Panzerkrieg difficulty

[banshee_slith]

I have played a bit over 1/2 the DLCs. The only one so far to give me trouble is Panzerkrieg. I usually play on the middle difficulty level. I don't want to reload a save or restart a battle after I understand the situation. So the battles ideally should not require previous knowledge to understand how to react. Yet with Panzerkrieg I had to do this. More than once.

I gave up my first time through Panzerkrieg I quit when, in Kharkov the Soviets showed up mid-battle with a massive force I could not possibly handle. Seemed like a "you lose, sucker" event. If I had known this would happen I might have been ok. but this certainly isn't fun for me. I am sure it is possible to win this, may of you have on harder difficulty than I play. I am looking for a game where I can concentrate and make plans, but every turn isn't a precise unforgiving analysis exercise. I want the game to be forgiving enough that I can recover from a few bad decisions.

I recently replayed Blitzkrieg, which seemed easier the second time (but I got through fine the first time too) and I am about to start Panzerkrieg again. Any advice? Is this just me, or did others have the same problems? Should I play it an an easier difficulty level? Is this the hardest DLC? Maybe when I finally "get it", things will become easier?

[Juansana]

Sorry, I can't do anything with this announcement. Which scenario are you talking about exactly, like #3 in Panzerkrieg? If so, it helps a little to know the history of the 2nd World War, because in this scenario the course is exactly mirrored.

[banshee_slith]

I made no announcement to do anything with? I have read several books on Kharkov 1942. And played other wargames on the topic, both paper and computer. So I have some idea of what to expect. Historically the battle was a massive German victory where the Russians performed badly, lost 10x what the Germans lost. Later the Russian leadership concluded the loss was inevitable. I could go on but this is irrelevant.

My comment is not about historical accuracy, it is about the scenarios being constructed in a way that encourages reloading (which I do not do generally) or restarting scenarios after understanding things better. Does anyone else have this experience? I read some older posts where one person mentions having to fight several Panzerkrieg battles three times, but that was years ago. Maybe my playstyle is just not suited to this DLC and everyone else find it easy. Or maybe the designers intended the battles to be hard (even historical walk-overs). Knowing that would be more useful to me.

[TowerNCT]

I'm sure @Juansana did not mean any insults to you @banshee_slith. Perhaps you could provide more information on your playstyle? Give us descriptions of the events that lead to the disaster or even a save game. This way you can get advice that is more than just guessing why you couldn't succeed.

[TowerNCT]

On your comment of scenarios needing restarting to go through, I know I've certainly restarted Kharkov '42 more than three times! But I play on the highest difficulty so.

[banshee_slith]

Before I explain my playstyle, which is hard, but I will try--does anyone else here find the battles in the DLC require more precise play than other DLCs? Such that turns or battles need to be restarted regularly at the middle difficulty?

My playstyle is this: read the scenario briefings carefully and treat them as valid and accurate. Keep combined arms forces infantry, armor, antitank, organized well at the star of a mini-offensive or defensive. Keep a small reserve nearby. I treat this like it was a higher echelon organization, but that association of troops to this higher level might change over time. As troops get losses or worn out, pull them from the line or to the side and put in the reserves. Give the artillery rests when efficiency gets below 5 or so. Try to keep troops at three stars--more than that is too expensive, when taking replacements. Take replacements when units are inactive, resting, or below 7 in strength. Be cautiously aggressive, counter attack when defending but make them limited with the goal alternating between destroying enemy units when my line is holding well or weakening the enemy forces when my situation feels more tenuous.

My forces are probably mostly vanilla foot infantry, with a few engineers. Infantry is supported by cheap horse-drawn artillery and some antitank units. Armored forces are a mix of tanks, sometimes mobile antitank units, mobile artillery, heavy infantry on halftracks, maybe engineers too depending on the situation. I don't use a lot of anti-air units except ones that can switch to antitank. I keep a few long range artillery. Armored units are slit into two formations usually

Airpower is about 40% fighters, 40% strategic bombers and 20% tactical bombers. i usually mass them into two groups.

I don't like to replay turns of battles. I prefer to plan as well as I can and take what comes. I don't want to spend tons of time per turn planning, I would like to finish a battle in several hours.

