What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

[econ21]

I loved Panzer General and Panzer Corps (especially the Grand Campaign) to bits. What do people who feel likewise think of Panzer Corps 2?

I've watched some videos about the innovations - over-runs and encirclement sound fun. I don't particularly care about 3D graphics or whatever. (Panzer General 3D was about the only General series game I did not take to.)

One thing I am curious about is whether the scale of the game has changed in anyway. I read a comment that it had, rather like the scale changed from PG to PG2, but from what I've seen, I am not sure that's true. Is the game still ambiguous about what a unit represents (I guess that is inevitable with this kind of game)? How big is your core at the start in 1939 and at the end in 1945?

One of the most fun things for me about Panzer Corps - especially the Grand Campaign - was trying to field historical divisions or proportions of units. Is this possible/encouraged in PzCorps 2? It seemed one of the challenges of the Grand Campaign was knowing whether to balance the game for players with a ton of big cats, or a more historical unit composition. (I got on fine up to about 1943 with the latter, then - as Kerensky put it - started getting the historical results with it!).

Thanks for any insights.

[Kerensky]

I like it for more reasons than can count, as documented in the sum total of my all posts.

Yet I dislike it for one, single reason.

Panzer Corps 2 did to original Panzer Corps what X-Com EU and X-Com2 did to original X-Com. After playing the modern versions, I just can't go back anymore. It's too much more advanced in terms of gameplay, and looks so much prettier. Free mouse wheel zoom + repainting unit skins? Sign me up, customization is awesome. Sherman swarms actually being able to defeat heavy tanks via encirclement mechanics? Tanks with overrun? Hell yes give me. Yes, Panzer Corps has its astounding wealth of content, especially Grand Campaign... but I'm sure Panzer Corps 2 will get there soon enough.

I loved Panzer General and Panzer Corps (especially the Grand Campaign) to bits. What do people who feel likewise think of Panzer Corps 2?

I've watched some videos about the innovations - over-runs and encirclement sound fun. I don't particularly care about 3D graphics or whatever. (Panzer General 3D was about the only General series game I did not take to.)

One thing I am curious about is whether the scale of the game has changed in anyway. I read a comment that it had, rather like the scale changed from PG to PG2, but from what I've seen, I am not sure that's true. Is the game still ambiguous about what a unit represents (I guess that is inevitable with this kind of game)? How big is your core at the start in 1939 and at the end in 1945?

One of the most fun things for me about Panzer Corps - especially the Grand Campaign - was trying to field historical divisions or proportions of units. Is this possible/encouraged in PzCorps 2? It seemed one of the challenges of the Grand Campaign was knowing whether to balance the game for players with a ton of big cats, or a more historical unit composition. (I got on fine up to about 1943 with the latter, then - as Kerensky put it - started getting the historical results with it!).

Thanks for any insights.

I'm always glad to see a fan of the Grand Campaign.

The scale of Panzer Corps 2 campaign I would argue is somewhere halfway between Panzer Corps original, which is almost fully strategic with it's 1 map = 1 country scale, and Panzer Corps Grand Campaign, which is almost fully tactical where 1 map could potentially equal as small as a single city.

There's definitely way more, and way better, Vanilla level content in Panzer Corps 2 over Panzer Corps. But Grand Campaign is Grand Campaign, there is no comparison to that monstrosity.

[MickMannock]

I loved Panzer General and Panzer Corps (especially the Grand Campaign) to bits. What do people who feel likewise think of Panzer Corps 2?

I've watched some videos about the innovations - over-runs and encirclement sound fun. I don't particularly care about 3D graphics or whatever. (Panzer General 3D was about the only General series game I did not take to.)

One thing I am curious about is whether the scale of the game has changed in anyway. I read a comment that it had, rather like the scale changed from PG to PG2, but from what I've seen, I am not sure that's true. Is the game still ambiguous about what a unit represents (I guess that is inevitable with this kind of game)? How big is your core at the start in 1939 and at the end in 1945?

