Why do you still stick with the OG Panzer Corps?

[captainjack]

Personally I'd rather clear 2D graphics than low contrast 3D graphics.
I find Panzer Corps 2 graphics hard work, but other games with isometric displays generally are hard work as well, so it's not solely a PC2 issue. Whatever the cause, PC1-style graphics work better for me.

[imp44791]

Panzer Corps 2 is, sadly, terrible. I tried to love it, but I failed every time. Others have correctly complained about how voracious it is for system resources (it basically won't run in a top of the line laptop of a couple of years ago); the low visibility of the map, and might I add frankly poor artwork of the 3-D display. I also find the scenarios terribly designed and without much concern about even the pretence of historicity. I played a few scenarios of the GC and was bored to tears after 4-5 scenarios. I tried and abandoned the Spanish Civil War campaign after 4 scenarios in. This one was especially egregious, as the side campaigns in PzC were the best part of the series (the GC gets old fast). The incredibly silly "plot" was a huge immersion breaker. I know the pre-scenario briefings even back to PzG days were silly, but you could just skim past the first couple of "plot" lines of text to the scenario description; here you have to suffer clip after clip of idiotic dialogue and cartoon faces of the type that 1950s boys' comic books would consider stilted and corny. Then there is the inexplicable decision to take your allies out of your hands and semi-control their "AI" (and I use the term "intelligence" charitably here) with a small set of basic commands that make steering a tanker look like an exercise in agility. And of course there is the laughable array of troops and equipment. I don't think the Republicans had as many AA and AT guns in real life as in a single small scenario here. I know that (all together now) "it's a game, it's not a history book", but you might as well put in laser cannon then.

Panzer General/Corps 1 was an honest game that made its choices clear from the start. It was not for grognards. They called it a beer-and-pretzels game even in the 1990s, but really it's a family-style board game with a historical setting (the changing geographical scale from scenario to scenario made that clear) and a clear rock-paper-scissors construction for its unit abilities and weaknesses. The map was also that of a board game: clear, bright colours, simple icons with minimal animations and it was FAST. Fast to load, fast to scroll, fast to execute. Played properly (which for me means deterministic "chess" combat resolution) it's as finely designed as the best board game out there.

[Yrfin]

Panzer Corps 2 is, sadly, terrible. I tried to love it, but I failed every time. Others have correctly complained about how voracious it is for system resources (it basically won't run in a top of the line laptop of a couple of years ago); the low visibility of the map, and might I add frankly poor artwork of the 3-D display. I also find the scenarios terribly designed and without much concern about even the pretence of historicity. I played a few scenarios of the GC and was bored to tears after 4-5 scenarios. I tried and abandoned the Spanish Civil War campaign after 4 scenarios in. This one was especially egregious, as the side campaigns in PzC were the best part of the series (the GC gets old fast). The incredibly silly "plot" was a huge immersion breaker. I know the pre-scenario briefings even back to PzG days were silly, but you could just skim past the first couple of "plot" lines of text to the scenario description; here you have to suffer clip after clip of idiotic dialogue and cartoon faces of the type that 1950s boys' comic books would consider stilted and corny. Then there is the inexplicable decision to take your allies out of your hands and semi-control their "AI" (and I use the term "intelligence" charitably here) with a small set of basic commands that make steering a tanker look like an exercise in agility. And of course there is the laughable array of troops and equipment. I don't think the Republicans had as many AA and AT guns in real life as in a single small scenario here. I know that (all together now) "it's a game, it's not a history book", but you might as well put in laser cannon then.

Panzer General/Corps 1 was an honest game that made its choices clear from the start. It was not for grognards. They called it a beer-and-pretzels game even in the 1990s, but really it's a family-style board game with a historical setting (the changing geographical scale from scenario to scenario made that clear) and a clear rock-paper-scissors construction for its unit abilities and weaknesses. The map was also that of a board game: clear, bright colours, simple icons with minimal animations and it was FAST. Fast to load, fast to scroll, fast to execute. Played properly (which for me means deterministic "chess" combat resolution) it's as finely designed as the best board game out there.

I agree. The truth is true.
Rudanko disappointed with the PzC 3D and made a big mistake.

