An area well underdeveloped by many wargames

CactusWillie · Post by **CactusWillie** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Seems to work well as I have only got to play a few from the 1939 games. This is an area of wargaming not really dealt with much by other companies. Seems better than PZ Generals attempt at it. One can actually get more feel from the time frame by the lack of equipment/ arms that later war years had available. Combined arms approach / blitz is the key. Use the artillery and air (but watch out for those AA guns). Remember behind the river is better than on the river when defending, too. In many of the board games an extra benefit is given for the combined arms approach where attacks can be mounted together as opposed to individually. The poles can cause problems if you are not careful. Being to bold and underestimating the enemy is a theme that seems to flow in what I have played so far. I like the different kinds of victory conditions (ie capture or destroy fortresses or trains). Makes you hunt/ recon or look for victory (like where is the holy grail) as opposed to a city or cities. Great game and is worth the effort in my book. Keep'er going!

monkspider · Post by **monkspider** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:28 pm

Well said, I don't think I have seen the 1939 campaign represented so well in any other game.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:57 am

This is and probably always will be my view on content.
Sure, Panzer Corps is a remake of a game that already exists. Just because we remade the game shouldn't mean it's the same thing all over again just 'prettier'. Staying true to your predecessor is important and I think Panzer Corps does that very well, but expanding in new and interesting directions is how Panzer Corps will shrug of concerns like "I already bought this game 10 years ago".

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:46 am

expanding in new and interesting directions

And with what I've seen so far in the DLC campaigns, the PzC design team is doing an excellent job of that!

airbornemongo101 · Post by **airbornemongo101** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:40 pm

I concur,Outstanding job on the vanilla campaign and the DLC'S

(Just wish there was more prestige

)

kjeld111 · Post by **kjeld111** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:26 pm

I very much agree. The vanilla campaign was an outstanding remake of an outstanding game. But the DLC really push the boundaries of the game : combining the branching campaign structure, "storytelling" aspects (with briefings that are directly relevant to the actual tactical map), innovative map design, diverse objectives, scripted/dynamic events, and elements of foreshadowing from one map to another (eg. scouting Piatek, Modlin or Warsaw during the previous scenarios), you manage to achieve a degree of IMMERSION that I didn't imagine was possible with the relatively "light" PG game mechanics.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:52 pm

kjeld111 wrote:I very much agree. The vanilla campaign was an outstanding remake of an outstanding game. But the DLC really push the boundaries of the game : combining the branching campaign structure, "storytelling" aspects (with briefings that are directly relevant to the actual tactical map), innovative map design, diverse objectives, scripted/dynamic events, and elements of foreshadowing from one map to another (eg. scouting Piatek, Modlin or Warsaw during the previous scenarios), you manage to achieve a degree of IMMERSION that I didn't imagine was possible with the relatively "light" PG game mechanics.

Dear Iain,

I would like to leak this comment on the general forums. Please let me do so.

Sincerely,
Kerensky

El_Condoro · Post by **El_Condoro** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:31 pm

Just a comment: the trolls might say this is an example of abuse of the NDA allowed. It's a great comment but would it leave us open to inconsistency claims?

VPaulus · Post by **VPaulus** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:33 am

El_Condoro wrote:Just a comment: the trolls might say this is an example of abuse of the NDA allowed. It's a great comment but would it leave us open to inconsistency claims?

You're right. It wouldn't make sense when we're warning people against NDA infringements.
Although I agree 100% with the commentary. The DLC is a big step forward, IMO. The game seems different, for better of course. keep the commentary for later use, perhaps. I would like to use it in the "crap" thread.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:19 am

I wasn't really being serious about that request. Writing a letter starting with "dear" and ending it with "sincerely" on a forum?

VPaulus · Post by **VPaulus** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:22 am

Kerensky wrote:I wasn't really being serious about that request. Writing a letter starting with "dear" and ending it with "sincerely" on a forum?

That would even be better in the "crap" thread.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:28 am

Trust me, I've had to keep my mouth shut about this content for a loooong time. Waiting another couple weeks for it go finally go public? No big deal.

VPaulus · Post by **VPaulus** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:40 am

Kerensky wrote:Trust me, I've had to keep my mouth shut about this content for a loooong time. Waiting another couple weeks for it go finally go public? No big deal.

Indeed. I've noticed that. You wanted to tease us and talk about it, but you just couldn't.
Two weeks, then.
Now I'm just sounding like Oleg Maddox.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:59 am

We're not leaking any information for now

El_Condoro · Post by **El_Condoro** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:10 am

Kerensky wrote:I wasn't really being serious about that request. Writing a letter starting with "dear" and ending it with "sincerely" on a forum?

Yep, that was weird! Just a bit sensitive about the so-called "crap" thread.