Does anyone else have trouble going back to Vanilla Corps?

[monkspider]

I tried to start a new playthrough of the default campaign recently but only got as far as France before I lost the motivation to continue. After Afrika Korps and the Grand Campaign, Vanilla Corps feels so basic and uninteresting. Which is odd, because I absolutely loved it when it first came out. Although I still love the more dynamic nature of the stock campaign, now, it seems like you have to constantly upgrade your equipment and the scenarios lack the creativity of the team's more recent creations and all have the annoying "race against the clock" dynamic. Anyone else have this problem?

[Kerensky]

If our new content wasn't superior to old our content, I'd say we failed at doing our job.

That's not to say the Vanilla game is bad, far from it. It's just since then, the game has evolved and progressed. We got a good feeling of what people enjoyed (captured units was such a big hit) and didn't enjoy(fighting the clock TOO much) from our original content, and expanded the game based directly on that feedback and the realization that our players wanted more(especially more and bigger campaigns apparently). In my opinion, that's what DLC are supposed to be all about: a direct response to the playerbase's desires. Which is why I don't particularly like DLC that come out on or very near release because it doesn't get the chance incorporate this feedback, but that's just me.

The Vanilla game is still a great place for first time players to get their feet wet, because it's pretty well understood among our players that while the DLC campaigns and Afrika Korps have new and exciting features (features that can be overwhelming to comprehend when thrown at a first time player who is still learning the difference between tank and infantry units and their roles), they're also tuned to be more difficult. Again, because these additions are a response to our players, who are often seeking more and greater challenges once they've completed the basic game.

[2010sjones2010]

The issue I have with Vanilla corps is that I played the original Panzer General to death. As the revamped vanilla campaign is predominantly just an upgrade to the original Panzer General there is little replay value. However it is a great starting point for those new to the concept of Panzer Corps. Which brings me on to my next question. With Afrika Corps and the DLC's in the West completed will the developers be looking at bringing out a Vanilla Corps based on the original Allied General? Also I would love to play a Vanilla Corps based on Pacific General which I played only a couple of times many years ago but enjoyed greatly. So any plans for an Allied General and Pacific General remake???

[Longasc]

I am playing "Vanilla Corps" atm, or rather taking a break at the moment -> I am afraid of East Coast USA. As simple as that.

[KeldorKatarn]

Well from what I remember they already said they'll change that scenario a bit in one of the next patches. So stay tuned

[monkspider]

If our new content wasn't superior to old our content, I'd say we failed at doing our job.

That's not to say the Vanilla game is bad, far from it. It's just since then, the game has evolved and progressed. We got a good feeling of what people enjoyed (captured units was such a big hit) and didn't enjoy(fighting the clock TOO much) from our original content, and expanded the game based directly on that feedback and the realization that our players wanted more(especially more and bigger campaigns apparently). In my opinion, that's what DLC are supposed to be all about: a direct response to the playerbase's desires. Which is why I don't particularly like DLC that come out on or very near release because it doesn't get the chance incorporate this feedback, but that's just me.

The Vanilla game is still a great place for first time players to get their feet wet, because it's pretty well understood among our players that while the DLC campaigns and Afrika Korps have new and exciting features (features that can be overwhelming to comprehend when thrown at a first time player who is still learning the difference between tank and infantry units and their roles), they're also tuned to be more difficult. Again, because these additions are a response to our players, who are often seeking more and greater challenges once they've completed the basic game.

Absolutely! It speaks to the quality of Afrika Korps/Grand Campaign that they can already make the stock campaign feel so obsolete.

[KeldorKatarn]

It's still a great campaign, and maybe one day it will get reworked. But hey, it was already feeling a little legacy since it is a bit of an updated Panzer General campaign, so no wonder it gets old for fans a bit fast. But that's what the new content is all about And it is still fun, also because it feels like a nice remake of the classic Panzer General. And for that is is ok that it sticks to most of the gameplay and scenario design that old PG offered.

[jmores]

I just spent $30 on a game that all of you now consider crap, even when you don't say it with so many words. Man...what a waste, I guess I'm not going to spend time on this one anymore, especially after reading that it has so many time limited scenarios, because I hate those.

Don't tell me that it gets better by spending even more money, because I pass on that one.

[KeldorKatarn]

Nobody said it was crap. Yes most scenarios are time limited, but that's not really an issue. I mean the other campaigns also have time limits, they just don't have different time limits for DV and MV but other objectives that differ. The main campaign is still great. After all it is modeled after the Panzer general campaign and that was one of the best hex Field strategy campaigns ever. But yes, spending more money makes it even better, but the campaign that comes with the game is by no means "crap", not even close.

[mulleto22]

Sorry if you got the impression that the main game is crap - it is great, and personally I did not feel that the vanilla campaign of PzC reminded me of the original PG campaign too much.

I think that most of us here who have played through 100+ Scenarios with the GCs , some even multiple times, cannot easily be thrilled by the vanilla campaign any more. That does not by all means imply that the vanilly campagin is crap. It just has a totally different feeling (timed scenarios, but also the flow of time between the scenarios) than the GCs.

