Axis Operation 1944 Review

[Bee1976]

10 Scenarios is quite much honestly. There weren't many real battles the germans fought 1944 which didn't end in a total disaster. There is a reason why everybody says that Kursk Broke the Neck of the Wehrmacht.

Oh there would be enough battles and counteroffensives on the eastern Front in 1944 to bring way more than 10 scenarios. The big problem is, the scale was much smaller. Thats the issue.
I mean in the real war history the "Wehrmacht" recaptured some towns, but they used 1-6 Tanks, some infatry and some STuGs and small anti-Air. In most cases no aircraft and they had to retreat shortly after, loosing material, tanks and men because of supply problems and to avoid beeing encirclet.
To reflect such "succesful" operations ingame on the historical path, the player should be allowed to deploy 1 aa, 1 anti-tank, 1 tank and 2 infantry units. Maybe 1 artillery.

That doenst sound like fun.
You are right, there werent big operations in which a 140 slots coreforce might play a role. Maybe it might work if you split the few "big" operations in 1944 east in several missions. Like Stalingrad.
The "Kurland" Pocket" might be a theater to explore. If i remember correctly there wer 5 defensive battles in 1944 there, but the lack of "big battles" is an issue for content creators if they wanna stay historical correct.
But there is room to "expand" the scale, i mean its a game and we want fun. It worked during SCW why shouldnt it work in 1944 or 1945 ?

The soviet union delivered about 300 T-26 to spain. Im pretty sure i destroey way more than 300 during SCW

[Wagner0445]

10 Scenarios is quite much honestly. There weren't many real battles the germans fought 1944 which didn't end in a total disaster. There is a reason why everybody says that Kursk Broke the Neck of the Wehrmacht.

Oh there would be enough battles and counteroffensives on the eastern Front in 1944 to bring way more than 10 scenarios. The big problem is, the scale was much smaller. Thats the issue.
I mean in the real war history the "Wehrmacht" recaptured some towns, but they used 1-6 Tanks, some infatry and some STuGs and small anti-Air. In most cases no aircraft and they had to retreat shortly after, loosing material, tanks and men because of supply problems and to avoid beeing encirclet.
To reflect such "succesful" operations ingame on the historical path, the player should be allowed to deploy 1 aa, 1 anti-tank, 1 tank and 2 infantry units. Maybe 1 artillery.

That doenst sound like fun.
You are right, there werent big operations in which a 140 slots coreforce might play a role. Maybe it might work if you split the few "big" operations in 1944 east in several missions. Like Stalingrad.
The "Kurland" Pocket" might be a theater to explore. If i remember correctly there wer 5 defensive battles in 1944 there, but the lack of "big battles" is an issue for content creators if they wanna stay historical correct.
But there is room to "expand" the scale, i mean its a game and we want fun. It worked during SCW why shouldnt it work in 1944 or 1945 ?

The soviet union delivered about 300 T-26 to spain. Im pretty sure i destroey way more than 300 during SCW

That's why I said real battles that didn't end in total disaster.

Expanding only works if there are things to expand upon. In the end, 10 scenarios are quite enough especially since you got the ahistoric path too.

[Bee1976]

In the end, 10 scenarios are quite enough

Well, i agree with you on nearly all points, but the quoted is the point i dont.

From a gaming perspective (of course only in my opinion), 10 Scenarios feel to short to use a well prepared and balanced coreforce. If you consider that there are 2 filler scenarios (the decoy thingy and bagration) the amount is reduced even more.

And well, all former DLCs delivered more fights for my coreforce, so this time it feels reaaaaaallllly reallly short. I mentioned before, i warmed up, and it was over...

That is no real complaint, the amount of missions in this DLC is 20 and even if you reduce Herlingen Bagration, there are 18 missions left, that is a real good amount of missions. So from the developer persperctive this DLC is fine, and from a customer perspective you get a lot of stuff to play in this DLC. And the price is really good, i for my part consider 8 bucks as way underpriced and to cheap for the amount of good content you recieve.

But again, if i ask "Player Bee" what he would have preferred the anser is simple:
2 seperated DLCS with 13-16 missions each for historical and ahistorical part.

