My Panzer Corps 2 Review
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2020 11:34 pm
I made a review on the steam about the new game. If you want to read it here is a link.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/765 ... commended/
However steam has a letter limit, additionally I was livid at the time of writing the review. Now that I am calm and collected I can write a more in depth and honest review of the game.
Before I do I want to point out that most reviews on steam are positive, wile there are some negative, mostly concerning the UI or the campaign system in comparison to the likes of order of battle. My complaints have nothing to do with those. The UI is not bad, I do like the look of it, however I will say is that the original felt better. Why? Because it felt like WW2, the cards giving you the briefing with stamps. The rough table on the corner and the metallic nature of the UI made it feel more fitting for the game. The new UI is just seems to clean and does not have a theme that seems to link it to the game itself. I don't mind a polished UI that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is the UI should have felt like it was subtly telling me this is a WW2 strategy game.
Also one thing I like about the original, speaking of the UI was if you hovered over the turns, it tolled you the date and hour of the war just by putting you mouse over it. A really nice feature. However in this one you only get a glimpse of the date in the beginning in the briefing. I hover my mouse over the turns and nothing happens. That is a bit annoying, especially when you have you eye out for upgrades for your units. Heck, I could open the messages and see the date of the briefing, here I can see the text of the briefing but no date. I know its a small detail but I think it shouldn't have changed.
Ok now on to the review
I'm disappointed. I'm a huge Panzer Corps fan and I couldn't wait for this game to come out. I have played this game and have run into some errors that need to be addressed.
Let me start with what this game gets right. Which is allot and I have to say I praise these new editions.
1. AT guns act like artillery when defending against hard targets, ei tanks, which is a good feature that makes both Tank destroyers and AT guns useful and instrumental both attacking and defending.
2. The option for troops to use a transport and then dismount is also a very welcome feature.
3. The ability to split units in 2 is also very great feature that makes encirclement and making enemy units surrender easier and satisfying.
4. The encirclement system is good, you can create big pockets and just capture many troops, speaking of which
5. Being able to capture enemy equipment and use it in your army is an awesome feature. Thought I would suggest being applied to infantry as well. The way it would work would be like this: for every 5 or 6 British or french soldiers you capture 1 will join your ranks as a volunteer, collaborator what ever the word you would like to use. If you capture enough you can form foreign legions. It's a not a well known fact, but Germany had arguably the most diverse army in ww2, having Arabs, Slavs, French, Dutch, Flemish, Spanish, Scandinavians and Asians fighting among their ranks. One that also comes to mind is the Indian legion. With that in mind, the way it could be implemented in the game is you capture enough prisoners and you can form foreign legion infantry units.
6. I also like that recon units improve the artillery, bombing runs, air strikes, and attacks. It makes them very useful and even deadly on the battle field.
7. Being able to quickly transport your troops via naval transports also is a nice feature. In the original this was a big flaw, It would take 1 turn to get on the dock hex, turn 2 embark on a ship, going to another tile, regardless if it was land or another port. and turn 3 then you dismount, but you have no movement points, so in turn 4 then they move. A whopping 4 turns just to transport units! With the new feature, added with the naval disembark and move, similar to the dismount feature above, makes naval invasions more exciting and faster.
8. The new tank ability of over run, it makes tanks very deadly and feels more like how they would preform in ww2.
9. Unit swap, a great feature that was not in the original
10. The trait system, being able to pick the kind of play style and strategy, giving the play more replay value, very welcome, also naming yourself and picking pictures. Very nice touch.
11. Camouflage and insignias for individual units, very nice feature, how ever they seem a bit barren, but hey, moders can fill the gaps.
12. The hero system. Getting heroes consistently and not randomly like in the original is a plus in of it self. But being able to select which units they will be assigned to? That is a big double plus.
Now with all the positives out of the way, lets get to the negatives and why they break the game
1. Artillery sucks: artillery, has been nerved compared to the original. I do like that if artillery fires on another artillery unit, said unit will fire back, a good feature since artillery duels were a thing, especially in WW1 and 2. But how is artillery nerfed? Well It doesn't do a good job and protecting your infantry or your tanks, I can get the reason for this was the following philosophy: artillery for soft targets, wile AT guns for hard, however this is a silly interpretation as in WW2 artillery fired at advancing tank formations defensively, and some times even decisively. They are firing rounds that if they fired directly at tanks would destroy them at one hit, even landing close would incapacitate tanks. So the reasoning for nerfing arty against Armor is silly in my opinion. Here is the kicker though. There are so many times I have artillery defending my troops, and mind you this is enemy infantry unit with no support, they attack my infantry with artillery support and they end up either, inflicting more casualties, despite the artillery support or they rout my infantry despite being supported, wile they receive legible damage. So in the area were artillery is supposed to excel in, soft targets, it completely flops.
