat, just attrition. And the Germans came within inches of taking all of the west side of Stalingrad but by then the Soviets were getting lots of help from the USA and Britain. Not just with tanks and airplanes, but with millions of tires, food rations, gas, medicine, thousands of trucks, radios, etc.. If it takes 3/4 of the whole world to gang up on a country the size of Texas and in 6 years beat them to hell....is that called "victory"? Even Kursk could have been a German victory but they became too impatient like the Confederate's Pickett's Charge.




Also disappointing : I get to North Africa in the Campaign Game and the first scenario opens up with 3 weak Italian units with no way to purchase more or upgrade the existing units. When the Germans arrived in North Africa, there were way more Italian units there then German. (I did the research on this as I had 4 of my designs published and used by the US Army.) I was shocked to see that in the purchase screen you can't buy Italian units. (Not all of which are bad. The Italians had excellent fighter aircraft, Navy, and elite ground soldiers too.) But we'd never know that just reading the mostly British accounts (read propaganda) of this part of the war. The British called the Italian M13/40 the armoured coffin. That's real funny. Considering that small arms could penetrate the British A-9 cruiser tank and their crews referred to them as death traps. The TRUTH is, that Italian tank had a 47mm ATG and better armour protection than everything except the British Matilda, Soviet KV-1 and T-34/40, and the French CharB 1 and 2 and Somoa-35. Out of the more common and numerous small tanks of the time, the Italian tank was the best. It was less reliable than the German Pnz 2s and 3s but German engineering and manufacturing was the best in the world.
[/quote]

""I think most people (or at least people interested in WWII) know that there were actually more italian units then german in north africa. But how would you balance that out? If there was a massive amount of italian units, you would have to place even fewer of your units. Or you could make your units upgradable to italians. I don't know why you would do that, since italian units are almost always worse than the available german ones, but let's say you could do that for some reason, ignoring the fact that the italian industry wasn't even able to build enough of their mediocre m13 and m14 tanks for their army), then it would actually be somewhat cool to keep those italian units with you into the caucasus and further. But on the other hand, after 1943 there are no real new italian units available.""

You balance it out by having larger-sized smaller scale maps that can accommodate more units for BOTH sides. That way everyone gets to have enough infantry, tanks, planes, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, artillery, etc.. And now we're getting into "what-ifs" here. If the Italians were still in the war because you as the Axis player did a good job, by then the Italians would have had a newer tank (P-20 I believe) which was more like the Panther than anything else. But they quite before they could use it. But even before they quit, their late model aircraft were giving the Americans one hell of a time. If the Italians were so inept, what took so long? Poland was destroyed in a month. France, the same. And they had pretty good armies and the Dw-520 was a great aircraft in some ways better than the Me-109e. So it took 3-4 years with Italy and 6 years for Germany. The Italian M15/42 tank is actually not bad. It had a more reliable engine and the AP shell could penetrate the early Sherman and the Grant. So we can't make blanket statements like the equipment and training were crap (we CAN but it would be inaccurate). Unfortunately with mostly British accounts and even American accounts having a British editor-in -chief for the publications we get a really one-sided view of the war. Yes. Propaganda. Post -war. And as flagrant and as bad as the Soviet accounts.




""The italians did not really have excellent fighters, navy and elite ground soldiers. They had good ones. Except maybe the Macchi c202 and c205. They were really good. Their navy was actually quite outdated. Sure, they had some good stuff like their frogmen, but not excellent. Their ground troops weren't actually bad because they were italian or something, if they were ably led, they fought good, maybe just as well as everyone else, but they were extremely badly led, their equipment was mostly bad and their training was also very bad.
Leading me to your comment on the m13/40. Yes, for 1940 it was an acceptable tank, which can be also seen in the fact that the australians and british actually equipped some of their forces with the m13 and m14. The problem is, it was a light and "small" tank, but it was used like a medium or lets say main battle tank, and it was not really suited for that. Apart from that, they - again - had little training and were mostly badly led.""



