Ideas for Panzer Corps 2

[BaronVonWalrus]

If it hasn't already been asked for, can the devs implement independent prestige and accuracy difficulty sliders?

I'm always drowning in prestige (in a very non exploitative play style) but don't like the principle of giving the AI material accuracy bonuses.

Playing with standard accuracy rules for both sides, but the Generalissmus prestige settings, would be the ideal world for me.

[Retributarr]

2. German tanks way too weak against hard targets. It wasn't until the end of the war that the allies could match them. Not worth going after enemy tanks just with tanks in this game, you need a lot of support.

"It wasn't until the end of the war that the allies could match them".

Here's more on this subject!: 'A very-few paragraphs' that I have selected are presented here!.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/britains ... -world-war

BRITAIN'S STRUGGLE TO BUILD EFFECTIVE TANKS DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR:
For much of the Second World War, the British Army was saddled with a succession of tanks that ranged from the bad to the barely adequate. Some were rushed into service too quickly and proved notoriously unreliable. Others spent too long in development, or only achieved a degree of usefulness after numerous modifications. Most lacked the armour to resist enemy anti-tank weapons, and nearly all were under-gunned.

Pre-war developments:
The seeds of failure had been planted pre-war, when disarmament, economic retrenchment and the Army's deeply rooted conservatism inhibited the development of armoured forces. There was some experimentation with the deployment of mechanised formations, but no real impetus to properly incorporate tanks into the Army's structure, nor firm decisions made about doctrine or what sort of tanks were required. As a new war loomed and Britain re-armed, the cavalry finally relinquished their horses, but the Army lagged behind the other services in funding. The government's strategic priority was home defence, which meant the lion's share of resources went to the Royal Air Force, the Navy and anti-aircraft defences. There was little money available to equip a mechanised expeditionary force. These factors all had a huge impact on the development of Britain's tank force and its performance during the Second World War.

Defeat in France
The campaign in France in 1940 quickly revealed how ill-equipped Britain's tank force was. The cruisers and light tanks lacked the armour to withstand German anti-tank guns. The tougher Matildas were more effective, and caused brief alarm to the Germans during the Anglo-French counterattack at Arras. But such actions only delayed the inevitable and all British tanks in France were either destroyed or abandoned in the retreat. Brigadier Vyvyan Pope, tank adviser to the commander of the British Expeditionary Force Lord Gort, reported back on the consequences of poor tactics and equipment. Piecemeal attacks against concentrated German forces were bound to fail. Reliability was a major concern, with many tanks breaking down on long road marches. Most vital of all was the need for better protection and hitting power: 'We must have thicker armour on our fighting tanks and every tank must carry a cannon. The 2-pdr is good enough now, but only just. We must mount something better and put it behind 40 to 80mm of armour'.

A fundamental problem was that the width of British tanks had to keep within the limits of the standard railway gauge for transportation. And unlike those of Germany and other nations, British designs kept the fighting compartment slung between the tracks and suspension to give the tank a lower overall profile. This constrained the diameter of the turret ring, which in turn affected the size of the turret and gun that could be fitted. Weight was an issue too, and tanks had to be light enough to be shipped overseas and use standard military bridges. All of this meant that there was no way of easily upgrading existing tanks, or improving those still on the drawing board.

[Jonesy1760]

The only success the allies had with tanks in May 1940 was at the battle of SEDAN...they actually grouped all their tanks together in the attack...before that, they distributed them in penny packs a little here and a little there to support their infantry. There were other problems with the allied strategy...this was just one that added to their defeat...

[Retributarr]

2. German tanks way too weak against hard targets. It wasn't until the end of the war that the allies could match them. Not worth going after enemy tanks just with tanks in this game, you need a lot of support.

"It wasn't until the end of the war that the allies could match them".