Personally, having spent - around 85? - bucks on the complete PzC Series, this is by far the most I have gotten out of any game per Dollar spent in the last 10 years. I don't regret a single cent.

[Kamerer]

Personally, having spent - around 85? - bucks on the complete PzC Series, this is by far the most I have gotten out of any game per Dollar spent in the last 10 years. I don't regret a single cent.

I second that. I don't buy/play many games myself. In fact the last game I bought was probably the last of the original Star Craft expansions 10 years ago.

Panzer Corps is A LOT of fun for the money, especially the expansion DLCs. And Afrika Corps is a gem.

[monkspider]

I really loved the Vanilla Corps campaign when I first played it. I never would have become a hardcore Panzer Corps fanboy otherwise. The "problem" is that Slitherine's scenario design evolved so quickly. If you have never played the Grand Campaign/Afrika Korps, you will love the camapign as much as we all did.

[brettz123]

I pretty much agree with everyone. Lots of bang for your buck. DLCs are cheap and come out at good intervals. It would be nice if we got an updated Grand Campaign but to be honest I would prefer updated DLC first!

[captainjack]

I prefer the DLCs and Afrika Korps but recently ran through the main camapaign for a change and enjoyed it, though it does have quite a different feel from the DLCs (especially straight after AK).
For me, Panzer Corps remains playable because of the variations possible. The difficulty levels and initial settings add one challenge, but I also like the ability to try out different strategies and tactics and to use different mixes of core units.

A look at discussion threads on captured units alone shows that you could set yourself a number of different goals - collect them all, never use them, don't ever buy any tanks but only ever use or upgrade captured units. Add to this the different views on whether to use pioneers, cavalry, gebirgsjager etc, what type of artillery, aircraft types and whether or not you want to try to keep your initial units alive from start to finish and you could potentially play the same campaign many times over before it got too similar. When it does, you have the option of multiplayer games.

[bebro]

Just got AK these days, and so far I'm enjoying it a lot more than vanilla I have to say. Not to say that I dislike the original game, but having played several incarnations of PG the vanilla campaign felt somewhat similar to what's known from there, even when the details are different. AK feels much more "fresh" so to speak.

[Loki1942]

Cannot play anything but the Grand Campaign, and i will be sorely dissapointed if Allied Corps goes back to the Vanilla concept

[robman]

IMO they are really different games. Vanilla Corps is about as close as you can get to a strategic game within the PzC family. The GCs, by contrast, verge on the tactical level. AK is in between. The high resolution and short time frames of the GC scenarios create possibilities for unit/map/trait innovations that would not make sense for Vanilla Corps, or even Afrika Corps. Personally, I'd like to play an Allied Corps that's closer to the GCs than Vanilla Corps or AK, but I suppose an Allied Corps with its own GCs might provide the best of both worlds for everyone.

[brettz123]

IMO they are really different games. Vanilla Corps is about as close as you can get to a strategic game within the PzC family. The GCs, by contrast, verge on the tactical level. AK is in between. The high resolution and short time frames of the GC scenarios create possibilities for unit/map/trait innovations that would not make sense for Vanilla Corps, or even Afrika Corps. Personally, I'd like to play an Allied Corps that's closer to the GCs than Vanilla Corps or AK, but I suppose an Allied Corps with its own GCs might provide the best of both worlds for everyone.

I actually disagree with everything you just said. I absolutely don't see one as more tactical or strategic than the other. It is simply the same game with a lot of new things the developers have added in that were not in Vanilla Corps plus, and in some ways I think this is even more important, you can see that the developers have really matured as scenario / map creators. Personally what I would like to see is a down and dirty redo of the original campaign to see what it would look like as a true Panzer Corps game as compared to a very nice copy of Panzer General.

So that is the difference I see between the DLCs (including Afrika Corps) and the original campaign. The original game was simply an awesome update of Panzer General and now we actually have a different game with a similar look and feel.

[monkspider]

So that is the difference I see between the DLCs (including Afrika Corps) and the original campaign. The original game was simply an awesome update of Panzer General and now we actually have a different game with a similar look and feel.

Woah, I never thought about that, but you are right. I think escaping the shadow of Panzer General allowed them to do a lot more interesting and creative stuff.

I do agree with Robman though that Vanilla Corps is on a more strategic scale, as opposed to the more zoomed-in scale of the Grand Campaign.

[brettz123]

So that is the difference I see between the DLCs (including Afrika Corps) and the original campaign. The original game was simply an awesome update of Panzer General and now we actually have a different game with a similar look and feel.

Woah, I never thought about that, but you are right. I think escaping the shadow of Panzer General allowed them to do a lot more interesting and creative stuff.

I do agree with Robman though that Vanilla Corps is on a more strategic scale, as opposed to the more zoomed-in scale of the Grand Campaign.

I find that a function of the maps not the actual gameplay. So I feel it is a function of how the game is perceived not how the game is actually played. Personally what I would like to see is something that blends the two with smaller zoomed in maps between the larger strategic maps.