Once again blanket statements. But you are correct about those later Italian fighters that gave the Americans a lot of trouble and were shooting down P-38s and the early P-51. The bomber force was much more effective then we were told and gave the British nightmares when they would destroy whole armoured columns and supply convoys. The Navy ships were relatively new but had poor radar and sonar. Germany should have given them theirs. But they were good powerful and fast ships and the British feared them enough to make them a primary target of high importance. The Italian Navy was good but wasted. The leadership was afraid to risk losing the ships by using them. So they were surprised at Taranto and took costly losses. If they had been at sea being used that would've been more difficult to accomplish.

There are also accounts of Germans saying that the tanks were adequate for some tasks. The M13/40 was considerably better than the British Mk-VI, the Cruisers A9, A10, and A13. The 2 pounder gun had an HE round but it was so ineffective no one carried them in their tanks. The Italian 47mm ATG had an HE shell that was actually decent and even the paratroopers used them as light artillery. Not all Italians were universally badly trained. The mountain troops were elite. The recon troops were elite. They had elite commandos. The engineers and sappers were good and the artillery, anti-tank, and AA crews were elite. They would either die at their guns or surrender when they ran out of ammo by all accounts. If they abandoned a gun they always tried to recover it. And not all of the infantry were poorly trained but yes the personal small arms were very inferior to everyone else and that effected morale. Also the Italians used their 75mm and 90mm Anti-Aircraft guns against the Matilda tank successfully at Bardia and Tobruk in December 1940. Bet no one ever told you that because the Italians are just so dumb and want to eat pasta, drink wine, and sing songs to women.
All of that was Hollywood portrayals based on British propaganda in their highly biased accounts.
I did the research especially in this area and had 4 games published. I started out with Avalon Hill Gaming Company but then they were bought out by Critical Hit!, Inc.. I used lots of different sources, including Italian and German, a Belgian researcher, newer English and Irish researchers who are more honest, objective, and not full of patriotic pride. I worked on the new TOBRUK! with the original designer Hal Houk (not in person but by mail) but he passed away early in the project. My submissions were accepted and published by his team and later used by the US Army Officers & Artillery School in Carlisle, Pennsylvania to train with. So they thought my research was good enough. It's just my opinion, but Panzer Corps 2 could be a much better game and for the price it should be.

But we'd never know that just reading the mostly British accounts (read propaganda) of this part of the war.

"""Last point: The equation "british accounts = propaganda" is just wrong. Please read what propaganda actually means. And I can assure you that the german and french accounts differ very little in their review of the italian tanks."""

Addressed these points earlier.....
[/quote]

[phair2]

Sooooo, I went into the editor and tried to add Italian and Vichy French into the German forces for the first North Africa scenario called "Libya". The changes appear to be made so I saved it. I went back into the game and loaded the scenario and the changes I made are not there. The editor manual says that you can't load an edited scenario directly into the game but from the editor you can play the game by selecting Tools drop down menu and click on "Play". Tried it....doesn't load. Doesn't work. The editor manual says to IMPORT the scenario into the editor, make changes, save, and THEN it can be played in the game. Tried it. The list of scenarios in the campaign come up as "no files in this folder". So you can't even import a file into the editor because when you go get them, they don't appear as a choice. Therefore you can't play an edited imported scenario either. Bottom Line.....The editor is useless and doesn't work at all. For 70 $. this game was supposed to have a working editor. The game only appears to have an editor. The word "editor" appears in the menu and you can click on it to bring up a scenario to edit, but when you save and leave the editor your supposedly saved edited scenario disappears. And when you go to import a file like the manual instructs, no scenario files appear. Now someone's going to take the side of the designers and say: " Well ya could just design a scenario from scratch MAYBE and save and play that." If the editor doesn't work to make small changes and the importer can't find a scenario file to load into the editor, why would I spend days and lots of hours creating my own map from scratch, putting together the forces from both sides from scratch, making the parameters and everything else, invest my time and work into creating it myself, when the editor may NOT save the custom scenario and the game won't bring it up to play it?? And if that's what I must do to change a scenario....shouldn't they be paying me for my time and work????? 70 bucks and the editor only exists in appearance. So I claim "false advertising" too. Having a fully functional all encompassing editor is a big selling point with me. This game is a money grabber and a fraud. It's hoping that everyone who liked Panzer Corps 1 will all buy Panzer Corps 2. The new game can't even hold a candle to the old one. What a complete disappointment. The game engine, graphics, and audio are great, but the editor is essentially non-existent and the scenarios are so crappy that you have to edit them if you want them to be historical. So it's just eye-candy. No Italians in North Africa. Gimme a friggin break. I don't want to hear the excuses either. This is a poorly produced game. It's a waste of money for even 20$. I've gotten games on sale from Slitherine and Matrix for under 20$ that were better than this. In a few years, this game will be in the "discount" list, unless they make some MAJOR improvements and fix the editor. Then there's John Tiller and HPS Sims......he hasn't put out a bad game yet.