So my hope for the future is, that there might be a DLC with additional missions for each year/some years of AO. I would gladly buy it, to have more missions in one playthrough

But of course thats only my opinion, and i will buy ao 1945 and all what follows even if they dont change anything, because i really love this game. But if i have the choice, i would prefer a longer campaign and more missions and i would pay for this with a big smile on my face hehe

[DefiantXYX]

But how should these missions look like? Do you guys really want 10 more battle with your full core force vs russian armies?
Or do you want to play all over the places, what results in no WEST DLCs.
And unfortunately during 1942/1943 a huge part of the game, for me one of the best parts, ends. All your units are max. experienced, got all the awards and you have to start to recycle heroes. The game is not designed that you always get new units, since more core slots are eaten up by units who require more slots.
Tbh far more battles, especially in years like 1944/1945, could feel like wasting time, since you cant get anything from it.
I think that is the main reason why this dlc is really different compared to the former ones.

[Tassadar]

Tbh far more battles, especially in years like 1944/1945, could feel like wasting time, since you cant get anything from it.
I think that is the main reason why this dlc is really different compared to the former ones.

A very solid and valid point. Once of the interesting things in earlier DLC was getting new gift units that help the core, in addition to heroes and getting meaningful upgrades. The Verdeja 2, Panzer IIA, Il-2 or even the Neubaufahrzeug, were all unique in their own right and made things fresh. In 1944 the Ho 229 is on the other hand an interesting collectible, but with almost no experience, no awards and no way to swap the equipment, it does not impact the game on the same level. Considering this, we could for example get a gift Maus in 1945, but what would be the point? At this stage I would rather have prototype parts than new units, seeing how my core is full of veteran units. This is not a flaw of the DLC, just the natural progress of the campaign. All things must come to an end at one point and for AO 1944 is the moment where those finishing moments start to show, with 1945 certainly having a similar feel. Elite objectives popped up to address this exact need of new things happening and they will need to appear in 1945 as well to keep things fresh. Of course if the fictional route goes into 1946-1947 invasion of the USA territory or something similar as a separate DLC, then it could spice things up due to the huge novelty of the experience and never before seen units, but that would be an exception to the rule.

[Bee1976]

Tbh far more battles, especially in years like 1944/1945, could feel like wasting time, since you cant get anything from it.
I think that is the main reason why this dlc is really different compared to the former ones.

Well, first of all, i depends why someone is playing. If you play "to get something out of it" there is no real reason to play AO campaigns at all after 43. At least he historical part. Because we all know what is happening, No new stuff and at the end a lose is waiting. Not to metion that a full veteran core army with best equipment is quite ahistoric.
If you play for the fun or the challenge, there are many ways to "get something out of it".

And of course its a decision the team has to make. They CAN offer nice goodies in 1945 to prepare you for the Berlin Battle. Some more Coreslots, Heros, a new system and os on. I liked the way the GC remake mod did this for the ahistoric path. Choose 13 (?) Units and all other units and heros will be gone. For the historic part this could reflect the permanent retreating battles loosing tons of equipment and many soldiers. I would have preferred this in 1944 historic.
many retreating battles with mission goals so tough that you have to lose some stuff to save as many of your unit as you can, with an decreasing amount of units every single battle.

Now the problem is, the historic path should offer some historical correct battles for a complete ahistorical core army.

Time will tell if the AO historic campaign will be worth it, i really hope the battle for Berlin will be a real mean and evil fight. In the base game, the last battle is my motivation to build up a coreforce that can "beat" this mission.

But well, thats the problem with historical wargames.
Just imagine a game with the strategic depth and the unit variation in a futuristic universe with out the bond of historical correctness or franchise rules. #dreammode

[DefiantXYX]

I liked the way the GC remake mod did this for the ahistoric path. Choose 13 (?) Units and all other units and heros will be gone. For the historic part this could reflect the permanent retreating battles loosing tons of equipment and many soldiers. I would have preferred this in 1944 historic.

That is indeed a good option. In 1943/1944 there should be something like a reboot of your army. Lets say the allies are invading in italy 1943, so have to send ??% of your elite units, but you can replace them with fresh recruits and you also have to send some of your heroes...you could implement similar event, to keep your army buys leveling up.
Problem is it wont make sense if russian units are more experienced than your own units, but that could easily be changed. Just put more green russian units on the field...