One of the most fun things for me about Panzer Corps - especially the Grand Campaign - was trying to field historical divisions or proportions of units. Is this possible/encouraged in PzCorps 2? It seemed one of the challenges of the Grand Campaign was knowing whether to balance the game for players with a ton of big cats, or a more historical unit composition. (I got on fine up to about 1943 with the latter, then - as Kerensky put it - started getting the historical results with it!).

Thanks for any insights.

It's another type of game really. I enjoyed the 2D graphics of PC1 but I'm fine with 3D but not something I feel I need. The mechanics have definetely changed which is what makes this another type of game. I'm not saying one is better than the other, it's just different. I can see myself going back playing PC1 and having great fun with the Grand campaign, but I'm also having a blast at the moment playing the vanilla campaign of PC2.

I don't feel the scale have changed, comparing the two vanilla campaigns. I haven't gotten to 1945 yet, but from what I understand there are a lot more scenarios in the campaign of PC2 compared to PC1, so that is nice. I like that Barbarossa got divided into Army group North, Center and South for example. In PC1 (and Panzer General) you never had a choice and always played Army group Center basically.

The game certainly encourages you to have a more diversified core, via its mechanics, which I greatly appreciate. The recon units are super useful this time around and my best air unit heading into 1942 is the Me110G, thanks to its versatility as a fighter and tactical bomber.

It's not a perfect game, I have a few nit picks with it, among them the heroes, but overall it's a great game that complements PC1 (or Panzer General) but doesn't replace it, as they are two different branches of this little niche of strategy wargaming.

[Vaughn]

I'm not sure yet.

I would have been perfectly happy with a naval core just added into the first game. Something akin to Pacific General, warts and all. I would have played that game for the next 10 years without a complaint.

This game is rather new to me. Some good. Some bad. Some things I will have to get used to.

[ErissN6]

I like that Barbarossa got divided into Army group North, Center and South for example.
The game certainly encourages you to have a more diversified core.
The recon units are super useful and my best air unit is the versatil fighter and tactical bomber.

Yes, for me it's the best PG/PC for its refined features, but it's among the worst for the UI with its useless 3D, even less readable than old PG3D!
The game should have been conceived as usual for the game on the map, then 3D should be a 'ground level' for the show (it would be perfect for a replay feature), instead of 3D to play and map to see.

[Retributarr]

The Game is more challenging time-wise in many cases... where you need to beat the clock in order to keep staying in the Game. Sometimes it definetly is a trying effort!. You don't easily get bored playing this Game, there are lots of considerations to keep you on your toes as it were.

So far... I'm 'very-satisfied' with it...other than a few minor irking issues, and as well...I love the 3-D Graphics, as it makes the Playing Environment more realistic for me. The Combat-Exchanges seem to be quite fair/realistic... in which I do appreciate.

I'll have a more polished assessment of the Game as I spend more time on it. Other than that... I would find it now more difficult to return to PzrC1'

[Snake97644]

The scale can vary widely in this game, I agree the the above post that I like the way the you have a choice of which front to take, i.e. Barbarossa North, South, etc. However some scenarios are absurdly large, like the America ones where your conquering the whole of the US and Canadian Eastern Seaboard in one go. Whereas in on the Eastern Front, there are some battles like Sovestapol and Leningrad were your whole core fits in one city. I personal found the Conquest of America scenarios interesting, but found the huge scale a bit silly. I like the way PG2 approached it, by just focusing on one region (the Savannah, OakRidge).
As some one above mentioned above this "warping" of scale is inevitable, but it would be nice for the units to represent a fairly standard size ( regiment or division) and (battalion and regiment for support).
However the game is very enjoyable nonetheless

[kissofpain]

As a PG veteran I can tell you PC2 improves on PC same as PG2 improved on PG. It also feels more like PG2 than anything else.

In terms of game mechanics, the only thing I don't like very much is mobile anti-tanks ability to provide AT support. While low caliber AT guns are cool to have this ability, as it gives them a purpose, when you have a Stug III behind you troops, they are immune to enemy tanks. And this in a MP game is very frustrating.

Other than this everything seems pretty cool.

