Operation Roland - a bit of a joke?

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

I have arrived at operation roland. From what I read I do not need the 3rd alternate history token, so I decided to just do the main mission. I was able to capture all four victory points in turn 2! And then the mission ended. Lo and behold, I still got the alternate history path. So yeah, the 3rd token isn't needed. But shouldn't there maybe be at least a slight reward? Or at least a reason to actually do this mission? Of course, you can just play it for the fun of it, but you get reunited with the 6th army which you fought very hard to rescue, only for them to basically play no role at all?
I don't know, this mission just seems weird. Winning it in turn 2 is way to fast, the main objective should be somewhat harder I think.

[adiekmann]

I understand what you mean. I just waited to take that final victory hex until the last turn, or until I had taken the rest of the map. My core was powerful enough to take the whole map without using the 6th Army units.

These kind of situations are the result of the designers trying to make the map (this or any other) not too difficult for some players, especially those who began the campaign without an imported core. It is the compromise that has been much discussed already in other threads.

[DefiantXYX]

What happens if you did not save the 6. Army? It there another mission or you play just the same without the 6. Army?

Well, I liked that mission. I cant remember another mission where you get some ally units that are not garbage.
Especially on the historic route its a pain in the ass when your allies just get slaughtered while your own army is going a walk in the park.

[Panzer73]

If you didn't save the 6th Army, you will see a bunch of destroyed equipment and corpses strewn across the battlefield where the 6th Army starts.

The historical objective is meant to be easy, the ahistorical one is more challenging. Either is relatively easy for an imported core, with or without the 6th Army, especially one that started all the way back in SCW.

I played it both ways - with and without the 6th Army - using cores that started back in SCW. A fresh 1943 core would have a much harder time with the ahistorical mission.

[RandomAttack]

Understand wanting to make it "easy" to win the main objective, but it is so *ridiculously* easy it amounts to a throw-away scenario if you don't want/need to pursue the bonus objectives. That's just lazy design IMO.

[Bee1976]

Understand wanting to make it "easy" to win the main objective, but it is so *ridiculously* easy it amounts to a throw-away scenario if you don't want/need to pursue the bonus objectives. That's just lazy design IMO.

Yes more challenge on the historical route would be fine, but no one forces you to win the mission on turn 2! You can play the whole map, clear all bonus objectives and pick the historic path afterwards.
So this is the opportunity to farm some medals, train some unexperienced units, farm some equipment/prestige completly without any pressure.
I always try to clear out the enemy and conquer the map in every mission, so for me nothing changed. But you are right, i was a little confused aswell awhen i first played the historic route, captured the last victory hex and the mission was over. i reloaed the last turn and ....cleared the map

[RandomAttack]

Understand wanting to make it "easy" to win the main objective, but it is so *ridiculously* easy it amounts to a throw-away scenario if you don't want/need to pursue the bonus objectives. That's just lazy design IMO.

Yes more challenge on the historical route would be fine, but no one forces you to win the mission on turn 2!

Kind of missing the point. I could "delay winning" ANY scenario, but there is no way ANY scenario design should ALLOW a win on turn two. Just give me a dialog box to choose to move on. Wasted a lot of time and energy setting up, etc., only to find a complete cakewalk.

[DefiantXYX]

I personally dont see a problem here. Setting up your army is part of the game, it's done in 5-10 mins. If you prefer to speedrun this map it is up to you.
What I would like to see it a popup warning if you conquer the last objective. I also like to clear the whole map, especially the fortifications where reinforcements are coming from It often happens that I go into a city and the map is over, because I did not pay attention on the objetices. So I have to reload and play them whole turn again, in the worst case.

So, a little warning like "do you really want to end the scenario" would be nice. On the other side people might complain why they always have to click on that pop up

[VirgilInTheSKY]

I personally dont see a problem here. Setting up your army is part of the game, it's done in 5-10 mins. If you prefer to speedrun this map it is up to you.
What I would like to see it a popup warning if you conquer the last objective. I also like to clear the whole map, especially the fortifications where reinforcements are coming from It often happens that I go into a city and the map is over, because I did not pay attention on the objetices. So I have to reload and play them whole turn again, in the worst case.

So, a little warning like "do you really want to end the scenario" would be nice. On the other side people might complain why they always have to click on that pop up

Scenario with no objective "hold XXX" always ends when you capture all "capture" or destroy all "destroy" target.

[DefiantXYX]

Yes indeed, but when you have to capture 8 points I sometimes dont check first if I already got 7. Since there a maps that dont end when you cature all objectives I am sometimes a bit confused.
Tbh that would never happen in SCW, when you have to think about each step you take. With your imported core in 1943 it is just running from left to right as fast as possible...

[Bee1976]

Kind of missing the point.