The developers have chosen a different way with AO 1944, which is ok, but wont work for 1945 and maybe 1946 again in my opinion.

[Wagner0445]

That is indeed a good option. In 1943/1944 there should be something like a reboot of your army. Lets say the allies are invading in italy 1943, so have to send ??% of your elite units, but you can replace them with fresh recruits and you also have to send some of your heroes...you could implement similar event, to keep your army buys leveling up.
Problem is it wont make sense if russian units are more experienced than your own units, but that could easily be changed. Just put more green russian units on the field...

The developers have chosen a different way with AO 1944, which is ok, but wont work for 1945 and maybe 1946 again in my opinion.

A fun and working but time-intensive way around that is to use Historical units.

I created in 1939 from my Spanish units the 3. and 4. light Division which turned into the 8. and 9. Panzer Division later on. Plus the 10. Infantry Division and the 5. Panzer Division which gives half of its Tanks to the 11. Panzer Division later.
Plus a Stug Battalion and Two Heavy Tank Battalions with one of the Two being created out of one Tank Unit from the 9. Tank Division and the other being newly bought.
In 1943 each Tank division costs between 31 and 39 slots. And that with both the Infantry and Panzer general perk.

That Way you are unable to use all your Troops all the time and they level up less quickly. Also if you follow the Historic compositions you will add new units to the mix until 1943/44. For example my 10. Infantry Division just got transformed into the 10. Panzergrenadier Division and got its own Tank unit. Or All my Tank Division just got an additional arty piece which are around level 2 after the last Kummersdorf mission.
And your Heros get split up much more leading to you not using too many in each scenario.
Also it has the side effect that you have to use all equipment and not just the best. It reduces the incentive to play wunderwaffen blitz because core slots are much more valuable. I for example used the first time the late Panzer III versions and the light self propelled arty.

[adiekmann]

That is indeed a good option. In 1943/1944 there should be something like a reboot of your army. Lets say the allies are invading in italy 1943, so have to send ??% of your elite units, but you can replace them with fresh recruits and you also have to send some of your heroes...you could implement similar event, to keep your army buys leveling up.
Problem is it wont make sense if russian units are more experienced than your own units, but that could easily be changed. Just put more green russian units on the field...

The developers have chosen a different way with AO 1944, which is ok, but wont work for 1945 and maybe 1946 again in my opinion.

A fun and working but time-intensive way around that is to use Historical units.

I created in 1939 from my Spanish units the 3. and 4. light Division which turned into the 8. and 9. Panzer Division later on. Plus the 10. Infantry Division and the 5. Panzer Division which gives half of its Tanks to the 11. Panzer Division later.
Plus a Stug Battalion and Two Heavy Tank Battalions with one of the Two being created out of one Tank Unit from the 9. Tank Division and the other being newly bought.
In 1943 each Tank division costs between 31 and 39 slots. And that with both the Infantry and Panzer general perk.

That Way you are unable to use all your Troops all the time and they level up less quickly. Also if you follow the Historic compositions you will add new units to the mix until 1943/44. For example my 10. Infantry Division just got transformed into the 10. Panzergrenadier Division and got its own Tank unit. Or All my Tank Division just got an additional arty piece which are around level 2 after the last Kummersdorf mission.
And your Heros get split up much more leading to you not using too many in each scenario.
Also it has the side effect that you have to use all equipment and not just the best. It reduces the incentive to play wunderwaffen blitz because core slots are much more valuable. I for example used the first time the late Panzer III versions and the light self propelled arty.

I've always done the same (units based on historical composition and naming) going back to the original Panzer Corps. However, once it became obvious that you were not going to field an ever-larger army as time went by, I began reducing the number of units in my core to only three "divisions," rather than four or more. Since the panzer elements of the Condor Legion were borrowed from Panzer Regiment 6, the 3. Panzer Division always became my first "division." I try to make all of my game units battalion/abteilung sized, except for bridging, grenadier and wehr infantry because otherwise your core army is too heavy in infantry units for the game. I also reduce the number of artillery per "division" from 3 to 2 for the same reason. My elite division is the Großdeutschland Division formed around my Azul units. Each has its own camouflage scheme to help identify them on the display too. But yes, this does lead to an even more powerful core as fewer units get more action, more bonuses, etc.