I love overrun being back (as in PG2)
I love how arty provides defensive support including counter baterry fire.
I like the new overstrenght mechanics.
I like the flanking bonus.
I love the recon bonus.
I like units that switch their type (most iconical the german 88 AA/AT)
I like the campaign positive/negative traits idea.

What else? Will edit if I remember other cool things.

Only thing that hope is going to be improved ASAP is MP.

Cheers.

[XyX_Nemesis_XyX]

As a PG veteran I can tell you PC2 improves on PC same as PG2 improved on PG. It also feels more like PG2 than anything else.

In terms of game mechanics, the only thing I don't like very much is mobile anti-tanks ability to provide AT support. While low caliber AT guns are cool to have this ability, as it gives them a purpose, when you have a Stug III behind you troops, they are immune to enemy tanks. And this in a MP game is very frustrating.

Other than this everything seems pretty cool.

I love overrun being back (as in PG2)
I love how arty provides defensive support including counter baterry fire.
I like the new overstrenght mechanics.
I like the flanking bonus.
I love the recon bonus.
I like units that switch their type (most iconical the german 88 AA/AT)
I like the campaign positive/negative traits idea.

What else? Will edit if I remember other cool things.

Only thing that hope is going to be improved ASAP is MP.

Cheers.

That sums it up pretty well. In addition to this encirclement and the support system also work great. High ground finally gives a useful bonus.
Personally I like heros a lot. They bring variety to your troops an how to use them.

I think the delevopers did an amazing job and I'm happy with the vanilla campaign. I'm really looking forward to further content though (Great Campaign PLEASE).

[Plaid]

I like varying core slot cost and improvements to underused units classes (AT / AA / recon mostly). Now its much more viable to play with "realistic" core instead of selecting all best tech units.
I like better infantry specializations, in PzC 1 standard wehr inf was arguably inferior to mountain/paratrooper units in every aspect, in PzC 2 its actually the best multi-purpose unit, while each specialist infantry unit have have its own narrow role.
Like unit camo skin selection (through would be great If player and enemy units had winter skins on winter maps automatically, etc).

What I don't like is hero system. I didnt like "overpowered" heroes like Oleh Dir or Rudel in grand campaign, but in PzC 2 heroes are far more unbalanced. Like 20 strength heavy tank, which costs 0 slots and shoots against close defence, nice - point and click to overrun 5 units per turn.
With several hero combinations game feels as broken as If using cheats.
It also starts to feel like RPG (in a bad way), where you have handful of great hero units doing important stuff, while rest of your army are mere sidekicks messing around.

[MickMannock]

What I don't like is hero system. I didnt like "overpowered" heroes like Oleh Dir or Rudel in grand campaign, but in PzC 2 heroes are far more unbalanced. Like 20 strength heavy tank, which costs 0 slots and shoots against close defence, nice - point and click to overrun 5 units per turn.
With several hero combinations game feels as broken as If using cheats.
It also starts to feel like RPG (in a bad way), where you have handful of great hero units doing important stuff, while rest of your army are mere sidekicks messing around.

Agreed. But perhaps one problem is that we get a new hero after every scenario? Feels a bit mechanical too. I'd rather see them getting handed to you more seldom, and in a performance based manner.

[calmhatchery]

What I don't like is hero system. I didnt like "overpowered" heroes like Oleh Dir or Rudel in grand campaign, but in PzC 2 heroes are far more unbalanced. Like 20 strength heavy tank, which costs 0 slots and shoots against close defence, nice - point and click to overrun 5 units per turn.
With several hero combinations game feels as broken as If using cheats.
It also starts to feel like RPG (in a bad way), where you have handful of great hero units doing important stuff, while rest of your army are mere sidekicks messing around.

Agreed. But perhaps one problem is that we get a new hero after every scenario? Feels a bit mechanical too. I'd rather see them getting handed to you more seldom, and in a performance based manner.

I totally agree. Every Heroe for every scenario is too mechanic...I dont feel that I achive something special...but this is too schematic...Too much heroes deforming the level of difficulty too much. Maybe less heroes like in PZ 1.....please think about it..

