Slitherine

When playing the individual year campaigns, I'm struggling to see how winning or losing really alter the course of the war. In the basic game, continuing to score decisive victories allows you to perform a Sea Lion mission early against the UK or even deliver a decisive blow to kill off the Soviets in 1941.

However, as I'm entering 1943 East campaign, it sort of seems like the game just flows according to the way the actual war played out. In other words, you score a decisive victory in Streets of Moscow or the Stalingrad scenarios, and it just sort of moves to the next battle without really accomplishing anything in terms of turning the tide of the war.

Does that continue regardless of whether I'm winning decisively or losing? is there a carrot at the end of this stick?

Heck, even in the title for the 1943 scenario, it says "following the defeat at Stalingrad." Except that didn't happen in my game. I won 3 decisives. The chronology seems to follow history, but not the game play.

XDopar wrote:Heck, even in the title for the 1943 scenario, it says "following the defeat at Stalingrad." Except that didn't happen in my game. I won 3 decisives. The chronology seems to follow history, but not the game play.

Say the scenario goes until October, (I haven't played that one right to the end), What's stopping the USSR from launching their counterstrike after the scenario ends, kicking you out of the city.

XDopar wrote:When playing the individual year campaigns, I'm struggling to see how winning or losing really alter the course of the war. In the basic game, continuing to score decisive victories allows you to perform a Sea Lion mission early against the UK or even deliver a decisive blow to kill off the Soviets in 1941.

However, as I'm entering 1943 East campaign, it sort of seems like the game just flows according to the way the actual war played out. In other words, you score a decisive victory in Streets of Moscow or the Stalingrad scenarios, and it just sort of moves to the next battle without really accomplishing anything in terms of turning the tide of the war.

Does that continue regardless of whether I'm winning decisively or losing? is there a carrot at the end of this stick?

If you kill the Soviets in 1941 or in Moscow 43 (in your example), the game remembers that you have knocked out the USSR, and gives you western front scenarios only. Same is true if you win Sealion 40, you only get East Front scenarios. If you are referring to the DLC campaign, those follow a historical path (exception is winning Bastonge in GC 45 West, in which you can go to Sealion45 after a bunch of others), and the briefings reference that (The Streets of Moscow tells you that you will be evacuated - I found this by snooping around with some files).

- Hope this helps,

- BNC

The Grand Campaign follows the historical path. You can not change the course of the war no matter how good you are. After the pretty fictional vanilla campaign when the DLC was started the majority wished for a campaign that follows the historical path of the war.

Of course some people may not like this and it may seems confusing that despite you winning your missions the war is still being lost but considering the smaller scale of the battles in the DLCs it can always be explained with "You performed very well on your part of the front but everywhere else we are being overwhelmed by the enemy so your gains are sadly in vain". In the Stalingrad case for example even if you scored three DVs in a row and took the whole city maybe you both flanks got overrun and you are in danger of being encircled and must fall back. Yes you may have won your battles still the whole attack was a failure in that case.

Once again, Panzer Corps the game is scaled incorrectly.
The game employs recreations of *major battles*, the capture of Stalingrad, the capture of Moscow, the envelopment of Kursk and completely wiping out troops, etc.
By designing game chronology as is, it is obvious designers created a game at *strategic* level to advertise a war-long historical losing trend and sell many more DLCs.
The game should have had a smaller scale, been called 'Panzer Division' or 'Kampfgruppe' and had battles more tactical at various sites such as battles around Demyasnsk or Kharkov or whatever. Winning or losing commanders then could be rightly promoted or transferred to other parts of a corps or army front and then be told that their efforts were supreme but the corp or army sector was not successful.
Even this correct scaling would not satisfy some who would argue strings of major victory at tactical level could lead to strategic victory.
That is why a wide ranging entire four year or more Eastern Front scenario (as DLC)--the Big One--should be devised to help assuage dedicated successful commanders with megalomaniac needs....
Other strategic areas could played...the Afrika Korps series...or Sea Lion, etc., with order of battle positively or negatively affected by success or failure of Barbarossa....
i.e., a correct plausible chronology.
I never bought the line that players decided that they would want to score numerous DVs, *completely* wipe out the enemy in a strategic level battles, yet experience a five year losing trend with eventual surrender.

I second that, wargovichr. This is my first time since 25 years in a game with a campaign that I don't give a dime winning a DV or a MV, if I am not particularly interested in a specific Scenario only reachable with a DV. Because it has absolutely NO consequence whatsoever, apart from the design decision to make a standard decisive MORE costly than a MV because of the prestige/cost relation.

For me the design here is really on the wrong track and I will never believe, knowing how war and strategy gamers think, that a majority of buyers would suppport such a decision. They buy the dlc packages without knowing or despite knowing that their performance is irrelevant in in game terms, while it was and it is a driver for most gamers to change history if they perform really well.

But nothing that can be done, the designers have decided they want it this way.

Regards,
Thorsten

ThorHa wrote:I second that, wargovichr. This is my first time since 25 years in a game with a campaign that I don't give a dime winning a DV or a MV, if I am not particularly interested in a specific Scenario only reachable with a DV. Because it has absolutely NO consequence whatsoever, apart from the design decision to make a standard decisive MORE costly than a MV because of the prestige/cost relation.

For me the design here is really on the wrong track and I will never believe, knowing how war and strategy gamers think, that a majority of buyers would suppport such a decision. They buy the dlc packages without knowing or despite knowing that their performance is irrelevant in in game terms, while it was and it is a driver for most gamers to change history if they perform really well.

But nothing that can be done, the designers have decided they want it this way.

Regards,
Thorsten

Maybe they will come out with a DLC '45-'46 that assumes win you win Berlin you go back and have a chance to knock out the Allies like the basic game does?

My thought is that it is still a great game, but there needs to be thought given to how changes in battle outcomes would dictate the war. I'd have no problem with a Moscow wipeout in 41 or 43 ending the war in the East. The basic game has that, and I like it. But I also like the far greater detail in the campaign games. I'd just like to see the best of both games fused together.

XDopar wrote:My thought is that it is still a great game, but there needs to be thought given to how changes in battle outcomes would dictate the war. I'd have no problem with a Moscow wipeout in 41 or 43 ending the war in the East. The basic game has that, and I like it. But I also like the far greater detail in the campaign games. I'd just like to see the best of both games fused together.

I'd bet if the offered a 'winning' set of DLC's it would be a huge seller!

XDopar wrote:My thought is that it is still a great game, but there needs to be thought given to how changes in battle outcomes would dictate the war.

As much as you and I (and probably most people) would love to see that, the fact is, a truly 'dynamic' campaign is much easier said than done. I've long advocated similar ideas for many 'historic' wargames, but have yet to see a truly dynamic system developed for any.

Having said that, I don't think we should give up on the dream, but for the time being, it seems to be a very elusive beast.