Here's more on this subject!: 'A very-few paragraphs' that I have selected are presented here!.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/britains ... -world-war

BRITAIN'S STRUGGLE TO BUILD EFFECTIVE TANKS DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR:
For much of the Second World War, the British Army was saddled with a succession of tanks that ranged from the bad to the barely adequate. Some were rushed into service too quickly and proved notoriously unreliable. Others spent too long in development, or only achieved a degree of usefulness after numerous modifications. Most lacked the armour to resist enemy anti-tank weapons, and nearly all were under-gunned.

Pre-war developments:

Defeat in France
The campaign in France in 1940 quickly revealed how ill-equipped Britain's tank force was. The cruisers and light tanks lacked the armour to withstand German anti-tank guns. The tougher Matildas were more effective, and caused brief alarm to the Germans during the Anglo-French counterattack at Arras.

Brigadier Vyvyan Pope, tank adviser to the commander of the British Expeditionary Force Lord Gort, reported back on the consequences of poor tactics and equipment. Piecemeal attacks against concentrated German forces were bound to fail. Reliability was a major concern, with many tanks breaking down on long road marches. Most vital of all was the need for better protection and hitting power: 'We must have thicker armour on our fighting tanks and every tank must carry a cannon. The 2-pdr is good enough now, but only just. We must mount something better and put it behind 40 to 80mm of armour'.

Why-not!... during the unveiling or unraveling of the 'Game' as it proceeds... to try to include some of these recent findings and developments to enrichen the flavour and historical experience of the era!.

In this particular case in point... for 'Britain!' as an example... make a mention to the player... who would then be conducting operations for the 'British' side... of in this 'Tank' situation... to make mention of the deficiencies and also what-ever other further concerning developments that are ongoing with the subject matter of 'Tanks'... so that the 'British' player... now at this point or juncture in the 'Game' will now be alerted... or brought up to speed... as to what needs to be procured to ensure a stable and more effective 'Tank-Force'.

This process... could also be done for all the other entities involved in the 'Game'... in order to enhance the 'PzC2-Experience!.

[P5138]

This is a really small thing, but this idea is an expansion of the "Poor Maintenance" trait:

It would be really great if units affected by the trait had an icon or marker next to their unit flag (like a broken wrench or something). It's really tricky to identify units that are unusable at a glance, and with units that have "Double Attack" heroes it's impossible to tell when they only have the one attack from the double attack.

I really like the trait's requirement to be flexible (and to rely more on infantry, since infantry are immune), but I'm constantly finding myself with a single attack on double attack Stukas since you can't tell until you've attacked. As an alternate way to address this, maybe the double attack hero could add an extra red block on the unit flag to show the current "ammo" of attack actions.

[Wolfenguard]

captured Equipment in addon Campaigns
in my opinion there should be some more benefits for capturing enemy equipment (not only the prestige you get for them)
in the campaign you can capture some equipment and get a lot from the Cache, but mostly there a not a real benefit from them only for players who want to play with these units
when i read the cache aso Treath with some analyse from the captured units compared to your own units, there a lot of units with have the same stats like your standart units (which have unlimed replaces, so long you have the prestige)

i think it will be bether, if the captured equipment is cheaper to buy and replace. its not like the standart stuff which have to transport to the front from the factorys, they are standing next to your base only waiting for their use.

For Panzer Corps 3
i like to have a real Progress system for your General, not like the actuall system, where i have to choose pos or neg traits and get points.
your General gets XP for every won scenario, secret mission goal (caches aso) and level up, with every lvl up you can choose a new trait or upgrade a taken trait. From the beginning you have to choose a skill Tree, with include or exclude some other traits. With the scrapping of captured equipment you can get some xp for skills, which are not part of your skill tree,
like you choose Ground unit skill tree, you will get only a small amout of aircrafts. which scrapping aircrafts you can get some xp for the skill groundsupport, which give you acces to more or different Bomber Fighters

[Stormchaser]

Regarding the Verdeja Tank...

I love this little tank you get in SCW, but I am well aware of how it's struggling more and more to compete against the heavier Soviet tanks. I don't quite have the heart to replace it just yet though. So I was wondering if it would be possible for there to be an event of some kind to allow players to upgrade it to a Cañón Autopropulsado de 75/40mm Verdeja? Admittedly, this Verdeja SPG Project wasn't started until 1945, but considering the Verdeja 1 prototype wasn't completed for testing until after the SCW and we still can acquire a Verdeja 2 during said war, so a little more availability time bending wouldn't be too out of place.

