Mega-campaign: Challenging or an exercise in futility?

[rezaf]

It's been said that following the history straightjacket for the most part was because allowing otherwise would cause an endless variety of possible deviations.
Even if I feel the Lordz are exaggerating the problem, there's definately a grain of truth to it.
I wish they'd started making additional alternate-history DLCs after finishing the main branches, but I guess the DLCs were not profitable enough to warrant this after all.
Supposedly Nikivdd was up to something new, DLC-wise, but it's been months now and nothing has been announced.

I agree with the notion that the DLCs mostly feel like an exercise in futility, but you have to understand that they are basically fan-service for people who can't get enough of PzC missions. Looks like most people don't care (enough) whether or not the battle has any impact in the end.

I wish I was better at scenario design, then I'd make a customized campaign myself with wild differences like the allies being forced out of the war early or (hijacking niki's idea) an attack on Spain or an invasion of Gibraltar or even differences in what units are available (and in which numbers) depending on how the war fares. Alas, I've neither my time nor my skill is sufficient.

In the end, though, the DLCs make a campaign so long that it kinda starts to be at odds with the game's fairly simple mechanics. Already, it's neccessary to artificially prevent units from gaining too much XP too quickly and the late soviet DLCs throw such an obscene number of tanks at you that they'd be impossible to beat without exploiting AI weaknesses.
I can think of a ton of things that could make this stuff much more interesting/exciting, but they'd proabably be beyond the scope of patching or even a DLC (though games like Matrix' own Distant Worlds prove you can make pretty drastic changes without going for a sequel). Who knows, maybe WW2 will get some more love when Rudankort finally gets Armageddon out of the door.
_____
rezaf

[Zleepyhead]

I am an old PG player, have played the new Panzer Corps through and am up to Stalingrad in DLC. Here are some of my random thoughts on the futility issue.

I am totally blown away by the variety of scenarios in the DLC. You have to dust off every strategy and tactic in the book to play through it. Whoever did this, really had to put a lot of thought and effort into it. For example, Vyazma, Streets of Moscow and Demyansk are massively different. Panzer Corps seems plain vanilla next it. It is truly impressive from a tactical viewpoint.

If you want to win, play Panzer Corp. If you want to fight, play DLC.

Compare the "soft cap" to the historical reality. The Russians did indeed have wave after wave of units to throw at the Germans. That is reflected in the far greater casualties the Russians took. The standard strategy against an overwhelming force is to have forward units mow the first wave down and fall back to a fortified defense....but the dude with the funny mustache wouldn't let his army fall back like that. The Germans also had key reserves moved off to some place silly at the worst time (like von Manstein at Kursk). Compared to that, the AI/Soft Cap are downright generous. Imagine instead of playing with snow, every so often you didn't get to move for a couple of turns and there is negative prestige for winning - that would be the historical reality in a game engine.

Along the lines of the soft cap, don't try to avoid losing "core units". Bring 50 or 60 two and three star units to fights with where there is a 40 unit cap. It takes 3 or 4 turns and a lot of prestige to reinforce a badly damaged unit on the field and get it back to battle. Disband it, upgrade your old PZ1A and get back to the fight. It is unrealistic and probably not even enjoyable to play with a limited corp. Bring a big Panther around the end for revenge instead.

Use your heros. Rudel and Dir need to be wiping out units every turn. The Germans somehow held up...and those units are how you are going to hold up.

Instead of spending a 1000 repairing a big Tiger II, drop 750 on some portable anti-tank and green infantry and put them up front. Let Ivan pick through them while you pick him apart. When one dies, bring in your heavy gear for the win.

My final tip is killing off units. In older versions you were pressed to finish off wounded units. This often left the your units in bad position. Since "reinforced units" are now supressed by the amount of the reinforcement...you don't have to chase down and kill a unit on the same turn. This means you can fortify and queue up the kill for the next turn without worrying that the unit looks like it is now a "10".

Those are my thoughts. Yes, you will lose at the end of DLC. But you get to take a lot of 'em with you.

[Magic1111]

Those are my thoughts. Yes, you will lose at the end of DLC. But you get to take a lot of 'em with you.

Thx for your report, very interesting and helpful!

[captainjack]

My final tip is killing off units.

That's a very good point.

