Revised Campaign Path

[MickMannock]

I am not sure how PzC2 is, but there were some pretty big time skips in the PzC ahistorical victory path, so having a lot of prestige in the bank to pay for upgrades would be handy. It's the reason I did not pick the anti-trait limiting generals to 3 upgrades a scenario. That's ok in general but not if you are jumping from Sealion43 to US Coast 1945 or whatever.

Yeah, that would put you in a real pickle. I'm one of those who prefer the historical stony road, but I've done the ahistorical stuff once or twice in PG/PC1 and you definetely need your upgrades to get anything going at that point.

[dalfrede]

I am not sure how PzC2 is, but there were some pretty big time skips in the PzC ahistorical victory path, . . .

If you look at the Tree it has all the starting dates.

[o_t_d_x]

I was right, with my previous posting: use capturing whenever possible. I started the first africa szenario with 2000 Prestige and doubled it in the first szenario with capturing. After Battleaxe, the second szenario, i have over 5000 Prestige. In my fst try without capturing often, i had 475 after battleaxe. (and i use always elite reinf.)

And now i have a hero, that prevents fleeing. Very effective, i captured so many matilda 2s.
Now i think that 5000 prestige may be too easy. Seems its time for generalissmimus.

[Snake97644]

I would like to ask the developers to add a another branch to the campaign tree that includes some late war alternate scenarios. I know many people like to do the strictly historical route, but for those of us that like playing the "what ifs" it would be nice to have a late war "victory" if you will. It would add some flavor to the late game where stopping the allied counter-attacks in '43 and '44 can produce an outcome different from ending up in Berlin, yet also not having the the Moscow, London, Washington route. Something not as extreme as panzers on the Pacific, but some kind of limited win for you hard work fighting on the defensive.

[MickMannock]

I would like to ask the developers to add a another branch to the campaign tree that includes some late war alternate scenarios. I know many people like to do the strictly historical route, but for those of us that like playing the "what ifs" it would be nice to have a late war "victory" if you will. It would add some flavor to the late game where stopping the allied counter-attacks in '43 and '44 can produce an outcome different from ending up in Berlin, yet also not having the the Moscow, London, Washington route. Something not as extreme as panzers on the Pacific, but some kind of limited win for you hard work fighting on the defensive.

Sounds like a DLC pack.

[Nalikill]

I would like to ask the developers to add a another branch to the campaign tree that includes some late war alternate scenarios. I know many people like to do the strictly historical route, but for those of us that like playing the "what ifs" it would be nice to have a late war "victory" if you will. It would add some flavor to the late game where stopping the allied counter-attacks in '43 and '44 can produce an outcome different from ending up in Berlin, yet also not having the the Moscow, London, Washington route. Something not as extreme as panzers on the Pacific, but some kind of limited win for you hard work fighting on the defensive.

I didn't play Panzer Corps 1 but in my desperate search for a campaign tree for PZC2 I wound up reading a lot about it.

I'm really disappointed that this isn't one of the options, and as a patch/DLC it would be nice. The simplest option would be to add bonus objectives to Kursk + Smolensk and Normandy + Cobra such that if you win Kursk and Smolensk, the Soviet Union makes peace (i.e., both sides agree to return to the Molotov-Ribbentrop lines and resume the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) and if you win Normandy and Cobra that the Western Allies make peace. If you do both, the campaign ends in a "victory" - the regime at least survives the war. If you do one of the two, you wind up in a far less hopeless Battle for Berlin that if you win it, results in a stalemate and peace rather than the inevitable defeat of the current Battle for Berlin.

[shawkhan2]

Annoying that this surprise was so unexpected. Thought I was doing well with 3700 prestige at FM.
Instead I will have to go back to Crusader and lower my level to General in order to save up enough prestige for the unhistorical path. Once on it I can then raise level back up to FM

[Snake97644]

I would like to ask the developers to add a another branch to the campaign tree that includes some late war alternate scenarios. I know many people like to do the strictly historical route, but for those of us that like playing the "what ifs" it would be nice to have a late war "victory" if you will. It would add some flavor to the late game where stopping the allied counter-attacks in '43 and '44 can produce an outcome different from ending up in Berlin, yet also not having the the Moscow, London, Washington route. Something not as extreme as panzers on the Pacific, but some kind of limited win for you hard work fighting on the defensive.

I didn't play Panzer Corps 1 but in my desperate search for a campaign tree for PZC2 I wound up reading a lot about it.

I'm really disappointed that this isn't one of the options, and as a patch/DLC it would be nice. The simplest option would be to add bonus objectives to Kursk + Smolensk and Normandy + Cobra such that if you win Kursk and Smolensk, the Soviet Union makes peace (i.e., both sides agree to return to the Molotov-Ribbentrop lines and resume the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) and if you win Normandy and Cobra that the Western Allies make peace. If you do both, the campaign ends in a "victory" - the regime at least survives the war. If you do one of the two, you wind up in a far less hopeless Battle for Berlin that if you win it, results in a stalemate and peace rather than the inevitable defeat of the current Battle for Berlin.