[Wolfenguard]

a change for the Infantery and Tank General trait,

i think there should be a small change in both of this traits, to make them a little interessting or more usefull

Infantery General
you should not only get the Core slot Bonus to infantery units, you should get this Bonus to all Weapon systems so long they are not the motorized version

Panzer General
the same you should get the Bonus for the motorized version too.

For strongenen this Traits, there must be a nerf for others
you can only choose 1 of the both traits and you can only overstreng this unit types
maybe like denied arty aso, you can only buy the version of arty, aa and at what you have choosen, like tank general you cann only buy spa and the normal arty only from captured equipment or prototypes

[mrman0123]

Please add a save replay button at the end of a scenario, as found on many total war games. The speed of replay could either be controlled by a slider, or one could just mash a next move button. This would allow players to more easily share their tactics with friends. Importantly, it would vastly increase the appeal of the game for Let's Play producers, which is one of the more important sources of free advertising.

[deducter]

I've been revisiting PzC II. The amount of customization options is truly impressive. Consider adding one or two new sliders:

1. Percent Prestige from captures, 0-100. For example, if this is set to 20% and you capture 100 prestige worth of equipment, you get 20 prestige.
2. Percent equipment from capture. For example, if this is set to 20% and you capture 10 strength points of equipment, you get 2 of them.

Also, consider adding some preset defaults for both difficulty and the in-game general traits. For example, I'd be real curious to try the DLCs on the settings you used to playtest, just so I can get the intended experience. Adding some "quick start" generals based on real commanders like Rommel, Montgomery, Zhukov etc. could add some nice players. These traits seem to have a much bigger impact on difficulty than the default settings of Colonel/General etc. This would also make it easier for players to compare tactics.

[urbanov4]

Can be a bit silly idea, but would be so kind of me that I share it
Today, walking to my working place, was a nice weather, and cos it was a bit long walk I was humming melodies. While doing this, came to my mind the old Panzer General gameplay music. And flashed up before me the glorious panzers, dashing towards Warsaw and El-Alamein...
I think, a modernized version of this music would bring warmth into the hearts of the old Panzer General players. Maybe it would be used in some misions as a special gift.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y9pvkcxH7Q

[adiekmann]

Future Africa DLC/campaign

As the devs plan for future, I thought I’d like to pitch my ideas for what I really would like to see in an Africa DLC/campaign. Since I was a kid, this theater of the war held maybe the greatest fascination for me and still does to this day.
I will begin with the disclaimer that I have no programing skills/knowledge and therefore make no claim to know what’s possible, too difficult, or time consuming. These are general guidelines with which I leave the details to how best to implement them to others’ skillful hands.

Inclusion of Italian Units in the Core

More than any other theater of war, this was a combined nations effort (at least from the Axis POV). By that I mean the Italians and Germans. For whatever criticism one wishes to bestow upon their forces’ performance, the Italians were still nonetheless an important part of Rommel’s operations throughout the African Campaign. As a result, proper representation for their role is a must. The problem with Africa Corps (PC1) was that a player would soon replace his weak Italian units with all German. Some sort of way needs to be figured out that forces the player to use Italian units and not just all German. This will present its own unique challenge to the player as they cannot achieve victory with an All-Star German army core. How to do this? That’s a difficult question to answer. A single core where half of your units are Italian? Two separate cores that are both player-controlled with slot limits that make it nearly impossible from map to map to win without the inclusion of Italian core units? I can think of other ideas and problems with each of them. Ideally, however, the player would have 1 core that somehow must contain units from both countries so that he can better combine their actions rather than play the Italians and Germans in separate turns. How to enforce players to use units from both countries? These are both the trickiest and most important issues in making a fundamentally good and historic AO Africa Campaign, but NO AI CONTROLLED Italians!! Please!

