Please let Panzer Corps 2 live up to the untapped potential of the Grand Campaign

[monkspider]

Panzer Corps 2 has managed to build an impressive fan base, even among more casual gamers on places like Steam, where it has attracted fans outside of the traditional hardcore wargame demographic. We are on the cusp of a new round of DLC releases that will help determine Panzer Corps 2's future trajectory. As most of you know, although the base game of Panzer Corps 1 was a big success, but it was with the Grand Campaign that Panzer Corps truly entered the annals of gaming greatness. It was that super deep, detailed campaign where your core stayed with you over the course of dozens of battles. Even the Polish campaign was incredibly epic, with all sorts of battles not typically featured in wargames taking the spotlight. Who could forget the Battle of the Bzura scenario where you are suddenly on the defensive against a strong Polish offensive? Moreover, this long campaign had a level of creative and interesting scenario design that was never matched even to this day and it somehow maintained this level of quality throughout the massive campaign.

But as great as the Grand Campaign was, in some ways, its reach exceeded its grasp. It ultimately hinted at even more creative innovations that would have pushed it as a game and indeed wargaming as a whole even further and towards an even larger audience. The Grand Campaign was the first example of this type of game where your briefing officer took on a more human character, rather than just a generic, faceless general, Field Marshall Haberman had a distinctive character and was quite a likable fellow. The desire to earn his praise was a major incentive for continuing to play, and indeed the quality of the writing greatly added to this. I think some of Panzer Corps 2's better writing, such as the field marshal's reminisces about Verdun during the French campaign were inspired by the GC. But even here, there were much greater things hinted at. For example, you are introduced to his daughter for a couple scenarios during one of the eastern front campaigns, but she never returns. This subplot seemed like a narrative thread destined for great things (namely, a greater significance of some kind and possibly even a romantic interest) but is instead left as an unsatisfying loose end. Story is such an important aspect to modern gaming, there is no reason why a wargame should not have a good story as well. If you look at the games that people truly love, they often have a strong narrative element. As great as the writing was in the grand campaign, there was much more potential to Haberman's character. The frantic, despairing ature of Haberman's late game briefings filled the player with inspiration to succeed and what the kids these days call "feels" but there was still so much more that could have been done, so much more of a payoff to the player's connection to Haberman. I felt the Grand Campaign was really wanting to innovate and push the genre even further than it did, so this time I say, don't pull your punches! Be bold!

Another area where the game hinted at much greater things was the introduction of a morality system of sorts during one particular mission, the Warsaw Uprising scenario. For one, I am incredibly proud of the devs to even include a battle where you are clearly and undeniably the villain, but it was also a battle where you could choose not to follow your orders and put down the rebellion and the game would still continue regardless. A game set during World War II is just begging for a morality system or some kind of a decision system. I can understand not wanting to explore the darkest aspects of the war, but there could be decisions like you can choose to push your troops forward which would give you say an attack bonus or to take a more cautious approach that would give you defensive or replacement bonuses. It could be like so many of the more popular games we see outside of wargaming, like Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect, or Fallout. If you take the more aggressive option, it would also give you points toward an aggressive reputation, or more chivalrous reputation and there could be things like certain missions that require a certain temprament or another. or perhaps a large bonus if you reach a certain level in one extreme or the other. This isn't as essential as having a good, written story, but there is so much room for creativity and giving the player a sense of agency and shaping the story to his desire.

As mentioned earlier, Panzer Corps 2 did have some well-written briefings but the game majorly hurts for not having debriefings. First, it removes one of the fun incentives for beating the different scenarios and exploring different routes, but it also removes some of the replay value where you might have had a different outcome to a certain battle and you could look forward to seeing how the debriefing differed. This is the one change that Panzer Corps 2 made that is pretty much universally hated by EVERY fan. If Panzer Corps 2 wants to live up to the grand campaign's potential, it can't limit itself by removing one of the two major areas of narrative, the debriefings have to come back.

Well, I thank the devs for reading my wordy essay. I have been greatly enjoying my time with Panzer Corps 2 but I want to see it truly push wargaming forward in ways that were only hinted at in the first installment. Panzer Corps 2 has achieved the rare level of mass market success so rarely seen by a war game, but if it wants to continue to make inroads into the gaming community on Steam and other larger communities, it needs to be willing to embrace innovation and become the kind of game that modern gamers finds compelling.

