Axis Operation 1945 Review

[DefiantXYX]

Massive spoiler warning for all who havent finished the new expansion yet.

I already finished the ahistrical part on highest difficulty with david vs goliath setting.
First of all I dont like how they tried to make game tough again. I like to be outnumbered and I like to see overstrengheted units but it is ridiculous, that the russians got tanks as good as german tanks and IS3 is even the best tank in the game.
The german came up with the best toys in this war, even when the whole country and industry was bombed 24/7, imagine what would have been possible without that? Tiger 2 and Panther 2 are already outdated, you need the new models just to be on top with the russians...
The difficulty vs russia is good, maybe sometimes easier then in 1944.
Strange thing is the last scenarios vs england fall up enormously, its like a walk in the park again. Feels like these mission are not completly finished and balanced.

To the gameplay itself: disappointing tbh. No commandation points, no events, nothing you can influence. There are some caches with boring stuff you dont need. Elite objectives are rather boring too, you just get some stuff that is nice to have, not game changing.
There are some new units, mostly tanks, but there is not much to upgrade or to manage.
Mission design is rather standard, nothing new, no highlights.

The whole ahistrocial part feels like the focus was extremly put on the story. Funny btw. that this game got a real story since the last dlcs.
Cant say I am really enthused by the story. And the one hand they put a lot effort in it, 25% of all the maps are just there for the story, on the other had it is kinda cheap what happens. The fuhrer is just dead, göring is an idiot, so let rommel be the new fuhrer. He is famous, thats enough.
Where are all the nazis? How did the 3rd riche reich change from "lets kill everyone who is not aryan" to "lets make peace with everyone, war sucks"?
And I also think it is not that easy to make peace with the russians after all that happened. I really would like to march for moscow again and really force them to make peace. This atomic bomb stuff feels really strange.

But I also think its unfair to criticize that, the game is not a "what if" documentation.

Finally this part was fun to play but a bit dissapointing. But I like the chance, that we might get a AO 1946.

Now I am curious how the historical part ends

[Sequester Grundleplith, MD]

I guess the Berlin scenario was a nice thank you to the beta testers, but it seemed like a missed opportunity.

I was expecting a reverse-"End in Berlin," where you need to remove Himmler, Goebbels & the SS who are opposed to Rommel. Would have been nice to have to face the top tier German materiel for a change.

Barca finally felt like the Kursk missions should have, though I have to echo the comment about the caches being mostly useless, unless you are playing "Collector" mode.
But I think that underlines a problem with the unit balance that has been exacerbated over the last couple dlcs: the German gear is too good in-game relative to the other nations.
The stats on all the weapons that Germany never built irl are just much better than all the late war gear that the Allies used to actually win the war

I liked the decision to go to India, as it was a nice change of pace in terms of map color templates. 1946AH will be interesting simply because it allows us to fight theoretical battles that havent been done a hundred times in different games, but it also will need some sort of revamp in meta-game, as there arent any more new units to upgrade your forces to, which helps keep the game enaging, imho
The "elite" objectives now simply seem to have replaced "commendation" objectives, with the only difference being immediate rewards instead of rewards later. That's ok as an overall change, but not anything uniquely compelling.

Also, it was nice that the AH non-imported core got spicier default heroes, but, starting in at least 1944, you really should be able to buy new units with at least some experience. Forgoing the unit awards and dozens of heroes is hard enough, but only being able to buy zero stars units, while facing opfors with heavy experience, is just not fun

[Tassadar]

But I think that underlines a problem with the unit balance that has been exacerbated over the last couple dlcs: the German gear is too good in-game relative to the other nations.
The stats on all the weapons that Germany never built irl are just much better than all the late war gear that the Allies used to actually win the war

True, but that's partially because of the fact that the campaign is for now form the German side. I'm curiously waiting for some of the other DLC, even Pacific Corps, that should hopefully add a few extra pieces of kit as various stages of the war as if they appear. Plus that's also the game nature of Wunderwaffe, other nations did not have to waste their resources on megaprojects at this stage, so they had relatively fewer examples. Still, I'm sure there's room for extra options, such as an end game de Havilland Vampire given as a prototype award at the end of a British campaign. I would also not fing it impossible to encounter T29's and T30's in AO1946.