In some of the defensive scenarios in 43 East and especially in 44 East there are some tough defensive scenario where you get attacked by a lot of powerful units.
If you make the effort to kill off a damaged unit, often it will be replaced by a full strength one. If you leave it you get several benefits:
You may be able to resupply. You won't lose ammo or entrenchment (and might gain entrenchment). Next turn, the unit will be partly suppressed, and your chances of forcing surrender are much improved (this is especially helpful if it is an expensive unit that is hard to kill like KV85, IS1 or 2 or ISU 152).
If you leave the damaged unit in place, it may reinforce (sparing you an attack) or will attack at lower strength.

Also, for defensive scenarios, where possible pull out of the line to reinforce or resupply (to avoid the supply restrictions). But do make sure you have a unit that can fill the gap - infantry with move heroes can be good for this so that they make it through the AA backing the artillery without using transport. Transport vs IS1 is rarely a victory for the transport.

[joe6778]

I totally agree with Flamond: The Grand Campaign is a total frustrating waste of time.

I also am an old wargamer from the '70s. I had some fun with the old Panzer General titles and I thought I found the PC wargame that I was looking for with Panzer Corps and the Grand Campaign expansions.

After playing hours upon hours of scenarios leading up to the finale- Berlin 45- I had the pleasure of watching my units destroyed by hundreds of Russian units. No strategy here- just sit back and watch your army destroyed. After "playing" eight grueling turns of 32, my core decimated, and 900 prestige, I surrendered to see that the Russians still had tons of units waiting on the edges of the map to finish off what was left of my "army".

The Germans lost the war: I get it. But what's the point of playing a game if your past efforts have absolutely no effect on the outcome? I could just read a book about it.

Total exercise in futility.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

The '45 West campaign has an ahistorical path if you do well enough - better known as Sealion45!

The East campaigns are quite silly however. I still agree with that.

- BNC

[joe6778]

I haven't played the West 45 Campaign and after the experience I've had with Berlin 45 I don't think I want to.

[captainjack]

I haven't played the West 45 Campaign and after the experience I've had with Berlin 45 I don't think I want to.

I found 44East pretty hard going and haven't yet made it through to 45 East, but I enjoyed both 44West and 45 West (twice each).
There's a very different feel to the two paths.

[Aloo]

I like the east all the way to 43. Later its just not fun.
But I recommend the west path. Its really fun. It might have to do with limiting the core. I find it much more fun to have a smaller core where I know each unit than a huge core that I have to use to fight and even bigger core.

I think east is suffering from having a core that's too big. If the designers wanted to show some epic battles they should of used lots of aux units. This way the battle would be easier to balance, causalities in aux units would be easier to accept and the smaller core would have more weight on the whole of the battle helping where the aux units were failing.

[joe6778]

I made it through to Berlin 45 relatively intact, but this scenario is so painful because you just watch the core you've used for tons of scenarios get totally destroyed by hundreds of Russian units.

What's the point? It's miserable. Not fun at all.

[wargovichr]

I made it through to Berlin 45 relatively intact, but this scenario is so painful because you just watch the core you've used for tons of scenarios get totally destroyed by hundreds of Russian units.

What's the point? It's miserable. Not fun at all.

Set up is very critical here. An extremely tight close defensive set up is required so that artillery can back up multiple units and units can support each other, filling in gaps, with all units behind river hexes. The rivers form defensive boxes. The tighter the setup the better. At least one airfield** is critical for refuel/refit. Infantry in city hexes, armor on clear. A few 88AA. Fighters. Refit damaged units then back in the line. Patiently** batter and bleed Russian until badly weakened allowing counterattack.

[joe6778]

Yes, I did all that, and like I said in previous rants, I made it to this point after hundreds of hours of playing the Grand Campaign beginning in 39.

I was pulling my units back to the center of the city behind the rivers, but after losing most of the auxiliary and starting to lose my core, and with prestige down to 900, the situation began to look hopeless. I kept throwing more cheap infantry into the fray, but after eight turns of this it just wasn't fun anymore and actually was quite sad.

Like most of the later East Campaign scenarios after 43, the Russians have endless amounts of prestige and powerful units, so it just became frustrating and pointless to play all 32 turns.

After seeing how many units the Russians still had to throw into the battle, I think I made the right choice to surrender. I'm just sorry that I never played the Grand Campaign to completion after devoting so much time to it.