Agree, gives the game more flavor an replay ability. I know many people like to stick to the historical path, but for the other half of us it makes the game much more interesting. I really enjoyed the Levent-Persia-Caucasus line, and the Along the Volga-Kuybashev(sp?) scenarios. Having the same ahistorical off shoot option would be great for the late '43-'45, were defensive victories could lead to a "victory".

[nexusno2000]

Can I just clarify: do you just need to have X prestige to progress or does it cost X prestige? i.e. could you save up the X prestige to satisfy the requirement and still have it free for upgrades?

I am not sure how PzC2 is, but there were some pretty big time skips in the PzC ahistorical victory path, so having a lot of prestige in the bank to pay for upgrades would be handy. It's the reason I did not pick the anti-trait limiting generals to 3 upgrades a scenario. That's ok in general but not if you are jumping from Sealion43 to US Coast 1945 or whatever.

You PAY the prestige cost.

But Sealion/US scenarios are not very entertaining compared to historical one. So go Kursk instead

[Moransky]

You PAY the prestige cost.

But Sealion/US scenarios are not very entertaining compared to historical one. So go Kursk instead

Sealion is entertaining because you will win the war.

[Nalikill]

You PAY the prestige cost.

But Sealion/US scenarios are not very entertaining compared to historical one. So go Kursk instead

Sealion is entertaining because you will win the war.

Sealion is entertaining in part because it's on the bleeding edge of plausibility - if Fighter Command had been destroyed, the airfields torn up by bombing, the radar huts destroyed, and if Operation Dynamo had not achieved the wild and unexpected level of success it did in evacuating men from Dunkirk, all of which are individually events that might have happened given slightly different decisions by German high command, British high command, and the vagaries of the wind and weather, if all of those had happened together, Sealion might have been plausible.

Britain would have been defended only by shore guns and the Home Guard with almost no heavy equipment or regular army elements left; Churchill might have been forced out and replaced by Halifax after a disaster at Dunkirk given how fragile his hold on power was at the time, and a capitulation by the British (or a "peace with honor" where they give some Caribbean islands and Kenya to Germany) might have been in the cards if Churchill was not in power. Halifax wasn't a defeatist but I think it's fair to say nobody was as stubborn as Churchill in resisting the Germans.

[nexusno2000]

But the actual Sea Lion scenarios are just badly done.

No coastal forts, no real British units on the beaches, tiny royal navy, suicidal home guard units, otherwise mostly passive ai...

Only London has some playability, bc you have both the city fight and enemy armor to deal with.

And USA is a big yawn.

[Moransky]

But the actual Sea Lion scenarios are just badly done.

No coastal forts, no real British units on the beaches, tiny royal navy, suicidal home guard units, otherwise mostly passive ai...

Only London has some playability, bc you have both the city fight and enemy armor to deal with.

And USA is a big yawn.

British fleet is not so weak. And air force is strong. But ai is bad, it's true. Didn't try USA yet, will see next days.

[nexusno2000]

But the actual Sea Lion scenarios are just badly done.

No coastal forts, no real British units on the beaches, tiny royal navy, suicidal home guard units, otherwise mostly passive ai...

Only London has some playability, bc you have both the city fight and enemy armor to deal with.

And USA is a big yawn.

British fleet is not so weak. And air force is strong. But ai is bad, it's true. Didn't try USA yet, will see next days.

2 battleships, a few cruisers?

[Snake97644]

But the actual Sea Lion scenarios are just badly done.

No coastal forts, no real British units on the beaches, tiny royal navy, suicidal home guard units, otherwise mostly passive ai...

Only London has some playability, bc you have both the city fight and enemy armor to deal with.

And USA is a big yawn.

British fleet is not so weak. And air force is strong. But ai is bad, it's true. Didn't try USA yet, will see next days.

2 battleships, a few cruisers?

Yeah there where much fewer ship than I expected, I believe the scenario tried to explain this by saying the Allies are distracted with Husky. Reminds me of the opening to Red Dawn were the movie has to go to lengths to setup the premise.

I think it would have been fun to make that first Sealion scenario a totally air-sea battle.

[Turboheizer]

Are you serious?! I have won Stalingrad, I have taken all primary and secondary objectives, I have a lot of prestige left, and now I'm told: "Sorry, old chap, but you should have taken all those secondary objectives in Moscow, too!" This is ridiculous! I am frustrated, and I feel like I was fooled! If there is such a condition, tell me about it BEFORE I play Moscow, not four missions later! My impression was always that I must win either Moscow or Stalingrad, not both of them. That's the way it was in PC1. I have lost all interest in PC2 for the time being, and I've been an all time admirer of PC1!