Why is artillery such a big deal? Well I would have to ask you why was Napoleon Bonaparte so successful. Because he who had the most guns had the most fire power and had a big advantage on the battle field. In Panzer Corp 1 if you attacked a full strengthen infantry unit with another unit with equal strength, and there was artillery defending it the assault would end terribly for the attacker. Artillery was a good shield, protecting tanks and infantry wile defending a point, or as the turn passed from both infantry and tanks wile they are making a push. Infantry stupid enough to attack, or because they could not see it because of line of sight would get destroyed, and that was in the open, in close terrain it was even worse. Tanks, wile rarely suffering damage, were suppressed, thus making their attacks useless or at the very least reducing their lethality. Now artillery feels weak and useless. In the original if I had 2 artillery pieces defending an infantry unit the assault would be stopped altogether because the suppression and casualties were so bad on the infantry, in Panzer Corp 2 I would get the result of a normal attack in the first game If I had just 1 artillery piece. That is a huge difference in the way the game plays. The attack defend system of infantry also feels broken. In my opinion it should be even, both in attack and defense, the only things affecting the out come being, terrain, which should have a 25% affect on the out come of any engagement, as the saying goes "geography is destiny' not just for countries, but for hole battles through out history. Then initiative, the experience, and finally support, recon, artillery, air support, naval, tanks etc should then be the deciders in the out come of an engagement. Which leads to my next point
2. Infantry combat is broken: Infantry combat feels broken, its not like the original. Here in Panzer corps 2 infantry have at minimum 15 points instead of 10, I guess the idea was to represent the size of infantry divisions in the war but what ends up happening is this : Infantry feel like meat bags you have to punch with your own infantry. With your tanks and recon, they get shredded, but with YOUR infantry they take horrendous casualties, even in full strength defending in close terrain. Its frustrating to see the enemy charge its infantry with out caring about the consequences against your own, and despite yours having artillery or good terrain to defend take horrible casualties. Mean wile I have to blast the hell out of enemy positions with my artillery if not, my assaults produce horrific out comes.
3. Terrain needs a re work. Of course, when a tank attacks infantry in close terrain, unless they are first soften up by artillery, which makes sense. Other wise they get a huge penalty like the original. However I have noticed that when infantry attack tanks in close terrain, the attacks are not as effective in the original. In the original even the heaviest and most powerful tanks could get destroyed if not being supported going into rough terrain. This is were infantry with out question excel in. however it fells different, for their attacks are not as devastating in the original. The real kicker here is this. Also my infantry take a hill or town, get attacked immediately and take more casualties then their attackers. What the heck? They should have a bonus for the terrain they are in. You mite say "they have no entrenchment that's why" still even with or with out entrenchment, the default terrain should give them a combat advantage defending it. Entrenchment just adds to that defense and makes it harder for them to rout. I could excuse this if they had support, either artillery or tanks, or at least an air strike, but no, its often an infantry assault on its own. Which are common in this game.
I could have ignored those problems, but this is what got me to write this review in the first place. I'm playing in marshal difficulty. I decide to go to Africa instead of the Soviet Union.
1. Thing I don't like, no Italian units into the corp. Why? In Panzer corps Africa corps, you had the full Italian army as cores to your army. I know this is not Panzer Corps2, Africa Korps 2 but seriously why cant I have Italian units in my corps like in the expansion? If you ask a Panzer corp veteran, buying "auxiliary" units is a waste of prestige, especially in higher difficulties. This is for one simple reason, you cant keep them. Why on earth would I invest that hard earned prestige in a unit that I can't keep when I can do that with others and keep them?. The reason I loved Africa corps was because of that, having my German and Italian units fight together as brothers, covering each others backs and each bringing something to the table. Many people forget the Axis was a multi national alliance with many European nations participating in it. If you also ad the nationalities among German ranks the number becomes even greater. So I find it silly that such diversity is not represented at all in game.
But I'm getting of topic
I get over that. I'm in Africa kicking ass. Then at Gazala I complete all my objectives, including the bonus ones. I then get a decision, either to go after the allies into Egypt or go to El Alamein, essentially just giving up the initiative and letting the British take the tide of the war.