I felt that the historical path should have been designed where you are simply overwhelmed and vastly outnumbered by the AI. I want to feel the stress (= fun!) of being pressed to survive like I did the first couple of times I played the Bagration map in the vanilla campaign where you very likely will have to sacrifice a core unit or two to achieve the victory objectives. In this way, your core will begin to whittle down little by little through '44-'45 through attrition, just like what happened in real. I wanted defensive battles where the objectives are something like, "hold x-number of hexes by end of scenario." Of course, this would require a lot of testing to find the right balance and your core deployment can be reduced by a number of means.

[RVallant]

10 scenarios seems to be in line with the original PzC for a yearly campaign, but I still disagree with those of you saying '10 scenarios is enough!' because the PZC GC pushed out 22 scenarios for 1944, so there are options there.

I wouldn't mind fighting heavy, losing battles in the historical campaign - I do like my history campaigns anyway, and I thought PzC1's GC East was brilliant in setting the tone of the early successes, the 'oh dear, they're actually decent' to the utter, horrific grind from late 43-44 that was just exhausting to fight through.

When the battles were that bloody and we still had to withdraw, I thought it was clear and obvious why we were losing the war. I mean, I was just about holding off masses of T-34's and KV's in convenient, defensive positions, and when outflanked (as rare as that was) it was a bloody good challenge to bat them back with the top of the line Tiger's and Panthers just to hold position, never mind attack.

Anyway;

My personal view is in future, it might be worth considering having separate DLC for historic/ahistorical years by theatre, at least once you have the divergent point. This would add even more variety to the campaigns; I wouldn't say no to more split paths like in the base campaign, or the older GC's. Split paths are nice and appreciated, especially with all the history nuggets the Designers are throwing at us post-mission.

[patriciaplayer]

Thanks all for the review.

[robman]

Is it worth?

It's certainly worth the money. Whether it is worth the time depends on the alternatives. I played the ahistorical path and enjoyed it, but not as much as the earlier DLCs or the PC1 mod. The historical path still awaits, however, and at no additional cost!

[Wolfenguard]

Oh there would be enough battles and counteroffensives on the eastern Front in 1944 to bring way more than 10 scenarios. The big problem is, the scale was much smaller. Thats the issue.
I mean in the real war history the "Wehrmacht" recaptured some towns, but they used 1-6 Tanks, some infatry and some STuGs and small anti-Air. In most cases no aircraft and they had to retreat shortly after, loosing material, tanks and men because of supply problems and to avoid beeing encirclet.
To reflect such "succesful" operations ingame on the historical path, the player should be allowed to deploy 1 aa, 1 anti-tank, 1 tank and 2 infantry units. Maybe 1 artillery.

That doenst sound like fun.
You are right, there werent big operations in which a 140 slots coreforce might play a role. Maybe it might work if you split the few "big" operations in 1944 east in several missions. Like Stalingrad.
The "Kurland" Pocket" might be a theater to explore. If i remember correctly there wer 5 defensive battles in 1944 there, but the lack of "big battles" is an issue for content creators if they wanna stay historical correct.
But there is room to "expand" the scale, i mean its a game and we want fun. It worked during SCW why shouldnt it work in 1944 or 1945 ?

The soviet union delivered about 300 T-26 to spain. Im pretty sure i destroey way more than 300 during SCW

Mhh i think the Problem here is, that we have in every Scenario ourer Core Units. Its like in the other AO´s with the Air Only Missions, there should be a penality for giving support. Like the mission after the Air Only Mission you cant use Aircrafts and have to use AA Units, maybe with the buff/nerf the enemys have less or more aircrafts.

For the Smaller Missions or when i can Choose a path, there should be a option to make both, so we have Split ourer Forces for both Targets. Less Core Slots and for 1 Path a General with random or special Traits. a Change of the Aux Force trait, so that we have more Core slots in the paths if we choose this trait.

[RVallant]

Finally got to 1944, didn't take me long.

I made two cores, one following history and one following the successful a-historic mode.

I'm doing the 1944 history route first - the end of 1943 is tragic.

I got to that infamous Minsk battle, wow, High Command are stupid. In fairness, I managed to last the full 14 turns, and kept hold of Minsk. I still had the majority of the core Royal units, but to be frank, the amount of Soviet armour coming at us, I think even with my 'skills' it was a matter of time before I was wiped out.