Well, yes and no. The point is, its your choice. I agree that it is really fast over, if you choose to play the histroic part. But well its one mission, its a splitup mission. I dont need to be forced to play a lot of turns in every mission, i WANT to play as much turns as possible in each mission, so for me this makes no diffrence - i just avoid getting the last victory field and do the "normal" stuff.

to make long things short:
if you want to play this mission longer, then go for it

[RandomAttack]

Again, missing the point. I am not aware of ANY other scenario in Panzer Corps history (1 OR 2) that you can win in 2 turns. Anyone know of one? The dev could at least PRETEND to present a SLIGHT challenge by making the main objective a non-trivial exercise. There are already several scenarios that can easily be won in ~6 turns (basically ALL the halftrack "escort" scenarios.) To everybody that says "well, don't take the last VH", or "play the way you want"-- well, duh. The way I WANT to play, the way PC has ALWAYS played, is reasonably challenging Main Objectives with more challenging Secondary Objectives. Just because I don't want to have to "sweep the board" doesn't mean I shouldn't have a reasonable challenge. I am a thoroughly average player, and there is no justification for a "2-turn victory". This is not normal for PC1 or 2 and it's LAZY design. My guess is they just felt the time pressure to get the DLC out. Or else the designer feels that people that mostly just go for main objectives are morons anyway, so who cares about them.

[VirgilInTheSKY]

Again, missing the point. I am not aware of ANY other scenario in Panzer Corps history (1 OR 2) that you can win in 2 turns. Anyone know of one? The dev could at least PRETEND to present a SLIGHT challenge by making the main objective a non-trivial exercise. There are already several scenarios that can easily be won in ~6 turns (basically ALL the halftrack "escort" scenarios.) To everybody that says "well, don't take the last VH", or "play the way you want"-- well, duh. The way I WANT to play, the way PC has ALWAYS played, is reasonably challenging Main Objectives with more challenging Secondary Objectives. Just because I don't want to have to "sweep the board" doesn't mean I shouldn't have a reasonable challenge. I am a thoroughly average player, and there is no justification for a "2-turn victory". This is not normal for PC1 or 2 and it's LAZY design. My guess is they just felt the time pressure to get the DLC out. Or else the designer feels that people that mostly just go for main objectives are morons anyway, so who cares about them.

Calling it lazy sounds more like a disrespect for the situation here. Your forces are exhausted, with a very small supply to keep fighting, and Germans WAS forced to abandon the attack at this point, that's why you get the main objective so easy to complete, just make it there and your battle at Kursk comes to the end. You are not meant to be able to put a fight here if the replenished 6th Army didn't come. In briefing you are already told to either try to reach north if you think you still have the strength, or go for the objective directly.

[DacianWarrio]

I think what the OP encountered is the intractable problem that imported cores will be much more likely to be very powerful compared to any starting core for a given campaign. Exactly how more powerful, it is unknown and thus ultimately impossible to account for.

The only thing that would solve it would be dynamic enemy deployments where the enemy forces present in a scenario scale to the "power" (however that may be measured) of the player core. Which comes with its own implementation and design philosophy issues.

Ultimately, I feel that the problem is this : The "goldilocks zone" where the player core can reasonably degrade while still progressing through the game (winning scenarios) is very thin.

Here I place the fault squarely at the feet of the developers : unlike the spiritual predecessor, Panzer General, where one could barely succeed or even lose a battle but still fight the war, Panzer Corps 2 has the very binary "lose one battle, lose the war". Thus, it's never possible for the player to lose while still experiencing the game, therefore the player's core can never be degraded by fighting - they are met with a "game over" long before that.

The only way out that I see from this conundrum is a more refined Limited Stock setup where the player on the one hand won't generally be able to upgrade everything to the latest but also where the losses across scenarios might even force the player to downgrade/side-grade to older equipment, odd prototypes or captured equipment.

The general issue with Limited Stock that I have is that if a player has 10 x Type A Vehicles and 20 x Type B Vehicles, it's not possible to backfill a Type A Vehicle unit with the more plentiful Type B Vehicles as losses are incurred. Making it more easy to swap out unit types in the field so that depleted inventories are more conveniently replaced with other more plentiful inventories without "drive back to supply hex/change vehicle type/drive back forward" would go a long way in making Limited Stock a viable choice.

[Bee1976]

Again, missing the point. The way I WANT to play, the way PC has ALWAYS played, is reasonably challenging Main Objectives with more challenging Secondary Objectives. Just because I don't want to have to "sweep the board" doesn't mean I shouldn't have a reasonable challenge. I am a thoroughly average player, and there is no justification for a "2-turn victory". This is not normal for PC1 or 2 and it's LAZY design. My guess is they just felt the time pressure to get the DLC out. Or else the designer feels that people that mostly just go for main objectives are morons anyway, so who cares about them.

The point is quite easy. You want to be forced to play longer than the historical path requires (afaik historical correct btw). The map offers everything you expect from a mission, with one diffrence: you can finish it fast, but you dont have to.

You can label that "lazy-design" but how do you label the ahistoric winning conditions for someone who needs that token ?
Because if you need the token and play the ahistoric goals you wont win in 2 turns, you will experience everything you want from a mission like you described. so in that case its not lazy design `? And the only diffrence is, this time you have to play longer.

is it lazy design that players can stomp most missions with well played paratroopers and mass encirclements reducing the enemy to helpless target dummies or is it a player choice ?

[RandomAttack]

[/quote]
The point is quite easy. You want to be forced to play longer than the historical path requires (afaik historical correct btw).
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with the historical path, being "forced" to play longer, etc. Gee, why doesn't EVERY scenario have 2-turn main victory conditions if that is the case. Just put a "Insta-Win" button at the beginning. Or we could use the cheat code to just move on. The point is that this is UNPRECEDENTED. Still haven't named any other PC (1 or 2) scenario like this-- I don't believe there ARE any. In a DLC with a limited number of scenarios they can do better than this. Agree to disagree I guess.