1946AH will be interesting simply because it allows us to fight theoretical battles that havent been done a hundred times in different games, but it also will need some sort of revamp in meta-game, as there arent any more new units to upgrade your forces to, which helps keep the game enaging, imho

We could still have the Kugelblitz, Jagdpanzer E-25 or Messerschmitt P.1101 as unpurchaseable prototypes for 1946, in very small numbers just to spice things up.

[Ryba666]

So we right now have all AO dlcs so for me good and bad things in this huge campaign was:

Good:
Commadations points: nice micro economy outside missions
Heroes: multifuctional heroes? YES
NPC charecters: please add more real one in next game?
Different target missions: not only conquer all victory hexes
Bad:
Too long spanish civil war, too short 1944 AO
Not alternatives for only air missions
Bad optymalization for big maps
Nemesis system, unit too op becouse reasons
B class story from AO 1944, maybe in next gamae add some movies like in C&c games from 90s?

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

but it is ridiculous, that the russians got tanks as good as german tanks and IS3 is even the best tank in the game.
The german came up with the best toys in this war, even when the whole country and industry was bombed 24/7, imagine what would have been possible without that?

Hold it right there.

1.) In the briefings it is even mentioned that germany is still being bombed.

2.) Just not true, this comes up in this forum again and again, it's just pseudohistory. It actually would have to be the other way around, the german tanks are too good. Like in Order of Battle, they would need some sort of debuff, since the german tanks were notoriously unreliable and broke down so often and were very slow.
The germans might have come up with some cool ideas for some advanced stuff, but it was far from the best.
Take for example the ME262. It was rushed into action very fast and while it surely was not a bad fighter, the allies weren't really worried since they still had strategies to deal with the MEs, for example attacking them during landing or takeoff. Apart from that there were still mechanical problems and the production was slow.
Add to that that the allies were also developing jet fighters, but they did not rush them into combat since there was no need for that.
This goes for basically every other development of the germans, they all had significant downsides, were not that ground-breaking or were easily countered.

[DefiantXYX]

1.) In the briefings it is even mentioned that germany is still being bombed.

Yes, but nothing compared to the historical setting.
Me262 jets began to protect german airspace in 1943 and story says the german are capable of fighting the western allies.
We saw Berlin and Munich, I did not see a single destroyed building.

2.) Just not true, this comes up in this forum again and again, it's just pseudohistory. It actually would have to be the other way around, the german tanks are too good. Like in Order of Battle, they would need some sort of debuff, since the german tanks were notoriously unreliable and broke down so often and were very slow.

German tanks are not too good, they are just as good as the russian tanks statswise. If that was true the war should have ended in 1943 or how can you explain germany could fight 3 more years, outnumbered in almost every battle while the industry was bombed 24/7 while the russian were receiving supplies from the western allies all the time?
I also dont remember a panzergeneral game where Tiger II was not the strongest tank in the game.

The germans might have come up with some cool ideas for some advanced stuff, but it was far from the best.
Take for example the ME262. It was rushed into action very fast and while it surely was not a bad fighter, the allies weren't really worried since they still had strategies to deal with the MEs, for example attacking them during landing or takeoff. Apart from that there were still mechanical problems and the production was slow.
Add to that that the allies were also developing jet fighters, but they did not rush them into combat since there was no need for that.
This goes for basically every other development of the germans, they all had significant downsides, were not that ground-breaking or were easily countered.

That is why we have the ahistorical part. Everything should be better. It is explained why we have the Me262 way earlier. It is not rushed, it is tested and doing a hell of a job, like all the other jets.
After 1943 germany got a lot oil and ressources from the caucasus, the allied invasion in 1944 was stopped, somehow the fights in italys stopped. I dont want different units in term of stats in both campaigns but a little finetuning would be nice. I just think the developers realized, that >1943 core forces just have 3 strong heroes on any units, so germany units cant be better than allied ones too.

[rafstaff]

Massive spoiler warning for all who havent finished the new expansion yet.