I have played tons of these kind of games. i have never had trouble with them at this kind of difficulty level except for Panzerkrieg. I find some Panzerkrieg battles unforgiving. I have played higher difficulty levels on some DLCs, depends on how hard I want to work. Maybe I just fell onto a bad trajectory. My question remains, is Panzerkrieg hard for others or just me? Can I expect to win without reloading or cheating or spending 1/2 hour per turn?

My reading of history and Zhukov's comments after the war was that Kharkov 42 was a walkover where the Germans won a cakewalk. The historical losses show this. The Russians walked into a noose, were unprepared, and performed badly overall. Yet I find this battle hard. Okay, it is just a game and we all don't read history the same way.

[TowerNCT]

I'm not an expert player by any means so take everything I say with a grain of salt, if the pros here could pitch in that would be great. That said, I don't see anything that would suggest bad in your playstyle. On the middle difficulty you should have no trouble closing the pocket quickly (say by turn 8~10, I could consistently close the pocket on max difficulty by turn 11) and then set up defensive positions at the two VP points to stop any counterattack coming. Even if the AI comes in really strong, you could've diverted troops tasked with cleaning up the pocket to the VP that needed help (especially your mechanized troops). The Soviets don't bring anything new here that could surprise you. You knew counterattacks would come, probably supported with armor, armor like T-34s and KV-1s plus random infantry. Their air force suck and shouldn't be a threat at all. Their attack against Krasnograd can be easily repulsed (on max difficulty) with a single core Flak 88 AT and the two auxiliary infantries nearby, with the StuG going north to repulse the Soviet Krasnograd encirclement attempt with two core foot infantry plus that auxiliary infantry by the river town. Again, I want to repeat that I am not an expert player and I only play on max difficulty, so beyond campaign appropriate practical advice, I cannot say if the rest of the Panzerkrieg campaign is just overly hard even on Diff III. All the campaigns I've played needed restarts because I play on Diff V.

[Epperaliant]

I am by no means an expert but I play on max difficulty because I am a masochist.

I can tell you that in my playthroughs (US pacific, Morning Sun, Rising Sun, Marines and Winter War so far) I had to restart several scenarios after I got a better understanding of the enemy positions, attacks and the general unfolding of the action.

Knowing stuff like the location of a carrier beforehand, or the turn in which a huge fighter planes wave is coming was a godsend I could not ignore and warranted a restart.

This way you can save tons of requisition and complete all secondary objectives. Both very necessary on max difficulty.

If you want to play "iron man" style without saves/load I think you are going to be in a world of pain and you'll have to accept losses and partial victories, just like in real war.

Then again, there might be people good enough to make it.
I suppose I could have easily done it on lower than normal difficulties. Definitely not on max, though.


Now I am playing Burma Road, and it has "shifting" objectives and some trollish/inaccurately worded objective. I think I restarted the 4th mission like 10 times.

[banshee_slith]

I decided to try it again. Just completed Rhzev on the middle difficulty. Won, the Russian attacks eventually ran out of gas, but I hated it. Why? The first time I set up reasonably, but the Russians attacked in mass where I did not expect. Pretty much game over. Not technically lost, but in too big a hole with too few replacements to be fun. I do not enjoy hanging in by my fingernails.

Second time I was ready for that, but the Russians attack somewhat later elsewhere en mass, I think from off the map, where I was not ready. Again maybe playable but very not fun.

Third time I knew where to defend and I hung in though my forces were depleted. I went over to the offensive and met all the objectives.

I did resort to ahistoric, kind of dumb tactics to trick the AI—leave a city somewhat removed from the front open (the AI would not know it was open if it didn’t cheat, so I guess this is fair), the AI races a powerful armored unit there. It gets cut off next turn and destroyed. Another trick is to leave a unit where it can be cut off from supply. The computer will ruin its position to cut it off. Next turn, I counter and destroy the units out of position. I hate playing this way.

For my taste, this was by far the worst OOB battle experience I ever played because foreknowledge makes such a huge difference and because gamey tactics work so well. I see that many people love this scenario. It was difficult but mostly because if you defend the wrong place, there isn’t time to correct and replacements are very limited.

I have enjoyed the other campaigns. I hope this one changes.