[faos333]

Yrfin i very much liked your signature

[Yrfin]

Yrfin i very much liked your signature

Me too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtMGoU9NcMo

[George_Parr]

Panzer Corps 2 is, sadly, terrible. I tried to love it, but I failed every time. Others have correctly complained about how voracious it is for system resources (it basically won't run in a top of the line laptop of a couple of years ago); the low visibility of the map, and might I add frankly poor artwork of the 3-D display. I also find the scenarios terribly designed and without much concern about even the pretence of historicity. I played a few scenarios of the GC and was bored to tears after 4-5 scenarios. I tried and abandoned the Spanish Civil War campaign after 4 scenarios in. This one was especially egregious, as the side campaigns in PzC were the best part of the series (the GC gets old fast). The incredibly silly "plot" was a huge immersion breaker. I know the pre-scenario briefings even back to PzG days were silly, but you could just skim past the first couple of "plot" lines of text to the scenario description; here you have to suffer clip after clip of idiotic dialogue and cartoon faces of the type that 1950s boys' comic books would consider stilted and corny. Then there is the inexplicable decision to take your allies out of your hands and semi-control their "AI" (and I use the term "intelligence" charitably here) with a small set of basic commands that make steering a tanker look like an exercise in agility. And of course there is the laughable array of troops and equipment. I don't think the Republicans had as many AA and AT guns in real life as in a single small scenario here. I know that (all together now) "it's a game, it's not a history book", but you might as well put in laser cannon then.

Panzer General/Corps 1 was an honest game that made its choices clear from the start. It was not for grognards. They called it a beer-and-pretzels game even in the 1990s, but really it's a family-style board game with a historical setting (the changing geographical scale from scenario to scenario made that clear) and a clear rock-paper-scissors construction for its unit abilities and weaknesses. The map was also that of a board game: clear, bright colours, simple icons with minimal animations and it was FAST. Fast to load, fast to scroll, fast to execute. Played properly (which for me means deterministic "chess" combat resolution) it's as finely designed as the best board game out there.

I have to say, I disagree with basically everything.

The game is a bit of a resource-hog, but that is to be expected when you are using a much more modern engine. Apart from that, the main issue really is just the limit on map-size due to how resource-intensive large maps would be. This, alongside the issue of having to create 3D models if you want to add new units, prevents some of the great mods to be implemented in PC2.

The game itself looks great. I don't see any issues with scenario design either. If anything, it is far more varied than it was in PC1, due to a whole lot of new mechanics that simply couldn't exist in the old engine. I can't see any deviation from history that would be any more apparent than the one in PC1. You will always have some level of that due to to it being a game and game balance having to be taken into account. That was equally true in PC1, where you engaged in multiple missions that in reality where running at the same time, encountered enemy formations that made far more use of heavy units than historically (to counter the player also running around with just the most powerful equipment) or had missions in which the environment had nothing to do with reality (e.g. Ethiopia being a flat desert, when in reality it is mostly mountainous with only some deserts to the south towards Somalia.

The side story in briefings may not be to everyone's taste, but they hardly take much time to get through, you can basically ignore them if you want to, just looking at the tips for the map instead.

The AI in the Spanish civil war, with infantry not being under your control, was just an attempt to try something different. There is nothing wrong with trying new things. Especially when the alternative is doing the exact same sort of mission every single time. It is neither a feature in the main game, nor does it play any role in any of the other DLCs. You do occasionally encounter other armies who are not under your control, but those aren't any issue at all, as they do their job well and do not impede on your own progress.
The enemy formations you see against the Spanish may at times be a bit over the top, but then again, that is mostly done for game balance, and it certainly isn't any different than in PC1, where - as mentioned above - the enemy often has an absurd amount of heavy units that do not fit to what happened in reality. If this is something that you don't like about PC2 than the same must be equally true for PC1. Claiming that one just veers off from reality into science fiction, while the other is trying to resemble history couldn't be more off base. There is no difference on the matter when it comes to the two games.


If I had to list the advantages of the two games, it would probably look like this:

PC1:
- easier to mod
- lower requirements due to much older engine, thus more accessible
- allows for much bigger maps, which in turn makes a great mod like Battlefield: Europe possible
- a vast amount of additional content, which PC2 cannot offer yet due to being much earlier in its production-cycle

PC2:
- more modern engine
- better variety in terms of missions due to new mechanics that have been added
- far more customizable in terms of setting rules and playing-style
- more refined game-rules that take the weaknesses from PC1 and improve on them (e.g. AT-guns now offering support, being able to unload from transports and taking action depending on distance travelled, supply and encirclements, recon being much more important and better represented, etc.)