[Horseman]

Sooooo, I went into the editor and tried to add Italian and Vichy French into the German forces for the first North Africa scenario called "Libya". The changes appear to be made so I saved it. I went back into the game and loaded the scenario and the changes I made are not there. The editor manual says that you can't load an edited scenario directly into the game but from the editor you can play the game by selecting Tools drop down menu and click on "Play". Tried it....doesn't load. Doesn't work. The editor manual says to IMPORT the scenario into the editor, make changes, save, and THEN it can be played in the game. Tried it. The list of scenarios in the campaign come up as "no files in this folder". So you can't even import a file into the editor because when you go get them, they don't appear as a choice. Therefore you can't play an edited imported scenario either. Bottom Line.....The editor is useless and doesn't work at all. For 70 $. this game was supposed to have a working editor. The game only appears to have an editor. The word "editor" appears in the menu and you can click on it to bring up a scenario to edit, but when you save and leave the editor your supposedly saved edited scenario disappears. And when you go to import a file like the manual instructs, no scenario files appear. Now someone's going to take the side of the designers and say: " Well ya could just design a scenario from scratch MAYBE and save and play that." If the editor doesn't work to make small changes and the importer can't find a scenario file to load into the editor, why would I spend days and lots of hours creating my own map from scratch, putting together the forces from both sides from scratch, making the parameters and everything else, invest my time and work into creating it myself, when the editor may NOT save the custom scenario and the game won't bring it up to play it?? And if that's what I must do to change a scenario....shouldn't they be paying me for my time and work????? 70 bucks and the editor only exists in appearance. So I claim "false advertising" too. Having a fully functional all encompassing editor is a big selling point with me. This game is a money grabber and a fraud. It's hoping that everyone who liked Panzer Corps 1 will all buy Panzer Corps 2. The new game can't even hold a candle to the old one. What a complete disappointment. The game engine, graphics, and audio are great, but the editor is essentially non-existent and the scenarios are so crappy that you have to edit them if you want them to be historical. So it's just eye-candy. No Italians in North Africa. Gimme a friggin break. I don't want to hear the excuses either. This is a poorly produced game. It's a waste of money for even 20$. I've gotten games on sale from Slitherine and Matrix for under 20$ that were better than this. In a few years, this game will be in the "discount" list, unless they make some MAJOR improvements and fix the editor. Then there's John Tiller and HPS Sims......he hasn't put out a bad game yet.

Interesting- I've managed to make changes OK in the editor when playing around.

Had you already started the scenario before you tried to edit it?

[eddieballgame]

First, 'phair2'...paragraphs please.
Difficult to get past the first couple of sentences.
Per making changes in a Campaign Scenario I was able to add units to a map but they did not show up in my 'active campaign', so 'Horseman' may be on to something.
However, I was able to add a new faction (Italy per the Battleaxe scenario under 'Players') & then be able to purchase the Italian units, even in my 'active campaign'.
As 'Editors' go, this one is quite powerful.
I will add, your claim "Therefore you can't play an edited imported scenario either" is false.
I have edited numerous scenarios with success.