The German Core Units

Your first German units should be imported from AO1940, or at least that option given. However, not all of them. How to do this? That’s a tough question. Do you limit the player to x number of cores, or x-number of units? And how many? One of my biggest pet peeves with the Africa campaign in PC1 was that you started with a big force of 0 experience German units. The first elements of the DAK were taken from experienced divisions that had participated in actions in both Poland and France. The core of this force, Panzer Regiment 5, was detached from the 3. Panzer Division. Plus, the DAK was built up over time. It did not arrive as one big army. Additional troops may be added later of course, but like in PC1’s 1942/43 West GC, you must make some very difficult decisions on which ones you wish to take with you and which are left forever behind.
This then leads into the issue of heroes. Once again, generally speaking, you should not be able to take all of them with you either. But the same tough questions here apply: How many? Granted, this was all much easier in PC1 since the heroes were not detachable from the unit. But here, there would need to be a separate system to deal with it so that you don’t start the Africa Campaign too overpowered…or…a new group of preselected heroes joins your forces automatically. That might actually be the easiest to implement from a game design POV.

Timeline

I would like the campaign to begin with only Italian units in no later than 1940 with their invasion of Egypt, Operation Compass, and so forth until the arrival of the DAK. However, it could even begin earlier than that with their invasion of Ethiopia. This would also be an opportunity to build some experience before the start of WW2 so your Italian units are not total garbage when there are joined by the addition of German units.
One of the strengths, I thought, of the Africa Campaign in PC1 was its fictional campaign tree. Something along those lines should be available again. However, I would be even more interested in a historical path that is longer and doesn’t end in Tunisia. I would argue for the evacuation of Axis (or just German) units from the continent to Sicily where they continue the fight in an AO West or an AO Italian Theater. This would of course be ahistorical, but not at all far fetched or unrealistic. In fact, that is what Rommel actually wanted to do rather than “reinforce a defeat” like what happened instead. There are several options for what happens to your Italian core units. They can be lost (covering your evacuation), or (all or just some) taken with you to Sicily. Then after the Italian armistice with the Allies, you could be given the choice of selecting a few who “chose” to continue to fight on the Axis side, while losing the rest. Hell, maybe you even have to “disarm” your former Italian core units! Wouldn’t that be wild! Either way, it seems to be the perfect way for the player to continue playing with his core should he “ignore orders” and get out of Africa rather than becoming a POW.

Maps/Scenarios

I would love to see the entire even historical N. African campaign broken down into more maps/battles/scenarios than was done previously, similar in the way the Battle of Stalingrad wasn’t covered in a single map/scenario, especially in PC1. There were only so many large battles/Operations, but many small engagements that could be represented too.

Miscellaneous/Other

One thing that I missed from the desert battles in Panzer General 2 compared to PC1/2 is how the supply challenges were represented. In Panzer General 2 (I don’t remember in PG1), your unit could only get ½ supply if you were on a desert hex. These made running a large group of units through the desert a difficult thing because they’d use fuel (and water but not represented in the game of course) much faster but it was slowed down by their constant need to refuel and supply. It is an element of the game that I feel worked well and also represented one of the biggest challenges of desert fighting.

Lastly and relatedly, should there be an 8th Army British campaign = D, or whatever you’d like to call it, please, please make sure that British core units are not just “British,” but can be Australian, New Zealander, Indian, or South African! Even if their stats are identical, it is a flavor thing that I greatly missed from PC1’s British Campaign.
I welcome any and all comments, disagreements, or alternative ideas. I don’t know how far in advance they begin working on these projects, but I figured this can’t be too early for us to hopefully have an influence.

[Retributarr]

I just very-quickly scimmed over your posted report "adiekmann", initially it looks 'Spot-On'... I will study it in greater detail in a couple of weeks.