[Kerensky]

A few players have already expressed opinions on Panzer Corps 2 and debriefings, but this definitely is 'next level'.

I think it's definitely established, the history of a campaign is really imperative. No weirdness of seeing an IS-3 in 1941, even some players seeing 5 Star Polish units has raised some eyebrows.
And more than a few players pointed out that Dijon briefing as being something special. I mean, the importance of Verdun in WW2 is basically zero, but for WW1 it was monumental.

I like the idea of characters, because it's a way to explore something we already know, with something we don't. Barring fictional content, we know how the invasion of Poland ends, or how the Spanish Civil War plays out. There are no surprises in the conclusion. But it's about the journey, and the perspective of a participant who is in the moment, someone who doesn't have the same foreknowledge we have looking back on WW2, is intriguing. There is also discovery in details, as you pointed out with the Battle of the Bzura, which is glossed over by... pretty much every game I'm aware of. It was probably the defining battle of the invasion of Poland, and it was the first large scale battle of WW2 in Europe.

Thanks for the feedback. I would definitely be curious to hear more thoughts on this.

[MickMannock]

I totally agree with the OP.

The only thing I don't agree with is that the Grand campaign had the "creative and interesting scenario design" that hadn't been matched by any game prior. I think the mega campaigns for Steel Panthers (and a campaign a few years prior to that about operation Husky which I can't remember the name of) had the same level of quality.

[econ21]

...The Grand Campaign was the first example of this type of game where your briefing officer took on a more human character, rather than just a generic, faceless general, Field Marshall Haberman had a distinctive character and was quite a likable fellow. ...

Nice post, Monkspider. I've played the GC to death but my memory is not the best, so I never took the name "Haberman" to heart. Only reading your post, do I realise the name had percolated into my subconscious, as I had named my general in Panzer Corps 2 "Haberman". D'oh!

[monkspider]

...The Grand Campaign was the first example of this type of game where your briefing officer took on a more human character, rather than just a generic, faceless general, Field Marshall Haberman had a distinctive character and was quite a likable fellow. ...

Nice post, Monkspider. I've played the GC to death but my memory is not the best, so I never took the name "Haberman" to heart. Only reading your post, do I realise the name had percolated into my subconscious, as I had named my general in Panzer Corps 2 "Haberman". D'oh!

LOL, that's hilarious! A fitting tribute to the old Field Marshal.

[Kerensky]

LOL, that's hilarious! A fitting tribute to the old Field Marshal.

Not to be a nit pick, but there were 2 'n' in Habermann.

I'm surprised you guys even remember that name.

[ragingrondo]

LOL, that's hilarious! A fitting tribute to the old Field Marshal.

Not to be a nit pick, but there were 2 'n' in Habermann.

I'm surprised you guys even remember that name.

Of course I remember it. How else was I supposed to get that awesome Maus for Berlin. He was great!

[Kerensky]

Of course I remember it. How else was I supposed to get that awesome Maus for Berlin. He was great!

Hmmm yea bonus and reward units. Definitely a big highlight from the Grand Campaign we should probably bring back to Panzer Corps 2 addon content.
We see a glimpse of this in Defenders of the Reich, you can get your hands on a KV-85, an IS-3, or a Super Pershing.

It's awesome how in Panzer Corps 2 you can capture enemy equipment at will... but it's not quite the same as earning a bonus unit.

[MickMannock]

Of course I remember it. How else was I supposed to get that awesome Maus for Berlin. He was great!

Hmmm yea bonus and reward units. Definitely a big highlight from the Grand Campaign we should probably bring back to Panzer Corps 2 addon content.
We see a glimpse of this in Defenders of the Reich, you can get your hands on a KV-85, an IS-3, or a Super Pershing.

It's awesome how in Panzer Corps 2 you can capture enemy equipment at will... but it's not quite the same as earning a bonus unit.

Yeah, bonus equipment is much more exciting than the capture mechanic. Really anything that surprises you, or that you don't expect (I'm thinking of secondary objectives and the likes).

