Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #9

[PanzerCro]

On the note of going into fantasy and/or alternative what-ifs, the other thing that surprised me when I played the GC East (and I had mentioned it here on the forum previously already) is the following paradox phenomenon: so how does it work that you win DV after DV (in selected battles of a more or less single campaign path, not along the entire front of course) and then you still end up defending Berlin (in some way)… but then with an army full of Tiger IIs and Elefants? That’s also implausible for several reasons…

The game play itself is kind of nonsensical.

The whole idea of "elite reinforcements" is pure fantasy. I can lose 90% of a unit's strength and always be able to replace my losses with men and equipment that are at least as good? When was that true for any army in any modern war? And worse, there is no apparent impact on morale or support for the war in my home country.

Well, my view on this is if they are going to implement things like that PZC could become HOI or CIV...

[PoorOldSpike]

As I mentioned earlier, I suggested to the devs that they could release PC2 much quicker if they released it without a Campaign, then release a Campaign DLC at a later date, and got this reply from Rudankort of Flashback Games on 14 Jan 2019-

"You have guessed correctly that campaign is the main problematic area, because we could only set to creating it when the game itself was in a fairly advanced state. But there are still a few other missing things as well. In particular, I'm not fully satisfied with AI yet, so that's what I'm working on right now.
Campaign mode was always the most popular and iconic play mode in this game series, so releasing the game without a proper campaign would be a very risky step indeed. A game like this is time-consuming and expensive to create, so we will try to avoid as many risks as possible and release a complete and well-rounded product."

Hmm okay, but here's more food for thought for the devs- If the game was released NOW without a Campaign (just standalone scenarios), I'd buy it without hesitation and I daresay every wargamer worth his salt would too, and the Flashback boys would become millionnaires overnight.
Then when the Campaign DLC was released later, we'd have the advantage of already being fully "trained up" on the new game system ready to take the plunge into the Campaign..

[PeteMitchell]

One interesting thing would be, like in UoC. To get some special SS units that appears only as auxiliary unit. But of course should be stronger than regular units.

Just fyi (again), portraying and/or promoting Nazi ideology/symbols/insignia, etc. will most likely get PzC2 banned by law in some European countries (regardless whether intentionally or unintentionally)… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgese ... ection_86a

But I would swear I saw units in PG 2 being named "SS Infanterie" and "SS PzGrenadier". Sure, they didn't have any insignia of Nazi, but still had that "SS" in their name.

Don't know, I never played it but well... I would just recommend to stay away from the political dimension of this... The very original Panzer General version was age-restricted in Germany (i.e. it was illegal to sell it to teenagers under the age of 18) just because of the language used in the manual...
https://ogdb.eu/index.php?section=article&articleid=153

[PeteMitchell]

On the note of going into fantasy and/or alternative what-ifs, the other thing that surprised me when I played the GC East (and I had mentioned it here on the forum previously already) is the following paradox phenomenon: so how does it work that you win DV after DV (in selected battles of a more or less single campaign path, not along the entire front of course) and then you still end up defending Berlin (in some way)… but then with an army full of Tiger IIs and Elefants? That’s also implausible for several reasons…

The game play itself is kind of nonsensical.

The whole idea of "elite reinforcements" is pure fantasy. I can lose 90% of a unit's strength and always be able to replace my losses with men and equipment that are at least as good? When was that true for any army in any modern war? And worse, there is no apparent impact on morale or support for the war in my home country.

My outlook on all this is that it is just a game and there is no point in worrying too much about historical accuracy.

I also think that part of the problem is that the original Panzer General came out in 1994, when the prevailing view among historians (especially in the English-speaking world) was based on the memoirs of German commanders like Halder and Manstein. So the PG series was somewhat premised on the myths of German tactical and technological superiority, the genius of their officer corps, and the possibility that Germany might have won if Hitler had listened to his generals. In the past couple of decades, as the German and Soviet war records have become available, a much different picture has emerged, and opinion among historians is shifting towards the view that Germany lost the war very early on.