[mrman0123]

Please incorporate more “historical accuracy” options:

1) Weather: I understand it may not be possible for all scenarios, but, for many, there should be records of the actual weather each day of that battle. Provide the option at the beginning of each scenario to use the historical weather as recorded at the time, rather than the randomized default.
2) Heroes: Similarly to weather; we know when historical heroes (not randomly generated heroes) died. Have a campaign option to have these heroes die at that predetermined date (or not).

[Retributarr]

Please incorporate more “historical accuracy” options:

1) Weather: I understand it may not be possible for all scenarios, but, for many, there should be records of the actual weather each day of that battle. Provide the option at the beginning of each scenario to use the historical weather as recorded at the time, rather than the randomized default.
2) Heroes: Similarly to weather; we know when historical heroes (not randomly generated heroes) died. Have a campaign option to have these heroes die at that predetermined date (or not).

More 'Great-Fabulous Ideas... keep up these 'Good-Ideas'... we want not just a...'Meaningful-Game!'... but!!!... a 'Spectacular-Game!'.

[mrman0123]

My thoughts on Nemesis units.

I understand “units” is an exaggeration at the moment, but I do hope more are implemented. Having a personal aspect to these campaigns helps tremendously with emersion.

I do have an issue from a game design perspective regarding the current implementation:

A) If the Nemesis is killed/captured in a mission, they will not appear in future missions. From a content perspective, this is penalizing players for playing well, which is bad game design.

B) If the Nemesis survives a mission, they will appear again, often stronger, in later missions. This creates a mounting difficulty for the players least able to handle it, which is bad game design.

These issues can be easily addressed by giving us the option for an immortal Nemesis. I know about the mod available, I am talking about an integrated option, and here is why: The option needs to be supported in a way that is not emersion breaking.

Simply making the Nemesis immortal undermines the narrative. Instead, we need the narrative to change based on the player’s selection of the immortality option. The narrative should reflect if the Nemesis is (presumed) killed; the unit destroyed; or captured; surrendered.

When you blow up a tank it should be expected that positive identification might be difficult/impossible; maybe the Nemesis switched dog tags with a dead crew member and escaped under cover of the smoke and confusion. How does command react to multiple instances of false reports of the Nemesis' death?

POWs escape captivity all the time, and often multiple times. How do our characters react to the repeated news of escape? Are the guards held responsible? Are spies and double agents suspected? A lot of good content here that can keep players coming back for more playthroughs.

There could be secondary objectives pertaining specifically to the Nemesis, requiring either capture, or destruction. Offering special incentives.

The developers should not be afraid to revise previously released content to take advantage of this aspect for potential additional narrative features. Options could include turning on and off the whole Nemesis feature for that campaign, making the addition of new Nemeses seamless, as the option only arises if the most recent content package has been purchased.

[mrman0123]

Hero death options:

We currently have either immortal heroes, or heroes who randomly die any time a unit takes damage. Please include a third option: The heroes in a unit die permanently, only if the unit (or half unit) they are attached to dies.

[George_Parr]

Something just came to my mind while reading something about the Nashorn TD and thinking back to Panzer General 2:
Back then some tanks could have a range of 2. Now, we obviously won't have that in this game again, but it made me think. There are some TDs that had very powerful guns that could kill from far away, but were weak defensively. Right now, such a unit works well in support of another unit, or in an ambush situation. But you take heavy casualties in regular combat. It works fine enough as it is.

But what if the selective few TD-units with high-powered guns could have a limited feature - similar to forced march on infantry - which allows them to fire with a range of 2 every few rounds, but only if attacking from a set position, never after moving. Maybe require a certain amount of entrenchment if that helps. It would be mostly something for defensive scenarios, or situations in scenarios in which you might need to defend. Which kind of fits to the 1943-45 timeframe that will come up soon.

Maybe this would make these units too strong, but it just popped into my head and I thought why not ask what others think about it...

[jeannot le lapin]

In Panzer General 2, some tanks had a range of 2 but efficiency should decrease with range.

[uzbek2012]

Make at the end a modern game for a modern conflict !
viewtopic.php?f=147&t=72062

People's General is the sequel to Panzer General II, and the last two dimensional game in the casual war game series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_General

Well, or about the First World War