Suggestions, wishlist and ideas for Panzer Corps 2 gameplay

[LandMarine47]

In terms of ideas, I am not sure if this is the right place to post about potential campaign ideas, but I would love to see some campaign that we did not see in the original game, such as an exclusively British Corps starting in France or Norway of 1940, and following the British through the Western Desert, Sicily, Normandy, Market Garden, and eventually the Rhine Crossing. Another idea would be a campaign around Italy, I would love to see an Italian Corps that could maybe play around with alt-history with the Italians preforming better than they did historically. I found it interesting to think maybe with some better leadership, we could potentially see a Cairo 41, followed by an East African campaign.

[faos333]

To be able to switch in 2D option, it will make the game run faster thus more enjoyable

[Egon70]

Opinion about train embarked troops. It is about the interception of it. The idea was used in PG2 and it was plausible. If a train is intercepted and attacked in a city the troops are auto disembarked. Are 2 natural reasons for it. They have to defense and even a low fire return must occure. Also, to continue the travel, it is necessary to waste a turn for reembarking remaining troops.

[Egon70]

A second opinion it is about recon vehicles. Even with long observation range, it must be realistic reduced by areas in or behind forests, areas behind high places (If the recon it is between hills for example) or bad weather condition.

[RVallant]

Problem units in first Panzer Corps:

Recon to easy be destroyed, personally think needs be able retreat if not all movement used up and take half damage doing it. Should retreat to safe distance.
Infantry even in close combat against late tanks just sucks and infantry need panzerfaust to give them better damage against enemy armour. That can be done by having support equipment. Also think infantry next to units should support unit and be supported by unit.
AT lot people uncomfortable using either has weak sides and takes lot damage from return fire or has be well placed to attack next turn. That's why lot people use very tank heavy army with little AT. So making ambushing give more damage and support makes it more valuable. That said think US GC has helped people see value of AT more. American tanks suck.

I disagree: I used recon with no losses all the way until Berlin Redux in the GC East. My view is that using them haphazardly is what gets them killed. They work fine as scouts assuming you have the units available to block off via ZoC access to the recon when you're advancing, which you should be doing anyway otherwise your battlegroup is too small imo. They're absolutely not front line units and shouldn't be there. There may be a case for increasing their movement range, but I think they're fine.


To continue the disagreement:

Infantry in CC vs late tanks did not suck either. Grenadiers in particular were fairly capable of taking out IS-1 and IS-2 tanks with up to 6-9 points, particularly if they were at 3-4 star experience. Indeed, most of infantry were capable of defending stoutly against the AI throwing tanks into city hexes, especially when backed with artillery support.The only time they'd fail was if they were inexperienced or if the enemy was backed with artillery themselves. In PzC2 if AT are providing supporting fire, this opens up new questions on how to support them because if the AI throws tanks at you, it is going to be great fun watching a potential 15-0 kill count for the infantry unit on the defence.

I only partially agree on AT units:

Towed AT was a pain in the butt to get set up and positioned properly. Were they able to transport and unload in one move, they would be of more use (they would not be able to attack though, just take up defensive positions). Or, if they were allowed to attack at a tank's close defence that would be of use as well. SPAT units were easy to use and very handy options vs tanks imo. I got plenty of use of SPAT units, and the only issues I've had with SPAT is that they are time sensitive, there's limited windows where they are super viable and then they get outpaced by technology again, but that's down to the history rather than the game I suppose.

[grabbysnatch]

Hi, May have been mentioned before, but is their any thought of adding the goliath remote devices to the game? Not sure if they could work, but could make an interesting choice when attacking fortifications, for example.

[Patrick Ward]

Hi, May have been mentioned before, but is their any thought of adding the goliath remote devices to the game? Not sure if they could work, but could make an interesting choice when attacking fortifications, for example.

We have it though its not yet clear if or how we'll use it.

[uran21]

Hi, May have been mentioned before, but is their any thought of adding the goliath remote devices to the game? Not sure if they could work, but could make an interesting choice when attacking fortifications, for example.

It will be a kamikaze type of unit (destroyed after an attack) suitable to reduce fortifications and clear mines.

[grabbysnatch]

Great, it will make an interesting angle for the game

[WileyKojote]

Co-op campaign. Simply split the prestige each map. Wouldn't be too hard to implement right?!

[Elkarlo]

Co-op campaign. Simply split the prestige each map. Wouldn't be too hard to implement right?!