Yeah, I agree for the most part… it is just a game!

The work of the Operational History German Section of the US Army Center of Military History produced several reports in the 1950s to better understand any learnings from the German-Soviet War, also in light of the upcoming Cold War. This program was similar to Operation Overcast/Paperclip on rocket science (Wernher von Braun and friends).

And yes, any work of Halder (and friends) has to be looked at very carefully as they were tweaking/stretching history (to some extent) to look better themselves afterwards, and yeah SSI was also an American company…

On the tactical and technological superiority: the German kill ratios at the Ostfront were higher for quite a while (i.e. if you look at loss statistics). However, to some extent this was also because of Stalin’s so-called “Great Purge” prior to the war…

On the training of the officer corps: many of the initial officers were trained two ranks above their current rank. In addition, the defeat in the Napoleonic Wars led to many reforms in Prussia in the 19th century, most notably (IMHO) the concept of “mission command”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_command

On knowing that Germany had lost the war very early on: having spoken to former Wehrmacht officers and normal soldiers (i.e. when I was young), many stated to me that already in 1941/latest in 1942 they had reckoned that the war had been lost for Germany…

[loganfive]

On the note of going into fantasy and/or alternative what-ifs, the other thing that surprised me when I played the GC East (and I had mentioned it here on the forum previously already) is the following paradox phenomenon: so how does it work that you win DV after DV (in selected battles of a more or less single campaign path, not along the entire front of course) and then you still end up defending Berlin (in some way)… but then with an army full of Tiger IIs and Elefants? That’s also implausible for several reasons…

The game play itself is kind of nonsensical.

The whole idea of "elite reinforcements" is pure fantasy. I can lose 90% of a unit's strength and always be able to replace my losses with men and equipment that are at least as good? When was that true for any army in any modern war? And worse, there is no apparent impact on morale or support for the war in my home country.

Well, my view on this is if they are going to implement things like that PZC could become HOI or CIV...

Oh, I agree.

The fun factor in the Panzer General series and Panzer Corps lies in their simplicity. They were never intended to be realistic or historically accurate, so there is no point in worrying too much about that aspect of the game.

[PanzerCro]

The game play itself is kind of nonsensical.

The whole idea of "elite reinforcements" is pure fantasy. I can lose 90% of a unit's strength and always be able to replace my losses with men and equipment that are at least as good? When was that true for any army in any modern war? And worse, there is no apparent impact on morale or support for the war in my home country.

Well, my view on this is if they are going to implement things like that PZC could become HOI or CIV...

Oh, I agree.

The fun factor in the Panzer General series and Panzer Corps lies in their simplicity. They were never intended to be realistic or historically accurate, so there is no point in worrying too much about that aspect of the game.

Although some economic things could be changed. For example if you capture some little town or village in Russia you shouldn't be awarded with same prestige like when you capture some big or industrial city.

[Molve]

The fun factor in the Panzer General series and Panzer Corps lies in their simplicity. They were never intended to be realistic or historically accurate, so there is no point in worrying too much about that aspect of the game.

This. So very much this.

I honestly think that the second Slitherine starts to listen to all these ambitious ideas, their game is doomed to fail.

All these worthy ideas should be squarely redirected to the efforts of fan campaigns, and not be something the dev team concerns itself with before launch at all.

Sorry to be blunt but somebody needs to say it.

Panzer Corps/General is a beers-and-pretzels wargame and should remain so. Focus on the customers that don't worry about history, and just want to indulge in the fantasy that their hero Tiger II tank can take out the entire red Army more or less all by itself.

[PeteMitchell]

Hmm okay, but here's more food for thought for the devs- If the game was released NOW without a Campaign (just standalone scenarios), I'd buy it without hesitation and I daresay every wargamer worth his salt would too, and the Flashback boys would become millionnaires overnight.