What I love about this the message "this decision will have irreversible consequences on the war" But then when I click to go to Egypt, it tells me I need 5000 prestige in order to "persuade" high command to go to Egypt. What on earth!? I'm sorry for my language but this complete bs. Whats the point of this? There is not a single scenario in any original Panzer corp campaign or dlc were it requires you to have x amount of prestige to go to the next mission, that is pure bull, and it pisses me of and makes no scenes. If your playing this game, you're in it to win, so why would a rational person choose a campaign path of inevitable defeat? This is absolutely infuriating, in the following scenario I was reminded about how I lost the initiative of the war, not because I dint fulfill all my objectives in time, not because I dint fight hard enough, no, because I dint have enough stupid prestige to "persuade" some ignorant morons at high command to uh, o yea, win the damn war! I just dint even bother and I just let my army be destroyed because whats the point of fighting on if I lost already?
On top of that, once I lost the scenario, the campaign ended, wtf? In the original Panzer Corp, if you got marginal victories, and even full defeats in others you would go down the historical path, however there were still chances, twists and turns, but the campaign continued till the defense of the Reich, which I like looking back. Now you mite be thinking, based on what I said above, why would I then praise this? Well because at least in Panzer corps 1 you would fight to the last man or with a truce with the Soviets or the western Allies, which I like the idea. Also there was not a prestige cost... I was surprised there was not a "defeated" campaign were you fight say the invasion of Sicily or the Arden like the original. Once its over its over. Wile you can say there were missions in Panzer corps 1 were you lost it was over period and its true, however there were battles that even if you lost, you could still continue the fight and bounce back, here you don't get that.
BTW I had the traits liberator and war trophies, which means I'm supposed to be getting as much prestige as possible, I only had 2250, barely half of what I needed.
So yea that's my rant and review of Panzer Corps 2,
I don't say this to attack the devs or slitherine, I think the devs care about this game and that they are trying to improve the game. Please any dev that reads this, consider doing the following. I would say Panzer corps is 2 steps forward wile taking 1.5 steps back. Hear me out, just a suggestion as a fan.
1. Buff artillery so it feels more like it did in the original
2. Re work infantry: a make them have 10 points of strength like the rest of the units in the game, or at the very least make terrain more influential in an outcome of a battle. Re work the combat between infantry vs infantry as I have described above.
3. No prestige barriers for missions. Just no, get rid of them for they should not exist.
4. Re work terrain, make it more favorable for defenders, not to much obviously
That's literally it, if you do those things I guarantee people will love the game more and the combat will be near perfect.
With love Mr A
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/765 ... commended/
However steam has a letter limit, additionally I was livid at the time of writing the review. Now that I am calm and collected I can write a more in depth and honest review of the game.
Before I do I want to point out that most reviews on steam are positive, wile there are some negative, mostly concerning the UI or the campaign system in comparison to the likes of order of battle. My complaints have nothing to do with those. The UI is not bad, I do like the look of it, however I will say is that the original felt better. Why? Because it felt like WW2, the cards giving you the briefing with stamps. The rough table on the corner and the metallic nature of the UI made it feel more fitting for the game. The new UI is just seems to clean and does not have a theme that seems to link it to the game itself. I don't mind a polished UI that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is the UI should have felt like it was subtly telling me this is a WW2 strategy game.
Also one thing I like about the original, speaking of the UI was if you hovered over the turns, it tolled you the date and hour of the war just by putting you mouse over it. A really nice feature. However in this one you only get a glimpse of the date in the beginning in the briefing. I hover my mouse over the turns and nothing happens. That is a bit annoying, especially when you have you eye out for upgrades for your units. Heck, I could open the messages and see the date of the briefing, here I can see the text of the briefing but no date. I know its a small detail but I think it shouldn't have changed.
Ok now on to the review
I'm disappointed. I'm a huge Panzer Corps fan and I couldn't wait for this game to come out. I have played this game and have run into some errors that need to be addressed.
Let me start with what this game gets right. Which is allot and I have to say I praise these new editions.
1. AT guns act like artillery when defending against hard targets, ei tanks, which is a good feature that makes both Tank destroyers and AT guns useful and instrumental both attacking and defending.
2. The option for troops to use a transport and then dismount is also a very welcome feature.
3. The ability to split units in 2 is also very great feature that makes encirclement and making enemy units surrender easier and satisfying.
4. The encirclement system is good, you can create big pockets and just capture many troops, speaking of which
5. Being able to capture enemy equipment and use it in your army is an awesome feature. Thought I would suggest being applied to infantry as well. The way it would work would be like this: for every 5 or 6 British or french soldiers you capture 1 will join your ranks as a volunteer, collaborator what ever the word you would like to use. If you capture enough you can form foreign legions. It's a not a well known fact, but Germany had arguably the most diverse army in ww2, having Arabs, Slavs, French, Dutch, Flemish, Spanish, Scandinavians and Asians fighting among their ranks. One that also comes to mind is the Indian legion. With that in mind, the way it could be implemented in the game is you capture enough prisoners and you can form foreign legion infantry units.