[TJLionheart]

A few players have already expressed opinions on Panzer Corps 2 and debriefings, but this definitely is 'next level'.

I think it's definitely established, the history of a campaign is really imperative. No weirdness of seeing an IS-3 in 1941, even some players seeing 5 Star Polish units has raised some eyebrows.
And more than a few players pointed out that Dijon briefing as being something special. I mean, the importance of Verdun in WW2 is basically zero, but for WW1 it was monumental.

I like the idea of characters, because it's a way to explore something we already know, with something we don't. Barring fictional content, we know how the invasion of Poland ends, or how the Spanish Civil War plays out. There are no surprises in the conclusion. But it's about the journey, and the perspective of a participant who is in the moment, someone who doesn't have the same foreknowledge we have looking back on WW2, is intriguing. There is also discovery in details, as you pointed out with the Battle of the Bzura, which is glossed over by... pretty much every game I'm aware of. It was probably the defining battle of the invasion of Poland, and it was the first large scale battle of WW2 in Europe.

Thanks for the feedback. I would definitely be curious to hear more thoughts on this.

When I play, I look at the units more at a company level than a battalion level unit. So if I have 12 infantry, I look at that as 4 battalions of infantry, and if I have a 12 strength tank, I look at that as a tank company with 12 tanks, so probably really playing a Panzer Division (or a late war Panzer Corps). When you have designed in the past, obviously you are designing it in most cases for a higher level, such as a corps. The released campaign is more at an Army level, which is different than you did with the Grand Campaign. Seems to me, in the design of a Grand Campaign for PC2, the lower the level the easier it is to be immersive and unique -- I may know how Fall Weiss turned out historically, but I do not know how my unit did during that operation and what role it played.

Here are my thoughts on a grand campaign:

1. I would design it with a smaller level unit in mind that targets specific components (historical or fictional) of the various battles of the war, which talks about the historical arc, but with objectives within the various operation. If I do my part, doesn't mean we win or lose the war. Truth is you are just a small cog in a big wheel of war. Not sure whether and to what extent my brilliant victories should change any from the historical path.

2. I would design it with progression in mind (obviously you did that in PZ1 grand campaign starting with a small number of core slots and increasing it through 43). In WW2, most commander's progressed in rank significantly throughout the war. So at the beginning, you are assigned a brigade, then a reinforced brigade, and then to a division, and into a corps. That is your arc if you do well.

3. As a commander, you can experience some of the realities of WW2 - you have an experienced corps, but high command just attached a green bridage (or division) to your unit that you have to find a way to integrate and bloody.

4. Although this may be ahistorical at a lower level, would be cool to have an added unit be of an allied nation, so that you also progress those units within their roster. For example, you have an italian motorized division attached to your corps (as corps units instead of auxillary), which was historical. Or, you could add a Romanian brigade to your sector of Stalingrad. Not sure how you would do it, but give the general some reason to try to save those units instead of treat them as expendable cannon fodder. Perhaps you have core slots assigned by nation -- you have 50 for Germany, and 20 for italy, not sure if that is possible.

5. I loved the diversity of the battles -- city battles, mountain battles, plains battles -- some defensive (city defensive was my personal favorite), some offensive, some breakout, some trapped so you are supplied by air drops to your air field, etc. My units had to be diversified because of the various missions I will be called upon to perform.

6. Your prize for performing so well could be the award of a unit or units.

7. This type of format would allow for a much easier way to create a random grand campaign using random scenarios.

Just some of my thoughts, you are obviously very good at this and already thought of most of this.

[Kerensky]

Well that's the nice thing about exploring what used to be 1 or 2 scenarios in the base game and turning them into half or a whole campaign. The chance to explore smaller battles with more varied objectives and localized operations is a given. I don't think there's any worry that won't come back.

Plus it's just good to have variety in something as long as a Grand Campaign can be.

[klintk]

LOL, that's hilarious! A fitting tribute to the old Field Marshal.

Not to be a nit pick, but there were 2 'n' in Habermann.

I'm surprised you guys even remember that name.

Of course I remember it. How else was I supposed to get that awesome Maus for Berlin. He was great!

Again, this all sounds like wonderful news! Very excited about the new way awards will be distributed!