TripleCP wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:05 am
Any similarities are largely skin deep. I really had a tough time going back to Panzer Corps after playing OoB. The whole supply line mechanic is just one example. If you play PC as though you need to worry about keeping an open supply route, you'll probably fall behind in reaching objectives fast enough and risk suffering a loss or at least settling for a minor victory.
Having concern for your flanks is very important in PC. Otherwise you'll take heavy damage on your SPGs/towed artillery and bleed heavily.
Likewise, if you just race your armored spearheads forward in OoB like you would in PC they'll probably get cut off, rendered ineffective, and be in danger of being wiped out.
AI suicide attacks to cause nuisance cutoffs are a design flaw, not a feature. They're unrealistic and fairly tedious to deal with, but can be largely eliminated by using recon cars or precision strike tactical bombers to hunt down low HP units. Unity of Command 2 handles this much better and PC eliminates it.
That's just one example of several. Others include the way "core" forces are handled...in OoB you have to make decisions such fielding two of the most advanced and heaviest tanks available to you or do you you go with three or four light vehicles (or five or six infantry units)? In PC, a unit is simply a unit.
OOB heavily punishes use of transports and light tanks and heavily over rewards use of heavy tanks through the command point system. Try Burma campaign with light tanks for the rough terrain, then again with heavy tanks. Heavy tanks plow through the Japanese for minimal cost in CP efficient way, light tanks bleed resources and cost very nearly the same in CP while doing nearly no damage.
PC rewards motorization and good use of unit formations (more on this later)
The way combat is handled is yet another...in PC its quite common to see a fresh unblooded unit get wiped out in a single turn if it gets hit hard by a couple overstrength units
This is a huge clue that you don't know how to play PC. In PC, if you do not have artillery adjacent to your units they will constantly eat huge damage and are very likely to die. If you do have artillery adjacent to your units they take minimal damage and reaction fire clowns the enemy. Triangle formations of 2x front line units with 1x artillery behind are a staple of the franchise.
Ex in US Corps, M4A3 75mm without supporting artillery loses to Panther or Tiger. With supporting artillery can inflict even losses on cost adjusted basis. Initiative and artillery are king.
whereas in OoB units can be forced back and rendered ineffective but are more survivable overall.
OOB rewards artillery to an even more extreme degree than PC because of the efficiency system, the immense range of artillery and the ability of artillery to do substantial damage.
The result is totally ineffective AI flailing. Spotter plane + artillery allows you to totally deny German tanks in all Soviet scenarios for example despite huge quantities and immense vet. This is silly.
What looks like survivability is a mirage as battered units are utterly defenseless and easily cleaned up.
The initiative system is totally missing in OOB, and this is a huge flaw as is the lack of a close defense stat.This subtle system is one of the key advantages of PC. Units with higher initiative attack first, damaging or suppressing enemy steps. Then the lower initiative unit fires back. Initiative is modified by terrain (close terrain sets all non infantry initiative to lowest possible), mass attack (each additional adjacent unit able to attack lowers the initiative of the attacked unit by 1 point) and veterancy.
A high initiative high attack stat unit is often better than a better armored but lower initiative one as a result! The M18 often looks like a downgrade from the M10 to novice players, but in reality the higher initiative and damage massively offset the much lower armor and it becomes a real menace.
As another example, in Soviet Corps most of the Soviet fighters are terrible. But if you surround a German one you can lower its initiative enough that instead of getting annihilated you do excellent damage (on a cost adjusted basis).
Similarly, PC differentiates between close combat infantry and standard infantry. Soviet Corps SMG infantry are useless in open ground, but in cities or forests they are monstrously powerful thanks to their good initiative and close combat stats for infantry. As a result the Stalingrad scenario can be won trivially simply by stacking 76.2mm guns behind SMG infantry, resulting in massive losses for the German AI and none for the player. Novice players often complain about the difficulty of this scenario!
No such differentiation potential exists in OOB beyond the most basic (engineers VS standard VS heavy).
All in all, I'd argue OoB is more sophisticated but there are probably features in PC2 worth looking at as this engine evolves.
I largely disagree on land and air combat. I also think PC2 cribbed far too heavily from OOB while not seeing the flaws as clearly. The subtle brilliance of the PC combat system isn't possible to appreciate in screenshots, so people who are ignorant of its complexity assume OOB is more complex because of the colored lines on the screen. This is manifestly not the case once you take the time to understand the systems and their ramifications.
With naval combat I largely agree. The OOB Pacific naval campaign works very well even if the land missions in that campaign are an endless chore. Conversely the PC naval system is perfunctory at best.
This is not to say I dislike OOB BTW. I wouldn't bother playing or betaing for it if I didn't enjoy it. I just dislike seeing incorrect information about PC provided by people who don't understand it.