I already finished the ahistrical part on highest difficulty with david vs goliath setting.
First of all I dont like how they tried to make game tough again. I like to be outnumbered and I like to see overstrengheted units but it is ridiculous, that the russians got tanks as good as german tanks and IS3 is even the best tank in the game.
The german came up with the best toys in this war, even when the whole country and industry was bombed 24/7, imagine what would have been possible without that? Tiger 2 and Panther 2 are already outdated, you need the new models just to be on top with the russians...
The difficulty vs russia is good, maybe sometimes easier then in 1944.
Strange thing is the last scenarios vs england fall up enormously, its like a walk in the park again. Feels like these mission are not completly finished and balanced.

To the gameplay itself: disappointing tbh. No commandation points, no events, nothing you can influence. There are some caches with boring stuff you dont need. Elite objectives are rather boring too, you just get some stuff that is nice to have, not game changing.
There are some new units, mostly tanks, but there is not much to upgrade or to manage.
Mission design is rather standard, nothing new, no highlights.

The whole ahistrocial part feels like the focus was extremly put on the story. Funny btw. that this game got a real story since the last dlcs.
Cant say I am really enthused by the story. And the one hand they put a lot effort in it, 25% of all the maps are just there for the story, on the other had it is kinda cheap what happens. The fuhrer is just dead, göring is an idiot, so let rommel be the new fuhrer. He is famous, thats enough.
Where are all the nazis? How did the 3rd riche reich change from "lets kill everyone who is not aryan" to "lets make peace with everyone, war sucks"?
And I also think it is not that easy to make peace with the russians after all that happened. I really would like to march for moscow again and really force them to make peace. This atomic bomb stuff feels really strange.

But I also think its unfair to criticize that, the game is not a "what if" documentation.

Finally this part was fun to play but a bit dissapointing. But I like the chance, that we might get a AO 1946.

Now I am curious how the historical part ends

I agree with most of the things you wrote. I just feel like game designers were doing ao44 and ao45 with as little effort as they can. While every earlier ao were really amazing and nearly every were adding something new and exciting, next 2 were just poor and ao45 is the poorest of them where it should be huge, plenty of side objectives, not just 3 or 4 elite objectives for all campaign. What have you done with side objectives and why there was not even one?

What is worse you gave us this time in ahistorical campaign 2 missions which were just clicking reports and moving few units for few turns. It was boring, giving nothing and just space clogging in the game.

Another fact is that gamedevs were doing ao45 much shorter than for example aoscw and ao1939, what is strange while we had much more space and territory to make battles and much more powerfull enemy. I am not saying that it should be with 20-30 missions, but if they wanted to finish that side of conflict than we should receive at least more than 11 missions.

Also with much better production and available resources in ahistorical i would like to see some more new units, a bigger rooster. Next thing is completely abandoned, what is disaster for me, all commendation points what was one of the greatest idea of ao series. It was great to buy some extra heroes, units and equipment with them.

I really like the story and idea of ending in India, but with so little missions which have a real battle and action it is inappropriate to finish so great conflict with USSR and than taking such big country, which was jewel in the brithish crown, so fast, without at least with medium struggle.

[rafstaff]

But still i am waiting for ao46 and of course pacific

Little advise for gamedevs- guys, look what the modders are doing with storm over the europe- their job was great as for now.

[DefiantXYX]

Another fact is that gamedevs were doing ao45 much shorter than for example aoscw and ao1939, what is strange while we had much more space and territory to make battles and much more powerfull enemy. I am not saying that it should be with 20-30 missions, but if they wanted to finish that side of conflict than we should receive at least more than 11 missions.

My guess is there might be some West-DLC, maybe just one, since I cant imagine how you fill up 3 years just on the western front. Thats why you never really leave the eastern front and there is still a lot to play. But like I said, just make peace with the russian without conquering moscow is sad und not plausible.
"Hey sorry, we invaded your country by mistake and killed millions of soldiers and even more civilians. Lets make peace!" I dont think so.
But like I said before I think the guys are game designers and creating a ahistorical storyline is some bonus for us, so it's ok.

[adiekmann]

Another fact is that gamedevs were doing ao45 much shorter than for example aoscw and ao1939, what is strange while we had much more space and territory to make battles and much more powerfull enemy. I am not saying that it should be with 20-30 missions, but if they wanted to finish that side of conflict than we should receive at least more than 11 missions.