[Retributarr]

Are you serious?! I have won Stalingrad, I have taken all primary and secondary objectives, I have a lot of prestige left, and now I'm told: "Sorry, old chap, but you should have taken all those secondary objectives in Moscow, too!"

This is ridiculous! I am frustrated, and I feel like I was fooled! If there is such a condition, tell me about it BEFORE I play Moscow, not four missions later! My impression was always that I must win either Moscow or Stalingrad, not both of them. That's the way it was in PC1. I have lost all interest in PC2 for the time being, and I've been an all time admirer of PC1!

(Quote:) "Sorry, old chap, but you should have taken all those secondary objectives in Moscow"
"If there is such a condition, tell me about it BEFORE I play Moscow"

Agreed!... I myself have 'sensed/premonition' that what you describe could happen, so... therefore... then If I had the time left... I would also usually take all of the secondary objectives.
But Yes!!!... this information needs to be clearly spelled out to the player... without being carelessly left out and without 'Ambiguousness'!.

[MickMannock]

Sealion is entertaining in part because it's on the bleeding edge of plausibility - if Fighter Command had been destroyed, the airfields torn up by bombing, the radar huts destroyed, and if Operation Dynamo had not achieved the wild and unexpected level of success it did in evacuating men from Dunkirk, all of which are individually events that might have happened given slightly different decisions by German high command, British high command, and the vagaries of the wind and weather, if all of those had happened together, Sealion might have been plausible.

Britain would have been defended only by shore guns and the Home Guard with almost no heavy equipment or regular army elements left; Churchill might have been forced out and replaced by Halifax after a disaster at Dunkirk given how fragile his hold on power was at the time, and a capitulation by the British (or a "peace with honor" where they give some Caribbean islands and Kenya to Germany) might have been in the cards if Churchill was not in power. Halifax wasn't a defeatist but I think it's fair to say nobody was as stubborn as Churchill in resisting the Germans.

No it wasn't possible. Germany had no landing crafts and vey few transport ships to get it done. Mainly because prior to the war, it never entered into their minds that they might have to invade the British islands.

The landing crafts they had consisted of river barges which they gathered around France and the Low countries. The RAF made an attack with a few Blenheims in early September 1940 and blew up hundreds of them which lay in port on the French coast. The simple fact is that the Germans would never have been able to get across the Channel with a significant force (and kept it supplied) in 1940.

[Horseman]

Whilst crossing the channel with the invasion fleet and then maintaining a supply chain was highly improbable remember the defenders in the UK were grossly under equipped.

All the heavy equipment had basically been left at Dunkirk.

A good chunk of the British army was spread around the globe and not that many actual troops were available. The home guard were mostly self equipped which meant a scattering of shot guns and pitchforks!

Traditionally the RN had always kept any threat of invasion of the home islands at bay which meant the UK was woefully unprepared to resist a well organised landing. Of course we end up back at the fact it was almost impossible for the Germans to land sufficient forces and supplies.

And talking about the home fleet. It wasn't all that large. Prior to WW2 the RN had continued their practice of ensuring they had more ships than the 2nd &3rd largest navies combined. But again It was spread pretty thin covering the whole world.
When the Bismark made it's attempt to break into the Atlantic they even had to recall HMS Rodney that was on her way to America for a refit.

Also I'm talking 1940 here.....come 1943 it should be a while new ball game!

[Turboheizer]

Agreed!... I myself have 'sensed/premonition' that what you describe could happen, so... therefore... then If I had the time left... I would also usually take all of the secondary objectives.
But Yes!!!... this information needs to be clearly spelled out to the player... without being carelessly left out and without 'Ambiguousness'!.

Grrrrrr! I already have another complaint! After reading that the best strategy is to attack Moscow from the East, I couldn't resist and replayed the map. The strategy worked and I was in possession of ALL objectives, primary and secondary, at the end. But ... I am annoyed and unnerved again! Again, there is no clear message as to what is happening. When you take the last primary objective, a screen appears and tells you that you could "change the course of the war" if you take the secondary objectives as well. But when you do just that, nothing special happens. The usual victory screen appears, and that wooden virtual reality general tells you: "Alas, the Soviets are unbroken, and you must defend Charkov ... blahblahblah." Hello?! There is no difference between a marginal and a major victory. How do I even know I won?! I suspected I could have overlooked something, but no, all the hexes are occupied my forces. What a kind of game doesn't tell you properly what you have to do, AND whether you did it right? The after action reports were always a weak point of PC, but in PC2, there are no after action reports at all! This is pathetic! I really hope I will be rewarded after Stalingrad this time, otherwise I will have had enough.