Rescuing 4th Army was great too, I managed to fill both evac zones completely.

Just in case anyone gets there, and most people might overlook this, you can fly the infantry out of the fire using the nearby airfields if you're quick to capture them. That will count for four or five units off the bat.

Anyway, so far I've been enjoying the historical outcome. I will enjoy the made up history one too, I'm sure.

[Mateusz300]

Guys tell me what is most important to be succesfull on AO 44?
Just asking becauase on Panzer Corps 1 it was key to get as lot ofprestige as you can until 43 year. On 43 year we lose a lot of strenght/prestige, if we lost too much - year 44 is so bloody that event if you complete it, victory is impossible in year 45.

Now Iam playing AO41 (general level -only one hero, Panzer general, infantry general) and i have huge amount of prestige.

Is not prestige the key in PC2? If not - what is

[VirgilInTheSKY]

Guys tell me what is most important to be succesfull on AO 44?
Just asking becauase on Panzer Corps 1 it was key to get as lot ofprestige as you can until 43 year. On 43 year we lose a lot of strenght/prestige, if we lost too much - year 44 is so bloody that event if you complete it, victory is impossible in year 45.

Now Iam playing AO41 (general level -only one hero, Panzer general, infantry general) and i have huge amount of prestige.

Is not prestige the key in PC2? If not - what is

Running out of prestige/veteran units still kill you anyway, no matter which campaign or which game you are playing. But gaining prestige is no longer as limited as it was in PC1 as you could have found out yourself, so as long as you understand how to deal with the systems and mechanics, you are safe from prestige deadlocks and can pursuit whichever path you want.

[DefiantXYX]

It always depend highly on your settings, like general traits, game settings (e.g. david vs goliath) and your playstyle and of course If you accept the prestige reset options. In 1944 you can for the first time lose prestige without getting anything of it, which is really sad in my opinion.
But I'd say you are right, from 1943 to the bloody end in 1945 (or maybe 1946 ) you have to rely on the good years of the war. You need prestige, you need good heroes, you need a really good core force. If you are alreay bleeding out in 1943 or 1944 I guess 1945 will be very hard.

In 1944 you can get high numbers of prestige easily by capturing enemy tank, but if you have to repair your tiger and panther tanks in exchange, you wont gain anything.

[Mateusz300]

Thank you guys for your responses. My difficulty settings are to make PC2 as balanced as possible. So the game is not easy, but it's not a particularly high difficulty level either. But I'm playing conservatively, with an eye toward future years. This bothers me a bit, because it may turn out that my cautious tactic (modeled on PC1) is unnecessary.

I use a maximum of one hero per unit, plus I don't use reconnaissance planes (I think they destroy the balance of the game).

PC2 is a very nice game, I still think PC 1 is better. That's why I'm trying to find a setting for myself, so that PC2 is more historically consistent, but at the same time I don't want to use very difficult challenges. That's why, for example, I don't use reconnaissance planes.

What worries me is that with each turn the unit has 100% fuel and ammunition again. I think this also damages the balance of the game a bit.

But I haven't even reached the hellish year of 1943 in PC2 yet. Maybe it will turn out to be as difficult as in PC 1

[VirgilInTheSKY]

What worries me is that with each turn the unit has 100% fuel and ammunition again. I think this also damages the balance of the game a bit.

But I haven't even reached the hellish year of 1943 in PC2 yet. Maybe it will turn out to be as difficult as in PC 1

Bad weather actually reduces the supply you get each turn, plus I think there is one commander trait halving it another time, so it can give you some challenge and a lot of trouble in certain scenarios.

[DefiantXYX]

Bad weather actually reduces the supply you get each turn, plus I think there is one commander trait halving it another time, so it can give you some challenge and a lot of trouble in certain scenarios.

Yeah, there is a commander trait. I used this trait in my rerun in 1939, but I find it more annoying, that challenging. Most of the time your recons are out of full and useless and sometimes your units just surrender, because they are out of full.

I prefer to limit my supplies generally, so I have to decide which units gets the ammo and full. Maybe if all the DLCs are done there should be a huge balance upgrade for heroes and traits. There are so much options to make a new run to a completely new experience.