Well, let's get Slitherine confirm a date for the beta to be released first...

[PeteMitchell]

Panzer Corps/General is a beers-and-pretzels wargame and should remain so. Focus on the customers that don't worry about history, and just want to indulge in the fantasy that their hero Tiger II tank can take out the entire red Army more or less all by itself.

I absolutely agree to this, I was just trying to point out that defending Berlin with Tiger IIs and Elefants is just as implausible as invading the US via the Atlantic.

I have no problem with playing either or (as I like playing the game) but maybe there should be some restrictions/limitations on how strong your army can still be after being pushed back more than 2,000 km, i.e. from Stalingrad to Berlin (along the campaign path).

That’s also why I had proposed the more extensive use of losing/winning paths in the campaign trees, e.g. as in PzC Afrika Korps where you can end up in Tunisia (maybe being pushed into the sea) or in British India…

[Teku]

One interesting thing would be, like in UoC. To get some special SS units that appears only as auxiliary unit. But of course should be stronger than regular units.

The impression i got from PC1 in that regard is, while they werent called "SS", you got Elite Units that could pass as SS without calling them that, since they got the best equipment thats would be available to them when you receive it. Frankly if you want SS units, why not just just implement that ability to name the unit in PC2?

[proline]

The whole idea of "elite reinforcements" is pure fantasy. I can lose 90% of a unit's strength and always be able to replace my losses with men and equipment that are at least as good? When was that true for any army in any modern war? And worse, there is no apparent impact on morale or support for the war in my home country.

Well, elite reinforcements do exist, but the Axis powers had nothing like them. The Allies, on the other hand, had and still have an endless stream of equally capable reinforcements. If the Taliban kills a western soldier in Afghanistan, an equally good one (typically someone who's already done a tour there) will be flown in a few days later.

I also think that part of the problem is that the original Panzer General came out in 1994, when the prevailing view among historians (especially in the English-speaking world) was based on the memoirs of German commanders like Halder and Manstein. So the PG series was somewhat premised on the myths of German tactical and technological superiority, the genius of their officer corps, and the possibility that Germany might have won if Hitler had listened to his generals. In the past couple of decades, as the German and Soviet war records have become available, a much different picture has emerged, and opinion among historians is shifting towards the view that Germany lost the war very early on.

Very well said. Agree 100%. That said, there's nothing wrong with continuing to design the game the way Rommel says it happened, because it makes for a really fun game! A fantasy game, but a fun game.

[PeteMitchell]

the way Rommel says it happened

Just out of curiosity, please allow me to ask, what are you referring to? Thanks!

[PoorOldSpike]

..having spoken to former Wehrmacht officers and normal soldiers (i.e. when I was young), many stated to me that already in 1941/latest in 1942 they had reckoned that the war had been lost for Germany…

Yes, if there's one single defining moment at which Germany lost the war, it must surely be when Hitler brought the full wrath of Uncle Sam on his head-
WIKI- "On 11 December 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany declared war against the United States"

Churchill was over the moon and said- "Before America entered the war, I knew we could not win it. After she entered I knew we could not lose"





"The Lord is mustering an army for war. They come from faraway lands,
from the ends of the heavens..to destroy the whole country.. and destroy the sinners within it." (Bible: Isaiah 13:2-9)

http://www.mission4today.com/index.php? ... orum&f=134

[PeteMitchell]

Yes, if there's one single defining moment at which Germany lost the war, it must surely be when Hitler brought the full wrath of Uncle Sam on his head-
WIKI- "On 11 December 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany declared war against the United States"

Yeah, looking at it objectively, latest by then I guess...

