Panzer Corps 2: Elite - 1st Guards remarks

[Bee1976]

It’s been about an hour and a half per scenario ?

It’s hard to say. I needed the most time for the first two missions because I really had to think things through and play strategically. Starting from mission 4, it became noticeably easier, and missions 8 and 9 were basically a walk in the park. So overall, I’d say that an average of about 1.5 hours per mission is pretty realistic.

[smashtheaxis]

Overall this is a fun campaign. But is it only possible in Panzer Corps to make scenarios challenging by giving the AI opponent superior numerical advantages, i.e. huge amounts of units that outmatch the player's?

While that might work in a German campaign, it really felt off in this Soviet campaign. My tiny little Red Army constantly struggling to defeat the overwhelming German forces in 1945?

And these super elite units in the final scenario, that prevent you from crossing the Elbe at the end of the scenario, are just the worst.

Another point I did not like so much is the inclusion of prototype super weapons in these historical campaigns. Those are fun for alt. history campaigns, but here they don't fit so well into campaigns that follow only the historical path, of a historical unit.

[Tassadar]

Overall this is a fun campaign. But is it only possible in Panzer Corps to make scenarios challenging by giving the AI opponent superior numerical advantages, i.e. huge amounts of units that outmatch the player's?

Panzer Corps 3 will need to address this if/when it eventually goes out live in the future (it's the most important change alongside sound and unit stats/overall roster size). For the second part some key elements are set in stone I'm afraid, at least it seems so, and no major AI tweak seems possible, aside from maybe map designers running some really complex scripts of their own.

Another point I did not like so much is the inclusion of prototype super weapons in these historical campaigns. Those are fun for alt. history campaigns, but here they don't fit so well into campaigns that follow only the historical path, of a historical unit.

Yes, but these are also optional. At no point are you forced to use any equipment, nor to sure any hero. The things you can customize are almost infinite and you can go from hardcore literature-based accuracy to all-in s-f if you'd like with anything in between. That is actually one of the game's biggest advantages.

[DefiantXYX]

Overall this is a fun campaign. But is it only possible in Panzer Corps to make scenarios challenging by giving the AI opponent superior numerical advantages, i.e. huge amounts of units that outmatch the player's?

While that might work in a German campaign, it really felt off in this Soviet campaign. My tiny little Red Army constantly struggling to defeat the overwhelming German forces in 1945?

Nope, right now not possible.
The game mechanics as well as the AI behaviour doenst allow that. At least not if you create just another DLC to grab some money, instead of working on something greater.

A 5 star Tiger with 4 heroes can get destroyed easily. Use an artillery, maybe a bomber and a T34 can kill it...
Panzer General 2/ 3D did a very good job with the allied campaigns. Especially at the eastern front, when you saw a Tiger/Panther they were most of the time understrenghed and you need to encircle them and use massive forces to defeat them.

For a soviet campaign you need something like special traits for the units. Like "units get 50% of their strength back when not fighting" or something like that. You should not try to farm experience and heroes, your units itself should be able to get more overstrength, or you get more core slots for losing stuff.
I mean operation bagragation might be the biggest success for the soviets in WWII and they lost far more stuff than the germans.

In "The Battle for Middlearth 1" with the mordor army you get rewarded if you lose orcs and other units, while they are for free.
Thats something that could somehow work in panzer corps 2, you get prestige all the time to buy more stuff. Mass attack bonus should be far more important. 3x T34 cant damage a tiger, 6x finally can. The air fights at the beginning in SCW work like that.

[smashtheaxis]

Yes, but these are also optional. At no point are you forced to use any equipment, nor to sure any hero. The things you can customize are almost infinite and you can go from hardcore literature-based accuracy to all-in s-f if you'd like with anything in between. That is actually one of the game's biggest advantages.

