OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Order of Battle is a series of operational WW2 games starting with the Pacific War and then on to Europe!

Moderators: Order of Battle Moderators, The Artistocrats

Post Reply
matthew2582
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:25 pm
Contact:

OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Post by matthew2582 » Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:47 pm

Been playing OOB now for several months and am a big fan; just started playing Panzer Corps 1 and note there are a lot of visual and functional similarities with OOB. Does OOB have any of the PC1 devs or designers?
Regards
Matthew

TripleCP
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:41 pm

Re: OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Post by TripleCP » 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. 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. 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. 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, whereas in OoB units can be forced back and rendered ineffective but are more survivable overall.

All in all, I'd argue OoB is more sophisticated but there are probably features in PC2 worth looking at as this engine evolves.
https://www.facebook.com/RussianFront75/

gunny
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Post by gunny » Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:49 am

To answer your question I think so but thats only because of some of the Downloadable Custom scenarios once can download For example, Most all or all of the Stock Campaigns one can buy with OOB are well worth owning then when you want a change or more OOB you can then download some of the custom made Scenarios and or Campaigns these are found under the scenario design part of the forums ( Order of Battle : World War II - Scenario Design )anyway you can download a campaign that is basically a clone of some of the Panzer Corps campaigns you have played; however, its played via OOB so its the same maps and the same or very similiar units AND you get the benefit of playing them with the OOB engine. Then you can even make your own campaigns and scenarios too using the editor. So its quite erotic but because some of the downloadable campaigns are so similar to Panzer Corps I think they at least have chatted on the phone if not the same person .... ??

matthew2582
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:25 pm
Contact:

Re: OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Post by matthew2582 » Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:11 am

Interesting replies - PC 2 looks like a step forward but compared to PC 1 but Unity of Command 2 is a much more sophisticated game because of the complexity of supply systems
Regards
Matthew

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 6714
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Post by Erik2 » Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:12 am

gunny wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:49 am
To answer your question I think so but thats only because of some of the Downloadable Custom scenarios once can download For example, Most all or all of the Stock Campaigns one can buy with OOB are well worth owning then when you want a change or more OOB you can then download some of the custom made Scenarios and or Campaigns these are found under the scenario design part of the forums ( Order of Battle : World War II - Scenario Design )anyway you can download a campaign that is basically a clone of some of the Panzer Corps campaigns you have played; however, its played via OOB so its the same maps and the same or very similiar units AND you get the benefit of playing them with the OOB engine. Then you can even make your own campaigns and scenarios too using the editor. So its quite erotic but because some of the downloadable campaigns are so similar to Panzer Corps I think they at least have chatted on the phone if not the same person .... ??
Yep, it is a sexy game :D

prestidigitation
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 1:24 am

Re: OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Post by prestidigitation » Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:37 pm

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.

Mojko
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 489
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:04 am

Re: OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Post by Mojko » Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:50 pm

prestidigitation wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:37 pm
this is a huge flaw as is the lack of a close defense stat
OOB has close attack stat instead.

I really like Panzer Corps, but I simply enjoy OOB more. Without going into too much detail there were the top few selling points for me that I enjoyed in OOB over Panzer Corps:

- much wider unit composition (because of unit slots)
- encirclement is much more viable
- wearing down the enemy slowly is much more viable (reducing supply output)
- a lot of the binary mechanics became much smoother (close combat for example)
- overall it feels to me like that there is more decision making possibilities in OOB compared to Panzer Corps


But back on the topic of Panzer Corps 2. I had a look at the game mechanics and as far as I can see they imported following stuff from OOB:

- unit slots
- leaders can be attached/detached
- income per turn (not per battle)
- damage grounded aricarft


Interesting thing is that unit slots are shared across all units (for example land and air use same slots). This feels like it's giving the player more opportunity to make unit purchase decisions more impactful. I always felt that when it comes to air units, OOB choices were very limited (all air units have same supply requirements). Panzer Corps, on the other hand, has different supply requirements, for example strategic bombers only use 2 supply. This is promoting the use of underused unit which is something I really appreciate. In an ideal world, every unit has is viable in at least one strategy.

This actually plays well with the global starting bonuses/penalties. I hate the overstrength mechanic and now I can disable it and get a bonus for it instead. Some other options carried over from Panzer Corps 1 in form of the penalties as well, for example, delayed reinforcements. I especially appreciate the high impact choices like denied aircraft which stretches the game difficulty to its limits.

