Thoughts and opinions
Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2024 7:38 pm
With Panzer Corps 2 and its DLC for now finished multiple times, I decided to try out something different for a change and went for Headquarters World War II, having it on my wishlist from the very first announcements. At the moment of writing this, I am on the 8th scenario of the American campaign, the first one that I decided to try out, wanting to test the game form a much fresher side than just the German perspective. I only play single player modes in such games, so these observations and thoughts are limited to it, but wanted to share and summarize, as I did not see much in terms of similar topics (maybe one form the release announcements was similar).
Overall, I am satisfied with the experience and like this title. It feels like a diamond in the rough, with the concept having huge potential, limited by the scope of the team and in my opinion the reasonable decision to not be overly ambitious, instead focusing on doing the things that are the game's strengths well. I will for sure finish the campaigns, probably try out the DLC also when some good discount appears, but I am also interested in this concept being taken to a new level in some years form now, as there are ways to build upon this idea. It is something that could be utilized for much grander experience, with a campaign with dozens of missions spanning many years, of course in a sequel with edited rules.
PROS
- All units seem valid and serve a purpose. Sure, some are clearly better than other because of stats, but it's more about how they are used than raw numbers.
- A lot of different traits, abilities and specializations allow for huge variance in how to deal with objectives and how to solve problems.
- Recon and visibility play a huge role in the game, much more important than in many similar tactical titles.
- Having both morale and hit points means that there are ways to delay with the enemy in various ways, even if you cannot deal direct damage.
- Different armor values on vehicles make unit placement count a lot.
- Environment matters - cover, destructible objects, elevation, obstacles so on. It is not the Jagged Alliance 2 line of fire elegance, but something in the right direction.
- Good visuals, both in terms of style as well as being clear and understandable.
THINGS I AM NOT SURE ABOUT
- "Hold fire" command is a cool concept, but I'd expand upon it, giving the player an option to select what unit classes it applies to. This is for example to not waste AT overwatch on advancing infantry. It could deepen the combat experience and allow to set up more elaborate ambushes.
- Morale reinforcement is a great concept, instant hit point replacements seems strange. Perhaps, rather than do this, a destroyed vehicle could be abandoned by the crew (with some chance of survival for each crew member that was present when it gets destroyed, depending on the "overkill" value). Then it could be a very weak infantry with just handguns, that needs to survive to carry over the experience and be in the next mission. A lost vehicle could be temporarily replaced on the battlefield by one from players reserve coming form a deployment zone, but that would require reworking the way the whole core force system works.
- Percentage chance for each attack, I feel it should be calculated differently for rapid fire weapons, as the amount of pure misses in some close distances seems strange.
- Sound effects are serviceable, but could be more impactful with more aftersound.
CONS
- The core force is too small, while the whole player force is too large. The fact that each mission in the campaign usually starts with 50% auxiliary units seems like a waste to me. I would prefer to have 2/3rds of the units, but have full control over their composition, reserving auxiliary forces to narratively important reinforcements, or targets the player is saving. It would require reworking the way the slots are calculated and how replacements are given to not impact the difficulty level, but would be a much better experience. Control over the core force allows the player to be more connected to his units and care about them more.
- Load/unload of artillery units on transports should take up more movement points, it does not feel like there's truly a mobility advantage of self-propelled units, they just benefit from better defense.
Overall, I am satisfied with the experience and like this title. It feels like a diamond in the rough, with the concept having huge potential, limited by the scope of the team and in my opinion the reasonable decision to not be overly ambitious, instead focusing on doing the things that are the game's strengths well. I will for sure finish the campaigns, probably try out the DLC also when some good discount appears, but I am also interested in this concept being taken to a new level in some years form now, as there are ways to build upon this idea. It is something that could be utilized for much grander experience, with a campaign with dozens of missions spanning many years, of course in a sequel with edited rules.
PROS
- All units seem valid and serve a purpose. Sure, some are clearly better than other because of stats, but it's more about how they are used than raw numbers.
- A lot of different traits, abilities and specializations allow for huge variance in how to deal with objectives and how to solve problems.
- Recon and visibility play a huge role in the game, much more important than in many similar tactical titles.
- Having both morale and hit points means that there are ways to delay with the enemy in various ways, even if you cannot deal direct damage.
- Different armor values on vehicles make unit placement count a lot.
- Environment matters - cover, destructible objects, elevation, obstacles so on. It is not the Jagged Alliance 2 line of fire elegance, but something in the right direction.
- Good visuals, both in terms of style as well as being clear and understandable.
THINGS I AM NOT SURE ABOUT
- "Hold fire" command is a cool concept, but I'd expand upon it, giving the player an option to select what unit classes it applies to. This is for example to not waste AT overwatch on advancing infantry. It could deepen the combat experience and allow to set up more elaborate ambushes.
- Morale reinforcement is a great concept, instant hit point replacements seems strange. Perhaps, rather than do this, a destroyed vehicle could be abandoned by the crew (with some chance of survival for each crew member that was present when it gets destroyed, depending on the "overkill" value). Then it could be a very weak infantry with just handguns, that needs to survive to carry over the experience and be in the next mission. A lost vehicle could be temporarily replaced on the battlefield by one from players reserve coming form a deployment zone, but that would require reworking the way the whole core force system works.
- Percentage chance for each attack, I feel it should be calculated differently for rapid fire weapons, as the amount of pure misses in some close distances seems strange.
- Sound effects are serviceable, but could be more impactful with more aftersound.
CONS
- The core force is too small, while the whole player force is too large. The fact that each mission in the campaign usually starts with 50% auxiliary units seems like a waste to me. I would prefer to have 2/3rds of the units, but have full control over their composition, reserving auxiliary forces to narratively important reinforcements, or targets the player is saving. It would require reworking the way the slots are calculated and how replacements are given to not impact the difficulty level, but would be a much better experience. Control over the core force allows the player to be more connected to his units and care about them more.
- Load/unload of artillery units on transports should take up more movement points, it does not feel like there's truly a mobility advantage of self-propelled units, they just benefit from better defense.