I was more worried about super weapons in the AI opponent's services. The E-100 and the Vril Society Super Maus protecting the Elbe crossings at the end of the final scenario are sadly not optional, and may ruin some player's campaigns. I luckily had some overpowered heavy artillery units to counter them.

[Tassadar]

Yes, but these are also optional. At no point are you forced to use any equipment, nor to sure any hero. The things you can customize are almost infinite and you can go from hardcore literature-based accuracy to all-in s-f if you'd like with anything in between. That is actually one of the game's biggest advantages.

I was more worried about super weapons in the AI opponent's services. The E-100 and the Vril Society Super Maus protecting the Elbe crossings at the end of the final scenario are sadly not optional, and may ruin some player's campaigns. I luckily had some overpowered heavy artillery units to counter them.

Got it, I did not reach that scenario yet as I'm playing at a slower pace (and have some competition from Persona 3 Reload ), but in that case I see what you mean. These should probably indeed not be the units seen in a series aiming, at least in theory, for a more realistic approach to historical battles.

[terminator]

Mission 2 : Ending Stalemates

On the 30th turn I wanted to put an end to this mission by sending the fast and very useful tank BT-7 over the Japanese lines to reach contact with the first Soviet army.
Japanese aviation caused me problems. The GAZ AA-MG was not of great help to me, the Japanese bombers regularly took it as a target.
I didn’t manage to accomplish all the secondary objectives.

Ening Stalemates.jpg (934.15 KiB) Viewed 916 times

[Bee1976]

Overall this is a fun campaign. But is it only possible in Panzer Corps to make scenarios challenging by giving the AI opponent superior numerical advantages, i.e. huge amounts of units that outmatch the player's?

Im afraid there cant be both: a fun game and mostly historical correct battles. The Wehrmacht was weak in 44 and 45. Far less tanks, massiv fuel probs and mostly infantry without transports. So to offer a challenge and some fun fpr the player there are just two ways:
First would be to lower the scale like headquarters did.
Second: Raise the enemy strength to a challenging level

playing a realistic late war from allied perspective would be a walk in the park. or beating a pinata without a blindfold.

[smashtheaxis]

playing a realistic late war from allied perspective would be a walk in the park. or beating a pinata without a blindfold.

Hmm, it wasn't a walk in the park in reality though. Soviet casualties were still in the 100,000s even in the final weeks. It should be possible to make a challenging game even for this phase of the war.

But perhaps it is not possible to depict it in PC2, where a more realistic ratio of army sizes / army strength makes it too easy.

Maybe one option for a different challenge would have been to give the player additional time pressure. When Stalin pushes you to reach Berlin before the allies, no matter the costs. But that would of course collide with the game's option to switch off the turn limit.

Perhaps the next PC game should have scenario-based penalties, to give additional challenges. I.e., when your supply lines are stretched, everything costs 25% more prestige. Stretched supply lines also affect the winning side, and give an advantage to the losers. Etc.

[Tassadar]

Maybe one option for a different challenge would have been to give the player additional time pressure. When Stalin pushes you to reach Berlin before the allies, no matter the costs. But that would of course collide with the game's option to switch off the turn limit.

Perhaps the next PC game should have scenario-based penalties, to give additional challenges. I.e., when your supply lines are stretched, everything costs 25% more prestige. Stretched supply lines also affect the winning side, and give an advantage to the losers. Etc.

Super cool and creative idea. We have heroes with unique abilities and commander traits, so this type of approach could be extended to having mission/campaign specific stipulations. Let's say we're playing as Germany 1944 and 1945 on historical defensive path and thus elite replacements become X% more expensive as time goes one. This type of options could be really creative and mix up the feel of the game.

[DefiantXYX]

Hmm, it wasn't a walk in the park in reality though. Soviet casualties were still in the 100,000s even in the final weeks. It should be possible to make a challenging game even for this phase of the war.

That soviet playstyle from 1941 to the end.
The Western Allies were just smarter.

