Slitherine

The benefit Panzer Corps has, is the war begins with the Germans attacking of course.

In order for Allied Corps to meaningfully grab me, it needs to start as early as it did for Germany.

I want to be in control of Allied forces the moment the Germans cross the Polish border. I want to be running Poles, Low Countries, Brits and French. I want the war to progress from the battle of France through the war in the desert and into the retaking of Europe. The trick is to make it fun even while looking defeated in the early years, because lets face it, defeating the Germans in France would kinda mess up the game

I'd also like a Russian view point game, and the convenient thing there, is they don't need to worry about wandering around varied theatres. They need to hold on and then make a come back.

But that's the key thing, the hold on then come back aspect. The Germans are different, in that the whole war is them seeing if they can actually beat all they go up against. Not sure they can even clone PC as an allied side version and make the game identical in all ways.

I am really not sure I want to play the road to Berlin from North Africa, but how do you avoid it eh.

panzer general 2 is the all time best game i think i know its old but fun there is so many mods i cant count but an idea of allied general also brings back memorys to short for allied campaign what about a hypothical type set as usa germany has taken europe and england usa stands alone its basically a stepping stone german is getting ready to invade they have a small fleet with transports on the way usa big navy stops them then turns the tide by retaking england and so on i think to make it longer they need to retake parts of russia then russia joins to help retake rest of russia there is a patton game already from battlefront.com strategic command patton drives east to short also not sure what people think hope that helps alittle

Campaigns will probably need to follow one core nation to retain a consistent army, so having the "allies" as a core will probably not work very well. PC already takes care of this by adding auxiliary units in some maps, like the Polish coastal defenders in Sealion or the Canadians in USA Mid-West, Romanians and Italians ...

I liked all campaigns in the original Allied General. There were some that let you start as the Brittish, others that had you start as the US in Africa and then there was of course the biggest challenge of playing the Bolsheviks. Depending on the starting point in the campaigns, one could start out with a number of defensive scenarios, gradually taking on the initiative, or have a split trajectory where decisive wins would open up a faster counter-offensive than historically accurate.

And the point system for air cover wasnt very well impleented.

Well that is a difference between you opinion and many others

I have seen many vets state that the change for air-cover was the most realistic modification to the entire series.

Obsolete wrote:

And the point system for air cover wasnt very well impleented.

Well that is a difference between you opinion and many others
I have seen many vets state that the change for air-cover was the most realistic modification to the entire series.

Only really noticed how weird it was when played a mod that allowed for PG2 to be played in PeG engine.
I like owning the units and accompanying its progress. The air cover, more specifically (now that I found the Manual) Wild Weasel, Air Strike, Recon and Defensive Support missions, were just too ethereal for my liking.
Think the only things I really liked was the Light Infantry Air Mobile ability and the Attachments customization.

Would like to see some more branching (i.e., proceed to invade Sicily or invade Balkans as choices in '43). Heck, even an early 1940 Balkans campaign for the British after Operation Compass, perhaps. Win it and have a choice to stay in the Balkins for a fictional campaign. Lose it, and back to Africa as historically.

Also, would like to see three or more randomized enemy setups and strategies, so that scenarios do not always play so predictably. Perhap a mid-scenario random shift during a scenario, so that there are 3 x 3 = 9 combinations of enemy play (if that math is right).

Any of the above would be nice in a patch for Panzer Corps, as well.

I'd also like to see some random branching. Keep the game unpredictable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

Whatever happens, for total victory (ie, USA for Germans). This.

Fimconte wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

Whatever happens, for total victory (ie, USA for Germans). This.

Would be interesting. Historically, of course, I cannot help but think the Russians would have been sent packing.

texican wrote:

Fimconte wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

Whatever happens, for total victory (ie, USA for Germans). This.

Would be interesting. Historically, of course, I cannot help but think the Russians would have been sent packing.

I'm not so sure. Historically the Soviets had a huge manpower advantage and their industrial capacity was very high by the end of the war.
Not to mention the US was engaged in Pacific.

With the A-Bomb finished and Japan pacified (~1946)...

To get back on track:

What would you want to see in a new Allied General?

First off, let's discuss what would we need a new game for?

New units, new campaigns? Doesn't need a new .exe - these things can be run in the current game.

In fact, aside from making more money (from the assumption more people would by a new standalone game than a "allied campaign pack" for the current game), what would be good reasons for actually making a new game?

My first answer is "updates". Instead of making patches available for free; they can be "disguised" as a new game.

Meaning you buy "Allied Corps" and it will automatically detect a previous PC installation, so that you're offered to play the Wehrmacht campaign using the alliedcorps.exe instead of the panzercorps.exe...

As for game engine content, a new game could contain
1) changed rules to reflect very different battlefields
2) significant improvements to AI; partly to make it cope with very different battlefields

But that's not "allied corps" - more like "pacific corps"... I'm thinking a Naval heavy campaign could use more details on the war at sea; and the AI improvements that go with it.

Otherwise, the number one improvement I want to see is ** tracing supply **

Obviously this should never be part of Panzer Corps - hence, a real need for a new and separate game.

And I'm not talking anything hugely complex either. In fact, you only need two things:
a) to be able to place new units in/around flags/cities, the game needs to trace a route along a road or railroad (or set of roads/railroads) uninterrupted by enemy ZOC leading either to 1) a friendly uncontested airfield or 2) "your edge" of the map (each of the four edges of the map should be individually configurable to a flag or set of flags)
b) when you click supply/reinforcements buttons for a particular unit, the game checks to see if it can find an uninterrupted path back to a supplied flag (as checked by a above). If the length of that path is "too long" (as determined by the devs) or borders enemy ZOC hexes supply is reduced (much like the game works now when in contact with the enemy or with enemy air directly above)...

Any supply system should remain very simple. But even "very simple" would add considerable depth to the game as it stands today!

Only really noticed how weird it was when played a mod that allowed for PG2 to be played in PeG engine.

The only really weird thing to me was how the HQ units could deploy a unit anywhere on the board, but for the life of me, couldn't even re-supply a simple Helo unit. Arggggh. Logic in that???

BTW, I'd like to see the IS-III, so I can keep beating the crap out of US JUNK like I do with Tigers, Panthers, & Kings.

I'd also like to see the chances of leaders being killed, or wounded like in Civil War Generals.

Maybe make each unit have a total leader count as high as its base-strength?