Especially early scenarios. There's another friendly army on the map that you have to help or be helped by to achieve the objectives.

[Retributarr]

"STRATEGIC BOMBING EFFECTS":

I know that it's quite late in the development process to suggest Gaming-Suggestions...But!...What the Hey~.

It came to mind for me, whether it is practical in this type of Game...or not?...to consider the application of 'Strategic-Bombing'.

The "detrimental effects" of 'Strategic-Bombing ...using 'Strategic-Bombers'...on population centers...is that...the 'Rubble' that is generated from the 'Bombing-Effort'... is now very effective for Increasing the 'Defensive-Bonus-Strength' of any Units occupying/defending that location.

On the other hand...the "Positive benefits" of 'Strategic-Bombing'... is that it can cause 'Terrifying-Panic' in the civic population of that particular urban settlement...so that...that in effect can cause...a mass-exodus of civilians who would be in a fleeing-panic to leave their city. This would cause/generate a mass concentration of people jamming the roads... thereby making it extremely difficult for military units to negotiate the road system...or in other words...paralyzing movement capabilities for those units trying to use the road/hi-way transportion systems.

So!...maybe...this concept idea cannot be used for this Game, but... perhaps... can be used in the future for some other Game.

[Elkarlo]

no supply lines?

there are players who never play order of battle to say that? in order of battle it is perfect way to get supply. There are possibilities to cut off supplies, it is genious. Why don't make the same system in panzer corps 2 ??

I play order of batttlw and i think the supply lines are awful. It is way to easy to cut off supply and the the thought process doesnt make sense. You can be cut off from supply even though there are no enemy units between you and your supply line just because an enemy unit drove by it. This lets one unit cut offf supply from behind enemy lines which makes no sense.

While supply lines have merit it is really hard to implement correctly. Another thing that annoys me with OOB is how the supply pine doesnt actually move all together so all the land behind your troops is supplied if there are no enemy units there. Example is if i move aggresivey i can leave big tracts of land which is enemy lines even if there is no enemy unit and and is behind all my front lines.

I think panzer corps system of ammo amd fuel is much better. Hopefully it doesnt change.

Yeah, PC Is fine. Being near enemy units means less supply. I like it, it works and doesn't take days if play to figure out.

[Elkarlo]

no supply lines?

there are players who never play order of battle to say that? in order of battle it is perfect way to get supply. There are possibilities to cut off supplies, it is genious. Why don't make the same system in panzer corps 2 ??

I play order of batttlw and i think the supply lines are awful. It is way to easy to cut off supply and the the thought process doesnt make sense. You can be cut off from supply even though there are no enemy units between you and your supply line just because an enemy unit drove by it. This lets one unit cut offf supply from behind enemy lines which makes no sense.

While supply lines have merit it is really hard to implement correctly. Another thing that annoys me with OOB is how the supply pine doesnt actually move all together so all the land behind your troops is supplied if there are no enemy units there. Example is if i move aggresivey i can leave big tracts of land which is enemy lines even if there is no enemy unit and and is behind all my front lines.

I think panzer corps system of ammo amd fuel is much better. Hopefully it doesnt change.

Yeah, PC Is fine. Being near enemy units means less supply. I like it, it works and doesn't take days if play to figure out.

[AceDuceTrey]

I know it's late in the game but please consider:
Adding (stationary) "Headquarters" CP units at any controlled town/population center that can:
1. Issue orders/recover morale for all units within 4 hexes of a Line of Communications (LOC, all controlled road and railways linking towns/population centers).
2. Transform into a "Command Van (truck)" for mobility but with limited (8 hex) command range.
3. Spawn "Support Truck units" (at a cost) that can provide limited (4 hex) resupply/repair to units or transform into a Depot within 4 hexes of a controlled town/population center with 16 hex support range along roads and 30 hex range along rail.
NOTE: Support trucks would constitute your Main Supply Routes MSRs).

[AceDuceTrey]

Based on the PC "equipment file" values, I did some research on the infantry AT values. This is what I found:
Pre '39 Infantry 1, engineers 2. Except UK 2 (Boys AT Rifle) and Germany 3 (7.92 AT Rifle).
1941 All Engineers and Russian Infantry 4 (14.5 AT Rifle)
1942 All Engineers and UK Infantry 8 (PIAT 76mm); USA Infantry 10 ( 60mm Bazooka)
1943 German Engineers and Infantry 14 (Panzerfaust)
1944 German Engineers and Grenadiers 22 (Panzerschreck)

[Retributarr]

Missed Information:

I've been "Bugged" on my part for having 'Neglected' to mention before-hand more information on the Dire-State of German 'Fuel-Supplies'.