[Japoivvb]

When I saw first time PC2 my mind went to 2000s to say "oh, they did again as SSI con PG 3D...what a pity" so I did and will not buy although watching gameplays all enhances and features are great and feel like to play but the critical part was always for me the graphics (units and map look&feel),I want to see the map and identify easy and fast every unit, side, terrain, road... in fact it can be rare but I am pretty sure that I would buy PC2 with all features that it has but using SSI PG windows graphics to play, I mean

[PeteMitchell]

When I saw first time PC2 my mind went to 2000s to say "oh, they did again as SSI con PG 3D...what a pity" so I did and will not buy although watching gameplays all enhances and features are great and feel like to play but the critical part was always for me the graphics (units and map look&feel),I want to see the map and identify easy and fast every unit, side, terrain, road... in fact it can be rare but I am pretty sure that I would buy PC2 with all features that it has but using SSI PG windows graphics to play, I mean

I agree!

[jjglvz]

When I saw first time PC2 my mind went to 2000s to say "oh, they did again as SSI con PG 3D...what a pity" so I did and will not buy although watching gameplays all enhances and features are great and feel like to play but the critical part was always for me the graphics (units and map look&feel),I want to see the map and identify easy and fast every unit, side, terrain, road... in fact it can be rare but I am pretty sure that I would buy PC2 with all features that it has but using SSI PG windows graphics to play, I mean

I wish someone would make a graphics mod like that for PC, it's.... beautiful...

[McGuba]

I want to see the map and identify easy and fast every unit, side, terrain, road... in fact it can be rare but I am pretty sure that I would buy PC2 with all features that it has but using SSI PG windows graphics to play, I mean

In fact PzC 2 does have a similar view, the zoomed out / strategic map view:




I find much easier to read it than the normal 3D perspectivic view which distorts distancies, angles and makes it harder to recognize and tell apart the different units which face different directions. I also think it is extremely important in a game like this to have a clear view of the tactical situation at a glance, to see the relative distance and angles between the friendly and enemy units and to be able to recognize their types instantly. The perspective distortion of the 3D view makes it much harder to plan and execute the ideal strategy and to use the units with maximum efficiency. Which may also potentially force scenario designers to dumb down the difficulty and complexity of the scenarios to allow players to actually win.

Thus I did suggest from early on to provide such an alternative 2D view to the players (which could be based on this view I guess, so the game mechanics are already there) just with a little better terrain graphics and better and easy to recognize 2D unit icons like in PzC1.

As an added extra, it would also make the game able to handle large maps. By the way, in this regard PzC1 is clearly superior to its successor, there are several global maps made for the earlier game which run with no problem but the same maps would break PzC2 despite all the other improvements.

Finally, the game would be much less demanding in this 2D view allowing people with older computers to play it and thereby increasing sales.

[McGuba]

Hm... for example I could imagine simply replacing the minimalistic unit icons of PzC2 at this strategic view with the good old icons of PzC1:

PzC2sample.png (763.21 KiB) Viewed 5372 times

Then it would only require to potentially improve the terrain a bit and we are ready.

[PeteMitchell]

@McGuba... that would be amazing! You should really start working for/with Slitherine!

[jjglvz]

Is PC2 playable in the strategic mode, ie can you issue orders etc?

[nikivdd]

Even as Panzer Corps 2 offer improvements in various areas, i would still pay for a definitive version of Panzer Corps 1 with community suggested improvements.
I wonder if a fundraiser would help to convince Rudankort to do this.

[Moniker]

PC 2 is playable in strategic mode. Strategic mode is not just a map view mode.

[Yrfin]

PC 2 is playable in strategic mode. Strategic mode is not just a map view mode.

"... in strategic mode" Hidden feature of Pz 3D ? lol Monkey !

[Yrfin]

Hm... and we are ready.

Buy a new computer ? lol. Rudanko's dream ...

[faos333]

Even as Panzer Corps 2 offer improvements in various areas, i would still pay for a definitive version of Panzer Corps 1 with community suggested improvements.
I wonder if a fundraiser would help to convince Rudankort to do this.

Actually this is quite a good idea

[Yrfin]

Even as Panzer Corps 2 offer improvements in various areas, i would still pay for a definitive version of Panzer Corps 1 with community suggested improvements.
I wonder if a fundraiser would help to convince Rudankort to do this.

Actually this is quite a good idea

Final Cut.

[Yrfin]

Even as Panzer Corps 2 offer improvements in various areas, i would still pay for a definitive version of Panzer Corps 1 with community suggested improvements.
I wonder if a fundraiser would help to convince Rudankort to do this.

Actually this is quite a good idea

Final Cut: Rudanko spend all money to develope PzC I again ? lol