Let's say we're playing as Germany 1944 and 1945 on historical defensive path and thus elite replacements become X% more expensive as time goes one. This type of options could be really creative and mix up the feel of the game.

The defensive part is not the real problem.
The game mechanics have no solutions right now, if the attacker is far superior. Only was it work work with awards, experience and you need some different unit stats. Lets say there is a Tiger II he should have some awards and 5 stars and is far stronger than your tanks. While your units should have max. 2 stars...something like that.

[RVallant]

Maybe one option for a different challenge would have been to give the player additional time pressure. When Stalin

Super cool and creative idea.

Time limits were already there in PC1, the devs ditched them, which in hindsight was a bad decision. (Full, nominal victories and losses.)

War is all about logistics and timetables, securing objectives quickly and figuring out how to do so against weather and other factors were key, and we miss a bit of that in PZC2.

The key things they need to remove if they ever hit PZC3 are;

1. Hero spam, and heroes in general.

2. Prototype nonsense weapons being common place.

3. Alt-history nonsense; Don't get me wrong, I appreciate alternative-history victories turning the tide in the local theatre, but the alt-history they portrayed in the German campaign of PZ2 was just so silly, both glorifying the German reign and cleaning up the bad parts of it, but also just being completely daft with enemies dropping off nukes every two turns, it was nonsense.

4. A little bit more creativity in terms of barriers to the war front.

I'll give an example of 4, in the Allies corps for a different game, you take control of the BEF and French elements and are told to hold a front line as per the Allies plan. Your initial goals are hold the line and bloody their breakthrough units. The second one is the key goal, because goal 1 gets abandoned when the drive through the Ardennes becomes a reality and you're suddenly outflanked. Then, the scenario rapidly switches to a fighting retreat and breakout. That sort of dynamism was missing from a lot of the PZ2 scenarios, if I'm honest, I'm not saying every scenario has to be that way, but it showcases that you need to be flexible and that plans never survive contact with the enemy in a better way than putting forth a Char with 99 defence because De Gaulle happens to be in it.

[RVallant]

Maybe one option for a different challenge would have been to give the player additional time pressure. When Stalin

Super cool and creative idea.

Time limits were already there in PC1, the devs ditched them, which in hindsight was a bad decision. (Full, nominal victories and losses.)

War is all about logistics and timetables, securing objectives quickly and figuring out how to do so against weather and other factors were key, and we miss a bit of that in PZC2.

The key things they need to remove if they ever hit PZC3 are;

1. Hero spam, and heroes in general.

2. Prototype nonsense weapons being common place.

3. Alt-history nonsense; Don't get me wrong, I appreciate alternative-history victories turning the tide in the local theatre, but the alt-history they portrayed in the German campaign of PZ2 was just so silly, both glorifying the German reign and cleaning up the bad parts of it, but also just being completely daft with enemies dropping off nukes every two turns, it was nonsense.

4. A little bit more creativity in terms of barriers to the war front.

I'll give an example of 4, in the Allies corps for a different game, you take control of the BEF and French elements and are told to hold a front line as per the Allies plan. Your initial goals are hold the line and bloody their breakthrough units. The second one is the key goal, because goal 1 gets abandoned when the drive through the Ardennes becomes a reality and you're suddenly outflanked. Then, the scenario rapidly switches to a fighting retreat and breakout. That sort of dynamism was missing from a lot of the PZ2 scenarios, if I'm honest, I'm not saying every scenario has to be that way, but it showcases that you need to be flexible and that plans never survive contact with the enemy in a better way than putting forth a Char with 99 defence because De Gaulle happens to be in it.
[/quote]

[Bee1976]

playing a realistic late war from allied perspective would be a walk in the park. or beating a pinata without a blindfold.

Hmm, it wasn't a walk in the park in reality though. Soviet casualties were still in the 100,000s even in the final weeks. It should be possible to make a challenging game even for this phase of the war.

