Slitherine

I played the original Panzer General back when it came out. I enjoyed playing it once through, and then went on to Allied General (not quite as fun) and Fantasy General (fun, but in a different way). I didn't like Panzer General 2 and 3 as much. Didn't bother with Pacific General or People's General, except for the demos.

So my question is: for "casual" Panzer General fans, if you had to pick one game to play, which would it be: the Panzer Corps core game or Afrika Korps?

1) Which is more fun, overall? Or does that depend on which one you play first?
2) How closely does the core game follow Panzer General's scenarios?
3) Does the feeling of nostalgia get replaced with the feeling of "been there done that"? If so, at what point?
4) Does the core game (or AK) have lots of overlap with the DLC campaigns, in terms of "feel"?

I'd love to try both, but the cost of both plus the DLC mega-pack is a bit steep, especially for someone who enjoyed the original series, but not quite enough to play it again and again and again.

Thanks!

The core game is closest in campaign flow and gameplay to the original PG. AK diverges more from PG in both gameplay and campaign flow: it has minefields and other improvements, and the victorious campaign reaches farther east, all the way to the Indian Ocean. The Grand Campaign (DLCs) is the least like PG: the gameplay verges on the tactical, the AI is really bent on the destruction of your units, and there is not much performance-based branching in the campaign tree. Of the three, I have enjoyed the Grand Campaign most, but that's purely subjective. The cheapest way to try out the more novel options would be to purchase AK and GC '39.

tripecac wrote:1) Which is more fun, overall? Or does that depend on which one you play first?

AK is a bit more difficult, but much more varied in the types of scenario and challenges. The stock PzC can seem a bit 'simple' (straightforward) after you have played AK. But you are a casual player, so you might find the quicker pace and higher predictability of the stock (core) game more attractive. Have you played the demo yet?

2) How closely does the core game follow Panzer General's scenarios?

The core game (PzC) echos a lot of the Panzer General scenarios, but there are fewer scenarios and some are smaller in scale. The fictional USA scenarios are much better. Also, there are no African scenarios in PzC, unlike in Panzer General; I always enjoyed these so I was very pleased when AK was announced.

3) Does the feeling of nostalgia get replaced with the feeling of "been there done that"? If so, at what point?

Difficult to answer, it would depend on your personality I guess. With PzC, it can happen for me in some of the later scenarios, but I almost never had this with AK, because it's much more varied.

4) Does the core game (or AK) have lots of overlap with the DLC campaigns, in terms of "feel"?

AK and the DLC campaigns have a very similar feel, especially the later ones. They are now updating the older DLC content with some newer features to give a better experience. The DLC's/AK feel slower, because the war does not progress very quickly between scenarios, meaning you will be using and meeting a lot of the same equipment for a long time. But I like it better than the more rushed pace of PzC, although some DLC scenarios can really feel like a slog (Stalingrad in the DLC's is a real grinder). the core PzC feels a bit different, time is much more limited, goals are more straightforward.

I'd love to try both, but the cost of both plus the DLC mega-pack is a bit steep, especially for someone who enjoyed the original series, but not quite enough to play it again and again and again.Thanks!

I am hesitant to give any advice, as I am someone who is willing to put a lot of time in some games. If you have played the demo and like it, you can try the basic game first, as a safe choice. It will probably be the most familiar to you (hopefully not too familiar).

If you want a more challenging and varied experience you can try AK, but it will be more different in feel and setting from the original Panzer General, which may put you off. Not everyone wants to spend a lot of time in the desert...

But remember, for the DLC campaigns, you only need to have the core game or AK installed, so you can also skip the core game and just get AK and the DLC's. But you are going to have to spend a lot of time if you want to play through all that content, and it might be a bit 'too much' if you only want to play the occasional game.

As above, Panzer Corps core is closest to PG. I was never that big a fan of PG afrika battles, so if you dont mind not having them, then PC would feel very much like PG.

Panzer corps with the Grand campaign DLC, or mega pack is the way to go for casual play I would say. I am a casual player myself; Nothing to serious. I have adapted the game to suit me, such as play as Coronal and use the turn# cheat to give myself a few extra turns. I don't cheat other than that, I only cheat here because I think the turns allowed are very tight and don't really allow for experimentation.

Muddy, did you not enjoy AK?

tripecac wrote:Muddy, did you not enjoy AK?

Desert warfare is not usually my thing. I find it a bit boring. Besides that, I couldn't understand why they needed to make it a full game, surly the campaign could have been added as normal dlc. I guess it was a money cow.
Anyway the full PC grand campaign is the prime game, and for me the best.

If you are a casual gamer definitely choose the regular PC campaign. AK is too hard for a casual gamer to enjoy as you will probably lose badly in Crusader/Gazala or Alam Halfa and never get to the REALLY hard battles to come. Much more value for your money to purchase the option you could actually play through.

As stated earlier PC takes you through more of a game flow. I enjoyed AK more though I think. But, I have read much about the desert fight.

I used to believe the stock campaign may be the best entry point for casual gamers but i am slowly less and less convinced. The stock campaign, especially after getting used to the a lot better designed missions in AK and the Grand Campaign, feels not really like fighting the enemy but a race against the clock. The opposition rarely is the real problem in the stock campaign but more the turn limit you have to face. In the stock campaign most missions can be summed up with: Earn air superiority in the first few turns then process racing through 75% of the map to face some crazy unit spam the AI is doing at the last few objectives.

Even if AK may be a bit harder the missions are far more interesting and diverse. I would actually say if someone do not intend to buy both the stock game and AK but only want one of them then getting AK is the better option unless of course someone really fancy the pure races against the clock type of missions.

Personally I'd skip PC altogether and go with AK and GC. Not sure what is your definition of casual gamer, but GC is long, true, but interesting and the maps are not bigger than those in vanilla, even playing once a week for an hour you can go through it with no issue. And having a longer game shouldn't be a problem. Overall GC and AK have better scenario designs and thus are a more interesting choice