My first campaign (FM, 39-45)
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:04 am
Hi,
I am a big fan of PG1 and played PGDos, PGWin and PGF (also played AG, Scorched Earth and PGWest).
Not saying I am the best player ever, but I was more than experienced- I liked extenting the Berlin Last stand scenario to 255 moves with a hex editor or to play some scenarios in the custom made campaigns as standalone with only some auxilleries available- I like PG most when it is about crisis management.
Bottomline I was more than delighted to hear about PC although I run a family and a small business which does restrict me in playing time more than some of you guys.
My first attempt ended in France where I lost, actually I lost it in Norway when I had a decicive victory, but crippled my expensive airforce against the british navy and managed Low countries just (with three tanks only) and no prestige.
My principle is not save and replay, so a lost core-unit is a loss - that's war!
After I understood that some of my tricks from PG1 wouldn't work any more (which is a good thing) and how prestige works here, I had a good time with my second attempt.
I had decisive victories or was only one or two moves away in almost all scenarios, making sure I am not getting into the America-branch of the campaign tree (I dislike that idea).
My only error was that I had a decisive victory at Bagration which means I had no Russians to deal with any more. That was my favourite scenario since I had to sacrifice a lot (5 core units, among them one SE Tiger), swap my 3 Strat bombers into Elephants and repair most units with non-elite replacements to deal with the initial losses.I
only replayed Kursk to see whether a forced river crossing is better and Stalingrad because I won but was a bit sloppy late at night and this intersting scenario deserves a proper solution.
I believe key to success is a focus on artillery as you can see how many enemy-elements are supressed not able to bite back- I had 4 towed and 2 self propelled, 4 special purpose infantry, 3 fighters, 3 Tac bombers, 3 Strat bombers, 1 recon and the rest tanks (didn't need a second recon since one tank had two +1 spottings).
After I lost one core unit in each of the first three scenarios, they remained intact until Bagration 44.
Most of the new things I liked:
+new units (like armoured trains)
+new traain like thick forest
+new rules (no ZOC for aircraft)
+new graphics (even little details like the Eiffeltower or the horse-shoe)
+special capabilities
+updating units (although the values are not very well researched: you know e.g. that a IVJ is not as good as a IVH since they had to spare material? That was the whole idea of the IVJ)
Some things I realy disliked
-AI was as bad as PGF. Why can't it be at least like PGWin95?
-to few East front or in general late war scenarios
-boring play when all the computer does is purchasing AD, AT and ART to protect a city. How much more interesting were the Ardennes in PG1 with their 15Paras at Bastogne and the emty cities in the Hinterland?
I am a big fan of PG1 and played PGDos, PGWin and PGF (also played AG, Scorched Earth and PGWest).
Not saying I am the best player ever, but I was more than experienced- I liked extenting the Berlin Last stand scenario to 255 moves with a hex editor or to play some scenarios in the custom made campaigns as standalone with only some auxilleries available- I like PG most when it is about crisis management.
Bottomline I was more than delighted to hear about PC although I run a family and a small business which does restrict me in playing time more than some of you guys.
My first attempt ended in France where I lost, actually I lost it in Norway when I had a decicive victory, but crippled my expensive airforce against the british navy and managed Low countries just (with three tanks only) and no prestige.
My principle is not save and replay, so a lost core-unit is a loss - that's war!
After I understood that some of my tricks from PG1 wouldn't work any more (which is a good thing) and how prestige works here, I had a good time with my second attempt.
I had decisive victories or was only one or two moves away in almost all scenarios, making sure I am not getting into the America-branch of the campaign tree (I dislike that idea).
My only error was that I had a decisive victory at Bagration which means I had no Russians to deal with any more. That was my favourite scenario since I had to sacrifice a lot (5 core units, among them one SE Tiger), swap my 3 Strat bombers into Elephants and repair most units with non-elite replacements to deal with the initial losses.I
only replayed Kursk to see whether a forced river crossing is better and Stalingrad because I won but was a bit sloppy late at night and this intersting scenario deserves a proper solution.
I believe key to success is a focus on artillery as you can see how many enemy-elements are supressed not able to bite back- I had 4 towed and 2 self propelled, 4 special purpose infantry, 3 fighters, 3 Tac bombers, 3 Strat bombers, 1 recon and the rest tanks (didn't need a second recon since one tank had two +1 spottings).
After I lost one core unit in each of the first three scenarios, they remained intact until Bagration 44.
Most of the new things I liked:
+new units (like armoured trains)
+new traain like thick forest
+new rules (no ZOC for aircraft)
+new graphics (even little details like the Eiffeltower or the horse-shoe)
+special capabilities
+updating units (although the values are not very well researched: you know e.g. that a IVJ is not as good as a IVH since they had to spare material? That was the whole idea of the IVJ)
Some things I realy disliked
-AI was as bad as PGF. Why can't it be at least like PGWin95?
-to few East front or in general late war scenarios
-boring play when all the computer does is purchasing AD, AT and ART to protect a city. How much more interesting were the Ardennes in PG1 with their 15Paras at Bastogne and the emty cities in the Hinterland?