I was watching a U-Tube video on WWII...with...I forgot his name, where he mentioned that 'Hitler' was essentially forced to Attack the Soviet Union when he did, and not any later than he did...because he only had 3-Months of Fuel-Supplies for "full scale attack operations" against the Russians.

To eventually have lost 'Romania' for example...if he had waited...to the Russians...as they were eyeing that piece of real-estate for their own, in their seemingly unending quest for 'Annexations. Romania was 'Hitlers' main source of 'Fuel-Supplies'... so...to lose it...would have extinguished any future hope of taking advantage of the present situation of the fractured disorganized weakened state of the Russian Army.

That would also probably also account for 'Why!!!'...the 'Invasion of England' was postponed indefinitely...and henceforth...'Cancelled. So...that 'Hitler' could attack Russia without too much postponement if taking on the task of an invasion of England was deemed too risky.

For 'Herr Hitler'...he had basically one of two directions that he could go...'England now with less certain preparation, or a year later, when much better preparation ...then risk attacking Russia when they are better prepared... or...England immediately, quickly followed by an invasion of Russia ', unless I'm missing something here?.

'Hitler'...could try to invade 'England' immediately...or...cancel the invasion of England and instead wait for up to another year to attempt an invasion of 'England' with a then much improved, better organized...and prepared attack plan...or alternatively cancel 'Operation Seelöwe and instead, take the chance to invade the Soviet Union first as soon as Ground-Conditions were favorable, before the Russians became much more better prepared to resist a full scale assault.

So, in the Game, one would need to decide what direction they wish to go...can't safely do both, with the one year interval. That is...to invade England nearly a year in the future, instead of immediately...then hope to have success in Russia a year later...with the concern of a lack of ability of the procurement of additional ample fuel supplies.

Alternatively, perhap's there is some other alternative or source of Fuel Supplies that they could have obtained to negate the "this or that" option?.

Anyone else have idea's???.

[dalfrede]

I was watching a U-Tube video on WWII...with...I forgot his name, where he mentioned that 'Hitler' was essentially forced to Attack the Soviet Union when he did, and not any later than he did...because he only had 3-Months of Fuel-Supplies for "full scale attack operations" against the Russians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg

[Retributarr]

Thank-You... 'dalfrede' for finding that Exact-Video!.

TIK history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg

I watched this video again, it was fascinating, and as well I was incorrect on how much Fuel Hitler had...he had only 2-Months supply of Fuel for a full scale assault,...not 3-Months.

TIK also brought out that attacking Russia with 3 Army Groups was a mistake!. Instead of listening to his Generals (Halder being one of them)...to do this wrong move, that instead they should have advanced not into Stalingrad but instead go south of Stalingrad to cut off the Oil Supply shipments to the Red-Army (90%)...by cutting off the transportation route on the Volga River...thereby isolating the Oil Supplies to the Russians from the 'Baku' Oil Fields.

This would have ensured that the Russian Army would have been Severely restricted in their Operation Maneuver capabilities in 1942 or 1943 and then rendered completely ineffective in 1943 or 1944.

Also...that the main thrust of the invasion effort should have been directed at 'Miakop and Grozny' to take those Oil-Fields.

[Retributarr]

Cacasus Oil Region _ Additional Information:

Going to just south of 'Stalingrad' to 'interdict/put a stop'...to "River Oil Barges" transiting up to Stalingrad and beyond to refineries is not a bad plan. However...I think that still...a better plan is to go to "Astrakhan"...just north of the 'Caspian Sea', here 4 Major Rivers exit the Caspian Sea and are 'directed/go through'... to 'Astrakhan'.

This way...River Barges can be intercepted at 'Astrakhan', whereas...by just only going south of 'Stalingrad'...you 'will/may not' be able to 'interdict/stop' these River OIL Barges from making some headway up the river past 'Astrakhan'...where perhaps...tanker trucks or by what-other means...can be used to redirect the Oil shipments to wherever they are intended to go.

Astrakhan is extremely important to take, but...I would also say, that even more important is it to try take 'Miakop and Grozny' first!...in order to gain additional Oil Supplies for motorized vehicles. Mind you...it would still take the Industrial Oil Specialists/Engineers... a month or more to get those Oil Refineries in those Oil Well regions operational.