From the people I had spoken to (deployed in the central and southern army group), their perspectives were mostly operational from their day-to-day impressions along the situation in fall and winter of 41/42 (i.e. relatively slow advance after Smolensk, pushed back from Moscow, low/no supply, bad weather) as well as based on the endless distances in the south in 42 (i.e. stretched too far, stretched too thin)... these were ordinary soldiers and officers (up to captain if I recall correctly, maybe major at most), so I have no statements of (more) senior officers…

[PoorOldSpike]

This map from Chester Wilmot's "The Struggle for Europe" starkly illustrates how in mid-1944 only 56% of the Wehrmacht divisions were facing the Russians; the rest were stationed elsewhere, mostly to defend France and Italy-
TOTAL WEHRMACHT DIVS ON MAP= 290
DIVS ON EAST FRONT=163
DIVS IN FRANCE/ITALY/ELSEWHERE=127

[Teku]

Im curious if at some point we'll be able to play as the Italians. I know there was that mod someone made for PC1, but i personally never got it working since it seems to have not been intended for the steam release. All meme's aside, from what i understand the soldiers on the italian side were good soldiers, but suffered from poor fighting equipment and lack of competent leadership. so while equipment might still be a problem, id like to see what happens if they were led by more capable commanders (I.E. you)

[loganfive]

This map from Chester Wilmot's "The Struggle for Europe" starkly illustrates how in mid-1944 only 56% of the Wehrmacht divisions were facing the Russians; the rest were stationed elsewhere, mostly to defend France and Italy-
TOTAL WEHRMACHT DIVS ON MAP= 290
DIVS ON EAST FRONT=163
DIVS IN FRANCE/ITALY/ELSEWHERE=127

That's a bit misleading, because prior to to D-Day the divisions in Western Europe were not in active combat. For three years prior to the Allied invasion, the Germans were able to send divisions to the Western Front (such as it was) for rest and refit.

Germany had probably lost the war by October 1941, before the US entered it. They had invaded the Soviet Union hoping for a quick victory, and when they failed to achieve that they were doomed, because the Soviets had planned to fight a long war and Germany had not.

[Teku]

not Inaccurate. Germany lacked the recources for a war that lasted longer than 2-3 years, and almost everyone in the high command knew it. Its peculated they lost the war when they had allied with italy since germany commited itself to fighting a war on 2 fronts: Russia and Africa. its been speculated if germany didnt have to baby italy so much in the balkans and north africa, the war in russia might have been different since the balkan campaign delayed the operation Barbarossa by almost 2 months. To put it into perspective, germany made it to moscow before winter forced them back to more defend-able positions so when the initial thrust to end it quickly failed, the war in russia was basically a ticking clock that the germans couldnt match

[PoorOldSpike]

..Germany had probably lost the war by October 1941, before the US entered it. They had invaded the Soviet Union hoping for a quick victory, and when they failed to achieve that they were doomed, because the Soviets had planned to fight a long war and Germany had not.

if germany didnt have to baby italy so much in the balkans and north africa, the war in russia might have been different since the balkan campaign delayed the operation Barbarossa by almost 2 months.

Which brings us to the Big Question that historians and wargamers have been asking ever since, namely if Hitler hadn't diverted forces away from the push on Moscow in '41 in order to send them south to encircle Kiev, would Germany have been able to take Moscow in 1941 and would the Russians have then surrendered with the fall of Moscow?
Guderian certainly wanted to go for Moscow but was overruled by Hitler-

[kondi754]

Spike, I see that you switched to Panzercorps

In my opinion, Hitler never had a chance to win a world war.
The fact that he managed to do so much is the rather infamous merit of Neville Chamberlain and his ridiculous policy of appeasement, and next the defensive attitude of the Western democracy and the total unpreparedness for the war of France and Great Britain was the last point
The next thing is if he didn't attack the USSR in 1941, Stalin would attack him a few months later, and certainly no later than in 1943
Hitler didn't have any chances, so he played "va banque" like a true gambler and he almost succeeded, but let's be clear, it wasn't a sign of his strength, but rather the weakness of his rivals, especially the Western powers (Great Britain and France 1934-1940)
BTW I agree with the statement that when the USA finally joined the war, it was definitive end of Adolf's dream of ruling the world