My guess is there might be some West-DLC, maybe just one, since I cant imagine how you fill up 3 years just on the western front. Thats why you never really leave the eastern front and there is still a lot to play. But like I said, just make peace with the russian without conquering moscow is sad und not plausible.
"Hey sorry, we invaded your country by mistake and killed millions of soldiers and even more civilians. Lets make peace!" I dont think so.
But like I said before I think the guys are game designers and creating a ahistorical storyline is some bonus for us, so it's ok.

I have always thought it interesting that everybody assumes that the Soviets would have given up if the Germans took Moscow. I never really thought so. I think they would have continued to fight. It may have hindered them as it was a transportation and communication hub, but they had already moved the factories to the Urals and there's little reason to believe they would have given up. They didn't when Napoleon took the capital. But what would it have taken to effectively end Soviet participation in the war? Taking over the whole country? I don't think that's plausible for the Germans either.

At first, I thought the recovery of the A-bomb in the Munich scenario was to lead to the Germans back-engineering their own atomic weapons. That, may have forced peace with not only the Soviets, but the United States and Britain too.

Wonder how the US campaign in the Pacific DLC will end? Do you save up all of your CD points and get the A-bomb to end it, or do you have a grand invasion of the Japanese home islands?

[FunPolice749]

I have to agree that the way we reached the end of the Eastern Front felt kinda rushed and overall was let down by it. I thought the grinding combat in stuff like Barca was honestly great and really enjoyed having to fight so hard against such potent Soviet troops but then it just ends so suddenly. It feels like based on 1941-43 being largely historical that there need to be more then just that weird plot of framing the Americans for this. If the soviets have been grinded down more and a political coup could have happened in earnest I think you could have a slightly more reasonable series of events.

Everyone will see it differently but IMO it could have gone down like
1. A German summer offensive in 1945 maybe pushes to or even takes Moscow. Soviets keep fighting however and this is not the reason they will peace out.
2. A Political Coup in Germany happens. High ranking German officials like Goering and Himmler try to seize power but it ends with them arrested. I imagine maybe a battle in Berlin or across Germany so you could have German v German.
3. The new German Government sells these prisoners to the Soviets in a peace deal on top of giving back some of the Russian land. The reason the soviets give up is that similar in game the Soviet military seems to coup Stalin and looks to leave the war as it's starting to just not have the manpower to keep fighting especially with the major enemies seemingly handed to them as a payment.

I personally think this would have been a better option to handle it and still would set up a 1946 campaign where you get to deal with the Western Allies but would have given overall a more interesting, and to me believable, set of events. The current way it's done feels so random and personally I was not a fan.

[VirgilInTheSKY]

I have always thought it interesting that everybody assumes that the Soviets would have given up if the Germans took Moscow. I never really thought so. I think they would have continued to fight. It may have hindered them as it was a transportation and communication hub, but they had already moved the factories to the Urals and there's little reason to believe they would have given up. They didn't when Napoleon took the capital. But what would it have taken to effectively end Soviet participation in the war? Taking over the whole country? I don't think that's plausible for the Germans either.

At first, I thought the recovery of the A-bomb in the Munich scenario was to lead to the Germans back-engineering their own atomic weapons. That, may have forced peace with not only the Soviets, but the United States and Britain too.

Wonder how the US campaign in the Pacific DLC will end? Do you save up all of your CD points and get the A-bomb to end it, or do you have a grand invasion of the Japanese home islands?

Kind of that, I never find it a plausible situation that the USSR would collapse simply because Germany took Moscow, or Stalingrad, or Leningrad. The one AO45 gives is reasonable for me, if not too "forced to be".
Hitler would not accept a truce as long as he is in power, nor would Stalin do, so they have to be dealt with, no matter how "unreasonable" or "lucky for the Germans" it might seem to be, to put an end to this conflict on the Russian soil, as it had became obvious that the Axis powers simply didn't have enough forces to defeat, not to say making a full occupation on such a large country. Rommel also gave up France and India from the same reason, occupation can cost more than conquest, the more you take, the more you will have to defend and pacify, which in turn would drain a small country like Germany to its death.


As for Pacific and its currently known US campaign, I think it is said to only cover 1941-43 era and saves your core at the end of it, so there should be a second half in their plan.