[colberki]

PC2 does feel like a modern and better PG2 which is wonderful. I hope very much that future DLC will maintain the scale and historical flavour instead of PC where the DLC were too tactical and “uninteresting or unhistorical”. I only liked the PC North African DLC. Will be very happy with a Balkan’s, Crete, Malta extension to the 1939 German campaign.

So far, PC2 meets or exceeds my expectations. Well done to the Developers.

[Moransky]

Heroes are cool. If developers cut them off, the game will be boring copy of PzC1. But in 3D which I don't like.

[Kolaris]

After playing the modern versions, I just can't go back anymore. It's too much more advanced in terms of gameplay

Totally agree. Honestly there were times during the beta where I just wasn't enjoying PzC2 as much as PzC1. I went back trying to figure out why that was (I think it has to do with the graphics, sounds, and combat animations offering a less "satisfying" gameplay loop for me) and I quickly found I couldn't enjoy PzC1. I missed lingering suppression. I missed ranged AA fire. I missed recon support and better phased movement. I missed many new abilities. Other features I'd modded into PzC1 with a hacksaw like AT support, core slots, and auto-disembark were properly implemented.

The irony is a lot of negative reviews seem to imply - or outright state - that PzC2 put graphics ahead of gameplay. As someone who doesn't really care for PzC2's presentation, I don't think that could be further from the truth. Every mechanical and gameplay change has been an improvement imo, and down the line when the campaign and scenario content catches up with PzC1's DLCs, I can easily put PzC1 back on the shelf for good.

[calmhatchery]

Heroes are cool. If developers cut them off, the game will be boring copy of PzC1. But in 3D which I don't like.

I mean dont cut them off!! Only a little less

[adiekmann]

Heroes are cool. If developers cut them off, the game will be boring copy of PzC1. But in 3D which I don't like.

I mean dont cut them off!! Only a little less

I like the heroes a lot! I certainly don't want fewer of them, but more!

To each their own once again. Perhaps some way to customize it like you can with General traits where you can set the frequency of heroes that you are awarded is what will make everyone happy.

[jchastain]

Heroes are cool. If developers cut them off, the game will be boring copy of PzC1. But in 3D which I don't like.

I mean dont cut them off!! Only a little less

I like the heroes a lot! I certainly don't want fewer of them, but more!

To each their own once again. Perhaps some way to customize it like you can with General traits where you can set the frequency of heroes that you are awarded is what will make everyone happy.

Agree. In settings, allow people to choose between fewer heroes, occasional heroes, or more heroes.

As others stated, it would be nice if there were a % chance during each fire sequence that a hero would emerge within that unit instead of just plopping one down at the end of each battle.

I would furthermore adjust the % chance according to the hero frequency setting discussed above and also based on (the current number of heroes / scenarios played) so that one becomes progressively more likely for anyone who has been unlucky and hasn't yet received the expected number and progressively less likely for someone who has more then they ordinarily should.

[calmhatchery]

I mean dont cut them off!! Only a little less

I like the heroes a lot! I certainly don't want fewer of them, but more!

To each their own once again. Perhaps some way to customize it like you can with General traits where you can set the frequency of heroes that you are awarded is what will make everyone happy.

Agree. In settings, allow people to choose between fewer heroes, occasional heroes, or more heroes.

As others stated, it would be nice if there were a % chance during each fire sequence that a hero would emerge within that unit instead of just plopping one down at the end of each battle.

I would furthermore adjust the % chance according to the hero frequency setting discussed above and also based on (the current number of heroes / scenarios played) so that one becomes progressively more likely for anyone who has been unlucky and hasn't yet received the expected number and progressively less likely for someone who has more then they ordinarily should.

TOTALLY AGREE ! great idea !!!

[eddieballgame]

Panzer Corps Gold is a finished product that is very computer friendly.
The community is still active per multiplayer & support, while the content is huge for single player.
Simply put, PzCG is a classic that has withstood the test of time.

I am liking PzC2, even with the few flaws that everyone has mentioned already.
I, really, like the Editor & Random Map Generator; though incorporating multiplayer per this needs some work.
All said, the 'devs' are paying attention & responding.
The potential for another gem is in place &, I suspect, sales will be the key.