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

It is really hard to follow your post without quotations and what not.

I can and will not answer to everything, but just a few points.

1.) If you want the game to depict history, then in later battles 1943 onwards, you should only be able to field a few elite divisions with mostly green troops and all of them understrength and only very limited resupply, while the enemies should have a massive material advantage.

2.) So you agree with me? Germany was not winning everywhere? I never said that e.g. Operation Crusader was a resounding defeat, but we can definitely agree that it was not a resounding victory for germany. Additionally it does not matter why the germans lost before moscow, they did lose. They did not take moscow which was their goal. How is that anything but a loss.
It also seems weird that you are apparently trying to defend germany? We germans deserved that everyone banded together to fight us and we should count ourselves lucky that it happened. And yes, it is called a victory. What else would it be called?

Concerning your statements on italy: I could now make my points again and differentiate a little, but I think you actually said the right thing already: Blanket Statements. Yes, my statements were a bit broad, but so were yours. The truth lies somewhere in the middle in this case. Obviously not every unit and every piece of equipment the italians had was a piece of crap, but if you compare it to the major nations of wwii, their equipment on average was at least sub-standard.
Yeah, the germans considered the italian tanks adequate for some tasks. There are also multiple german accounts where they praised the italian bravery, for example the ariete during 2nd el alamein.
If you really want to have a discussion about this, maybe don't be so condescending and call other people dumb.

Oh and btw.: I don't know if it was your intention, but it sounds like you are saying that the brits started bombing civilians during wwii before the germans did it. That is not the case.

[Horseman]

First, 'phair2'...paragraphs please.
Difficult to get past the first couple of sentences.
Per making changes in a Campaign Scenario I was able to add units to a map but they did not show up in my 'active campaign', so 'Horseman' may be on to something.
However, I was able to add a new faction (Italy per the Battleaxe scenario under 'Players') & then be able to purchase the Italian units, even in my 'active campaign'.
As 'Editors' go, this one is quite powerful.
I will add, your claim "Therefore you can't play an edited imported scenario either" is false.
I have edited numerous scenarios with success.

You can only add core units to the first scenario of a campaign and have then show up. Beyond the first, just like in pc1 they are replaced by deployment slots (unless you add a trigger for them to appear on a layer turn)
Adding aux units should work fine. You can Edit a scenario any time before you actually load into it. Obviously once you have started a scenario then that's what your game has already loaded and no new edits will work (unless you go back to an earlier save.....)

[phair2]

Yes. But I went back and re-started it with the same result.

Interesting- I've managed to make changes OK in the editor when playing around.

Had you already started the scenario before you tried to edit it?

[phair2]

Then mine isn't working properly.

First, 'phair2'...paragraphs please.
Difficult to get past the first couple of sentences.
Per making changes in a Campaign Scenario I was able to add units to a map but they did not show up in my 'active campaign', so 'Horseman' may be on to something.
However, I was able to add a new faction (Italy per the Battleaxe scenario under 'Players') & then be able to purchase the Italian units, even in my 'active campaign'.
As 'Editors' go, this one is quite powerful.
I will add, your claim "Therefore you can't play an edited imported scenario either" is false.
I have edited numerous scenarios with success.

You can only add core units to the first scenario of a campaign and have then show up. Beyond the first, just like in pc1 they are replaced by deployment slots (unless you add a trigger for them to appear on a layer turn)
Adding aux units should work fine. You can Edit a scenario any time before you actually load into it. Obviously once you have started a scenario then that's what your game has already loaded and no new edits will work (unless you go back to an earlier save.....)

[Horseman]

Yes. But I went back and re-started it with the same result.

Interesting- I've managed to make changes OK in the editor when playing around.

Had you already started the scenario before you tried to edit it?

Not really sure what else to suggest. I've managed to make changes just fine and they loaded just fine and all worked etc.

There must be something you're doing wrong but it'll be very hard to diagnose.