6. I also like that recon units improve the artillery, bombing runs, air strikes, and attacks. It makes them very useful and even deadly on the battle field.
7. Being able to quickly transport your troops via naval transports also is a nice feature. In the original this was a big flaw, It would take 1 turn to get on the dock hex, turn 2 embark on a ship, going to another tile, regardless if it was land or another port. and turn 3 then you dismount, but you have no movement points, so in turn 4 then they move. A whopping 4 turns just to transport units! With the new feature, added with the naval disembark and move, similar to the dismount feature above, makes naval invasions more exciting and faster.
8. The new tank ability of over run, it makes tanks very deadly and feels more like how they would preform in ww2.
9. Unit swap, a great feature that was not in the original
10. The trait system, being able to pick the kind of play style and strategy, giving the play more replay value, very welcome, also naming yourself and picking pictures. Very nice touch.
11. Camouflage and insignias for individual units, very nice feature, how ever they seem a bit barren, but hey, moders can fill the gaps.
12. The hero system. Getting heroes consistently and not randomly like in the original is a plus in of it self. But being able to select which units they will be assigned to? That is a big double plus.
Now with all the positives out of the way, lets get to the negatives and why they break the game
1. Artillery sucks: artillery, has been nerved compared to the original. I do like that if artillery fires on another artillery unit, said unit will fire back, a good feature since artillery duels were a thing, especially in WW1 and 2. But how is artillery nerfed? Well It doesn't do a good job and protecting your infantry or your tanks, I can get the reason for this was the following philosophy: artillery for soft targets, wile AT guns for hard, however this is a silly interpretation as in WW2 artillery fired at advancing tank formations defensively, and some times even decisively. They are firing rounds that if they fired directly at tanks would destroy them at one hit, even landing close would incapacitate tanks. So the reasoning for nerfing arty against Armor is silly in my opinion. Here is the kicker though. There are so many times I have artillery defending my troops, and mind you this is enemy infantry unit with no support, they attack my infantry with artillery support and they end up either, inflicting more casualties, despite the artillery support or they rout my infantry despite being supported, wile they receive legible damage. So in the area were artillery is supposed to excel in, soft targets, it completely flops.
Why is artillery such a big deal? Well I would have to ask you why was Napoleon Bonaparte so successful. Because he who had the most guns had the most fire power and had a big advantage on the battle field. In Panzer Corp 1 if you attacked a full strengthen infantry unit with another unit with equal strength, and there was artillery defending it the assault would end terribly for the attacker. Artillery was a good shield, protecting tanks and infantry wile defending a point, or as the turn passed from both infantry and tanks wile they are making a push. Infantry stupid enough to attack, or because they could not see it because of line of sight would get destroyed, and that was in the open, in close terrain it was even worse. Tanks, wile rarely suffering damage, were suppressed, thus making their attacks useless or at the very least reducing their lethality. Now artillery feels weak and useless. In the original if I had 2 artillery pieces defending an infantry unit the assault would be stopped altogether because the suppression and casualties were so bad on the infantry, in Panzer Corp 2 I would get the result of a normal attack in the first game If I had just 1 artillery piece. That is a huge difference in the way the game plays. The attack defend system of infantry also feels broken. In my opinion it should be even, both in attack and defense, the only things affecting the out come being, terrain, which should have a 25% affect on the out come of any engagement, as the saying goes "geography is destiny' not just for countries, but for hole battles through out history. Then initiative, the experience, and finally support, recon, artillery, air support, naval, tanks etc should then be the deciders in the out come of an engagement. Which leads to my next point
2. Infantry combat is broken: Infantry combat feels broken, its not like the original. Here in Panzer corps 2 infantry have at minimum 15 points instead of 10, I guess the idea was to represent the size of infantry divisions in the war but what ends up happening is this : Infantry feel like meat bags you have to punch with your own infantry. With your tanks and recon, they get shredded, but with YOUR infantry they take horrendous casualties, even in full strength defending in close terrain. Its frustrating to see the enemy charge its infantry with out caring about the consequences against your own, and despite yours having artillery or good terrain to defend take horrible casualties. Mean wile I have to blast the hell out of enemy positions with my artillery if not, my assaults produce horrific out comes.