[rafstaff]

First of all, Russian Empire didnt collapse after Napoleon had taken Moscow, beacuse simply this was not important city, that's all, he burnt it to the ground casue mainly buildings were made of wood and left ruins. At this time a capital city was Petersburg- in USSR known as Leningrad
I also dont think that taking Moscow would force them to surrender in WW2, that's why for me ending like that is just too hasty. Maybe after taking Moscow, Leningrad, Archangielsk and Murmansk, liberating finland and Ural industries with keeping caucas and Stalingrad- that's seems to be reasonable, but not after one battle and one strangely get atomic bomb and than again after 3 battles you have liberated India. But still that is only story. I regret more that they have cancelled all side objectives in game, commendation points and placed really, really useless caches mostly and not even one of british equipment.

[barhaos]

Enjoyed slaying and slicing through countless soviet armor in the historical path. Arrived at the End in Berlin mission and by round 11 I'm out of ammunition, but there are still Soviet tanks that need some loving. Is there a catch to it or is it simply the end?

[DefiantXYX]

I agree, that russia would not have surrendered in 1941/1942, when the german might have sneaked in to capture moscow.
But in 1945, after all the losses the russians had...russias "vicotory" in ww2 was combined with hilarious losses of men and material, while germany had to fight against the whole world and russia was supported.
In this story russia has even more losses, lost the caucasus,germany is not bombed to ground, they got a lof of nice toys and stuff... I dont think russia would have fought back after another year of Barbarossa and the loss of Moscow.
But we will never know.

[RVallant]

Disclaimer; Haven't played 45 yet.

But I figured the only way Russia was going to quit was to push back the borders to basically the Gates of Moscow + Caucasus, and either take Moscow in '45 and execute Stalin at this point.

Stalin would have stayed in Moscow, he did initially, I'm sure he would have been stubborn enough to have stayed if there was another run at Moscow in '45. With the death of Stalin, then you have the conditions for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the possibility of some form of peace (IMO).

The problems ahistorically though, is Germany had declared war on the USA and their economic powerhouse, and if I remember my playthrough of '44, Italy was in trouble, so the Germans were still sort of spread thin and it was just an economic matter of time even with the Caucasus in their hands? (Moreso if Hitler remained in charge, since he was making nonsense decisions by then, and I presume he does the same even if they're winning tbh.)

[sakura006]

Narratively speaking, the story isn't too shabby. It brings to the table intriguing theories, albeit somewhat removed from practical reality. In my perspective, even if alternative events happened as depicted, it's impossible that the Soviets would back down or that the Germans would abruptly cease their Nazi atrocities. The idea that the Third Reich would liberate France and India, even under the benevolent leadership of a hypothetical Fuhrer Rommel, contradicts basic historical truth. It's quite amusing that most World War II-themed games tend to paint the German Wehrmacht as "heroic," disregarding their horrendous crimes. Yet, given the alternative-history nature, having a few "virtuous German heroes" isn't too objectionable.

In terms of gameplay, I played the game at the highest difficulty with some self-imposed restrictions, mainly on the number of heroes I get. I think after the Spanish Civil War, I never encountered any real challenges in any scenario. I can wipe out all enemies on the map with brutal force in all "difficult" scenarios. If you have the right heroes, the game poses minimal challenge. PC2 essentially comes across as another iteration of a strategy-based puzzle game. There is always a perfect counter no matter how strong the "nemesis enemy" is. Although I would say some late-game scenarios would practically be unplayable if you don't have some key heroes.

[VirgilInTheSKY]

It's quite amusing that most World War II-themed games tend to paint the German Wehrmacht as "heroic," disregarding their horrendous crimes. Yet, given the alternative-history nature, having a few "virtuous German heroes" isn't too objectionable.

I'd say the problem is that if you want to talk about what the Nazis had done, you would not make a Panzer Corps 2 at all, do some Soviet Corps...oh no the Soviets were all evil you can't make that in a game try some Allied Corps...oh no the Allies also murdered their POWs and bombed civilians...I hope I made myself clear regarding this. If you bring one thing up, you will be forced to talk about it on all sides or perople would say it's unfair/you are hiding the truth/being bias/making propaganda for someone/gloryfying something etc etc. And the more you say, the more possible you can get someone unhappy or feel insulted so they refuse to buy your product.
You can't let players get involved in those shits even though they did exist. A few hints is the best, but it must be avoided to talk directly about the war crimes the Wehrmacht has done in a game in German perspective, so you don't put players in moral dilemma that can cause trouble for the company in real life, where one complain hurts you more than a hundred praise benefits. People coming to play this game does not want to be told about that, it's simply off topic. "don't play this game it forces you to kill people for the Nazis", and you are done for.

btw, Manstein did mentioned it once, very slightly, in Zhitomir on the path to defeat:

To state that German occupation administration has created far more enemies than friends is an understatement, and we are now paying the price for that.