Overall Panzer Corps 2 looks like a huge improvement over Panzer Corps 1, but I'm still unsure if it's going to be more enjoyable than OOB.
prestidigitation wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:37 pm
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.
Btw I played Burma road exclusively with light tanks and I ended up with a large surplus of resources (middle difficulty). Same with all the Japanese campaigns (until Tigers are available).
Author and maintainer of Unit Navigator Tool for Order Of Battle (http://mfendek.byethost16.com/)

Zekedia222
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:30 pm
Location: Somewhere between Chattanooga and Anchorage

Re: OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Post by Zekedia222 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:57 pm

I remember trying to use heavy tanks in Burma. They got bogged down because jungles were everywhere. They would still lose efficiency on roads, if memory serves. Light tanks are much better, having the light tread trait, whatever its called. Heavy tanks are only really viable on open, non-efficiency removing terrain, at least the way I see it. Also, those same heavy tanks will take less damage, but in the end, will cost about the same to repair, as the heavy tanks cost more than lighter ones.
Its also interesting that you talk about Stalingrad. You can win simply by stacking SMG Infantry and 76.2mm artillery. Thats it? You win, simply by repeatedly stacking the same units over and over again? With that description, that sounds quite boring. You win not because of better tactics, but because of better troops, of MORE troops. Perhaps theres more to it than your simplistic description... That isn’t to say OoB doesn’t have those same problems, but then you can’t say that PzC does it any better.
Winchester: Klinger, you're dumber than you look, and THAT boggles the MIND.
A great quote from one of my favorite TV shows, M*A*S*H

bebro
The Artistocrats
The Artistocrats
Posts: 3294
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:50 pm

Re: OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Post by bebro » Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:57 pm

matthew2582 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:47 pm
Does OOB have any of the PC1 devs or designers?
To answer that Lukas who thought out OOB was part of the PzC 1 team to my knowledge.

As for the games as such, they are both part of the same genre, so surely there are similarities. But then there are key diffs, which other posters already listed. I played PzC 1 myself a lot and loved it, but I wouldn't want to go back to it.

PzC 1 has certainly revitalized this whole sort of games, so OOB did profit from that, but there's plenty of original stuff in OOB. Let's not forget this started out mainly as a game about warfare in the Pacific (which PzC 1 did not cover) and only changed later to include Europe.

Now there's OOB and soon PzC 2, so ppl can choose whatever they prefer, or play both :)

prestidigitation
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 1:24 am

Re: OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Post by prestidigitation » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:10 pm

Zekedia222 wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:57 pm
I remember trying to use heavy tanks in Burma. They got bogged down because jungles were everywhere. They would still lose efficiency on roads, if memory serves. Light tanks are much better, having the light tread trait, whatever its called. Heavy tanks are only really viable on open, non-efficiency removing terrain, at least the way I see it. Also, those same heavy tanks will take less damage, but in the end, will cost about the same to repair, as the heavy tanks cost more than lighter ones.
Its also interesting that you talk about Stalingrad. You can win simply by stacking SMG Infantry and 76.2mm artillery. Thats it? You win, simply by repeatedly stacking the same units over and over again? With that description, that sounds quite boring. You win not because of better tactics, but because of better troops, of MORE troops. Perhaps theres more to it than your simplistic description... That isn’t to say OoB doesn’t have those same problems, but then you can’t say that PzC does it any better.
They do not lose efficiency on roads, and why are you sending heavy tanks into jungles when you have perfectly good gurkhas and artillery? Heavy tanks are for open areas where they crush everything in their sight.

I'm not kidding about Stalingrad. I literally bought a huge number of SMG infantry and 76.2mm guns which completely slaughtered the Germans through reaction fire and initiative. It was indeed very boring, but exceedingly effective. The Soviet Corps campaign is very badly designed and when I replayed it, I used cheats to skip several of the crummy missions.

Zekedia222
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:30 pm
Location: Somewhere between Chattanooga and Anchorage

Re: OOB & Panzer Corps 1 - Strikingly Similar

Post by Zekedia222 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:24 pm

prestidigitation wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:37 pm
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.
The rough terrain in Burma is jungles. Few scenarios would allow for effective tank usage. Roads do not remove efficiency loss. I believe all “heavy” tanks have a trait called “heavy treaded” or something like that. That trait makes it lose 4 efficiency on bad terrain, jungles, swamps, both of which are VERY common in not just Burma, but in the Pacific campaigns in general. Roads don’t completely remove efficiency loss. They only do something like half of the regular efficiency loss, if I remember right. Paved roads are better, but also exceedingly rare.
prestidigitation wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:10 pm
They do not lose efficiency on roads, and why are you sending heavy tanks into jungles when you have perfectly good gurkhas and artillery? Heavy tanks are for open areas where they crush everything in their sight.
You yourself explained why heavy tanks aren’t worth it, they are only viable on open terrain. Why would I waste resources on vehicles that I rarely use, when instead I could just cut off supply using Chindits, and sabotage air raids using SAS and Paratroopers? This will remove every unit from play eventually, and both Chindits and SAS have the “guerrilla” trait, meaning they lose no efficiency on bad terrain. Gurkhas have the same trait.

But that is all besides the point. I don’t play OoB with ruthless efficiency, I play for fun. Its far more enjoyable to slowly push with Gurkhas, while whittling down the enemy supply with raids and infiltration/flanking. If that means I don’t play the hardest difficulty, fine.
prestidigitation wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:37 pm
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.
Side note, I’d like to point that out when I went back to reread posts. What exactly do you mean “cost adjusted?”
Winchester: Klinger, you're dumber than you look, and THAT boggles the MIND.
A great quote from one of my favorite TV shows, M*A*S*H

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle Series”