3. Terrain needs a re work. Of course, when a tank attacks infantry in close terrain, unless they are first soften up by artillery, which makes sense. Other wise they get a huge penalty like the original. However I have noticed that when infantry attack tanks in close terrain, the attacks are not as effective in the original. In the original even the heaviest and most powerful tanks could get destroyed if not being supported going into rough terrain. This is were infantry with out question excel in. however it fells different, for their attacks are not as devastating in the original. The real kicker here is this. Also my infantry take a hill or town, get attacked immediately and take more casualties then their attackers. What the heck? They should have a bonus for the terrain they are in. You mite say "they have no entrenchment that's why" still even with or with out entrenchment, the default terrain should give them a combat advantage defending it. Entrenchment just adds to that defense and makes it harder for them to rout. I could excuse this if they had support, either artillery or tanks, or at least an air strike, but no, its often an infantry assault on its own. Which are common in this game.
I could have ignored those problems, but this is what got me to write this review in the first place. I'm playing in marshal difficulty. I decide to go to Africa instead of the Soviet Union.
1. Thing I don't like, no Italian units into the corp. Why? In Panzer corps Africa corps, you had the full Italian army as cores to your army. I know this is not Panzer Corps2, Africa Korps 2 but seriously why cant I have Italian units in my corps like in the expansion? If you ask a Panzer corp veteran, buying "auxiliary" units is a waste of prestige, especially in higher difficulties. This is for one simple reason, you cant keep them. Why on earth would I invest that hard earned prestige in a unit that I can't keep when I can do that with others and keep them?. The reason I loved Africa corps was because of that, having my German and Italian units fight together as brothers, covering each others backs and each bringing something to the table. Many people forget the Axis was a multi national alliance with many European nations participating in it. If you also ad the nationalities among German ranks the number becomes even greater. So I find it silly that such diversity is not represented at all in game.
But I'm getting of topic
I get over that. I'm in Africa kicking ass. Then at Gazala I complete all my objectives, including the bonus ones. I then get a decision, either to go after the allies into Egypt or go to El Alamein, essentially just giving up the initiative and letting the British take the tide of the war.
What I love about this the message "this decision will have irreversible consequences on the war" But then when I click to go to Egypt, it tells me I need 5000 prestige in order to "persuade" high command to go to Egypt. What on earth!? I'm sorry for my language but this complete bs. Whats the point of this? There is not a single scenario in any original Panzer corp campaign or dlc were it requires you to have x amount of prestige to go to the next mission, that is pure bull, and it pisses me of and makes no scenes. If your playing this game, you're in it to win, so why would a rational person choose a campaign path of inevitable defeat? This is absolutely infuriating, in the following scenario I was reminded about how I lost the initiative of the war, not because I dint fulfill all my objectives in time, not because I dint fight hard enough, no, because I dint have enough stupid prestige to "persuade" some ignorant morons at high command to uh, o yea, win the damn war! I just dint even bother and I just let my army be destroyed because whats the point of fighting on if I lost already?
On top of that, once I lost the scenario, the campaign ended, wtf? In the original Panzer Corp, if you got marginal victories, and even full defeats in others you would go down the historical path, however there were still chances, twists and turns, but the campaign continued till the defense of the Reich, which I like looking back. Now you mite be thinking, based on what I said above, why would I then praise this? Well because at least in Panzer corps 1 you would fight to the last man or with a truce with the Soviets or the western Allies, which I like the idea. Also there was not a prestige cost... I was surprised there was not a "defeated" campaign were you fight say the invasion of Sicily or the Arden like the original. Once its over its over. Wile you can say there were missions in Panzer corps 1 were you lost it was over period and its true, however there were battles that even if you lost, you could still continue the fight and bounce back, here you don't get that.
BTW I had the traits liberator and war trophies, which means I'm supposed to be getting as much prestige as possible, I only had 2250, barely half of what I needed.
So yea that's my rant and review of Panzer Corps 2,
I don't say this to attack the devs or slitherine, I think the devs care about this game and that they are trying to improve the game. Please any dev that reads this, consider doing the following. I would say Panzer corps is 2 steps forward wile taking 1.5 steps back. Hear me out, just a suggestion as a fan.
1. Buff artillery so it feels more like it did in the original
2. Re work infantry: a make them have 10 points of strength like the rest of the units in the game, or at the very least make terrain more influential in an outcome of a battle. Re work the combat between infantry vs infantry as I have described above.
3. No prestige barriers for missions. Just no, get rid of them for they should not exist.
4. Re work terrain, make it more favorable for defenders, not to much obviously
That's literally it, if you do those things I guarantee people will love the game more and the combat will be near perfect.
With love Mr A
) Since i have heroes that double the prestige f. ex. when my scouts free a city, or heroes that permit retreat, or or or - i dont have too perfectly encircle everytime.