[DefiantXYX]

O, finally I finished the historical part...both ways. And unfortunately I have to say wtf!
Thats even worse.

To the story.
(1) "Good part"
In one mission wagner is sorry for all the dead and the girl who was decoding for us for a while. He tries to get all the dead bodies homes to germany. One mission later. Fuck off, I am out here. Wagner was all the time a heroic soldiers, I would believe if he does the same like galland. But he is running away and even worse, you have to kill your own men in the last mission and no one cares. Kill them, get me and my wife and the gold out here. Where is the daughter? Where is his mother? Guys really, if you try to set up a sidestory at least dont forget the stuff you already put in. That is just sad.
(2) "Bad part"
Wagner just runs away, leaves you alone after almost 10 years of fighting.
That a big problem in this game, we are the famous generals and win every battle but we have nothing to decide, its more like wagner is the man who decides everything.
The last mission is something new, running out of ammunitions...but I did not really play it, what for?
In the end what happens with wagner, with us...nothing. Just sad again.

That leads me back to the game itself. 1944 did a very good job to make the game hard again. Really strong enemies, missions, elite objectives that deserves the name. In the historical part there is nothing, just a few commandation points with no effect. The biggest problem is I win every battle easily, killing an hilarious number of soviets but still I lose?
The whole game is just not designed for that. Defensive battles, mechanics that make you feel like you are losing...once again, 1944 did a far better job.
Finally I would like to have a really big battle in the end with some options, like in the very first panzergeneral game. But you cant even use your aiforce in the last battle and in seelow hights the game ends early because you kill too many command units, which you cant really avoid.

Well, 1945 is a big disappointment for me.
Both campaigns feel rushed, uncompleted, loveless. No good elite objectives, heroes, units. The story is just not there or the people act out of character, especially wagner.
After 1944 I was again expecting something new, a decent way to lose the war instead of winning every map and the text just says you have lost.
No huge extraordinary battles, I already cant remember a single scenarios. Unlike any other DLC, there were always some outstanding maps with something new or special.
1945 might be the worst DLC.

Ok, what now? Dont get me wrong, this is still on of the best games I ever played and I will buy any dlc that will come next, but for now I am really upset.

[Tassadar]

The idea that the Third Reich would liberate France and India, even under the benevolent leadership of a hypothetical Fuhrer Rommel, contradicts basic historical truth.

Vichy France proves this would not be entirely unrealistic. That would be a complex political situation to re-instate the French government (even if part of France would remain annexed), but I can see the point and how it could be done by a more moderate ruler in the right circumstances. As for India, Germany already did some movement to support anti-British rebellions in the Middle East, even if all of them were token gestures at best, so this also fall into the realms of possibility. Plus there's the obvious logistical situation and proven examples of what the Japanese tried in the region, for example Thailand, and here we are looking only at a declaration of supporting independence, not even getting India directly involved on the same side.

It's quite amusing that most World War II-themed games tend to paint the German Wehrmacht as "heroic," disregarding their horrendous crimes. Yet, given the alternative-history nature, having a few "virtuous German heroes" isn't too objectionable.

There is a difference between seeing actual battle prowess and personal views, Rudel did not run away to Argentina without a reason, yet is the arguably the first bomber ace everyone thinks of when asked. Games do not dig too deep into that since it serves no narrative purpose. If it did, as VirgilInTheSKY said, we'd have to look into the Soviet actions, American ones and don't even get me started on the Romans, Napoleon or the Ottoman Empire, who's sole advantage is that a lot more time has passed since then. We'd have zero war games if morality was the criteria, since war is never good, period. That is why the fact the game shows the events from the German perspective, yet never goes deep into difficult subjects is a plus, as it is about tactics, strategy, equipment and in the end just exercising your thinking abilities in a historical setting.