It was not my intention to downplay the Allied losses in any way.
However, if you put the player into a scenario with the historically realistic force ratios, it turns into a walk in the park (in my opinion), because many important soft factors are not represented in the game — such as morale, desperation, exhaustion, or psychological pressure.

Give the player 10 times the infantry and 5 to 6 times the tanks and vehicles - the AI would be smashed

[GiveWarAchance]

In "The Battle for Middlearth 1" with the mordor army you get rewarded if you lose orcs and other units, while they are for free.
Thats something that could somehow work in panzer corps 2, you get prestige all the time to buy more stuff. Mass attack bonus should be far more important. 3x T34 cant damage a tiger, 6x finally can. The air fights at the beginning in SCW work like that.

This is a good idea. Maybe have the player deploy on one side of the area while their non-core units deploy in a different area and both have to advance to make it on time. And then use your Mordor idea to help the player replace lost auxiliary units during the battle. The auxiliary army could even be under AI control which would make it even more fun and realistic because you can't control everything as one general in real life.

I also think the AI enemy should get reinforcements well into the battle when a # of turns has passed so the player has an incentive to either go fast and breakthrough before the enemy gets reinforced, or go slow & carefully and accept that the enemy will be much stronger later on.

And I am wondering about the Westwall DLC. One player said the Germans get some very strong units that make it very difficult. I have not played the DLC though I bought all these DLCs but I am having trouble getting them installed and game running. Reinstalling now and reading the forum while waiting.

[Trenchard]

playing a realistic late war from allied perspective would be a walk in the park. or beating a pinata without a blindfold.

Hmm, it wasn't a walk in the park in reality though. Soviet casualties were still in the 100,000s even in the final weeks. It should be possible to make a challenging game even for this phase of the war.

Historically the high casualties had a lot more to do with bad decisions Soviet leadership's willingness to throw troops into the meat grinder than with the Wehrmacht being all that effective in '45. also, the Wehrmacht were on home soil. even in the West where the allies were more cautious, casualties were high. i think rather than experimental prototypes, SS units stacked with no-surrender heroes would be better for capturing hte feel of it.

[quote[Maybe one option for a different challenge would have been to give the player additional time pressure. When Stalin pushes you to reach Berlin before the allies, no matter the costs. But that would of course collide with the game's option to switch off the turn limit.[/quote]

that would align with how the Soviets actually fought.

Perhaps the next PC game should have scenario-based penalties, to give additional challenges. I.e., when your supply lines are stretched, everything costs 25% more prestige. Stretched supply lines also affect the winning side, and give an advantage to the losers. Etc.

this campaign i have at least 2 scenarios left and have banked about 120k prestige so that'd need recalibration to work.

this being focused on elite units, the limited slots is has been effective. the only units i added to my core after Kalkin Ghol were bridging units. something along the lines of utterly useless conscripts that you don't control combined with very limited slots might, with tweaking, eliminate the need for enemy super weapons.

[Trenchard]

Almost done with the campaign and first impression is generally positive.

I am very much enjoying playing as the Soviets, and the Soviet heavy artillery fits my doctrine perfectly. It's VERY easy to bank prestige (especially if one acquires a liberator, i turned an armored car unit into "the white truck" whose sole mission is to drive around and collect prestige). While it makes the campaign easy, it does nudge one toward playing in a very Soviet way: I'm not all that concerned about casualties as long as I don't lose core units, and top up units with reinforcements mid-battle constantly.

I'm also very much enjoying using T-34s without having to capture them.

The scenarios are good, I'm delighted that Khalkin Ghol made the cut and enjoyed playing the Spanish Civil War as the Republicans. Really looking forward to the linked campaign. I get the impression that it won't be as sprawling as AO (based on the plan for the Italian campaign). The Italian campaign started in 43 though. so the Soviet grand campaign should be grander. I'd really like a 1-per-year approach like AO. I also hope there will be more Spanish Civil War scenarios in the Soviet grand campaign.