Axis Operation 1944 Review

A new story begins...
The sequel to a real classic: Panzer Corps is back!

Moderator: Panzer Corps 2 Moderators

adiekmann
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1331
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:47 am

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by adiekmann »

Grondel wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:31 am
The Wehrmacht was not made of a bunch of superheroes. They were in general better trained and diciplined, yes, but the main difference is the subcommanders who enabled outstanding generals and commanders to do unbelievable things or accomplish manoeuvers that are unthinkable to most armies of that time.

sers,
Thomas
The US Army did a big study into the German Army after WW2. (With some searching you can probably find it somewhere online but I am not willing to make the effort.) They basically were looking into what made them such an effective fighting force even when the odds were strongly against them so that they could implement what they learned into improving the training of future American soldiers. One of the conclusions that I remember (this is something like 25 years ago when I read this) was that the individual German soldier possessed more personal initiative than the average soldier of even the other Western Allies, or more specifically the GI. I am talking privates/corporals/sergeants, not officers. In their opinion, their training methods stressing camaraderie and teamwork rather than a very top-down officer to grunt, or noble to peasant-like relationship was one of the keys to developing more effective average soldiers. Many other armies' soldiers where almost helpless to act when/if communication with their superiors were cut off. This especially paid off in the dark late years of the war when things were often chaotic and desperate for the Heer and there arose a need for independent action at a squad to platoon level. Hazing type of events, or officer abuse of those under them, occurred far less often than say in the British Army because those types of activities were detrimental to the goal of forming cohesive units. In Oberst Hans von Luck's book, Panzer Commander, I remember him telling a prewar story of a one soldier in his barracks who habitually came late from partying in the nearby town. The whole unit suffered because of it. So in the middle of the night they basically beat the shit out of him and that was the last time that he returned late. This "we work as a team, we succeed as a team, and we fail as a team" mentality was deliberately stressed in training. It's origins, the US Army study found, were in the Hitler's Youth program (which was the model that they United States founded the Boy Scouts on) so it began even before boys were old enough to serve in the Wehrmacht.

I have never served in the military of any country so I do not profess to have any first-hand knowledge, but the United States likes to claim they have the best trained troops in the world. I know they did implement some things that they learned in the study in the training of their own armed forces. Perhaps, Grondel, you can shed some light onto this topic? I have inferred previously from some of your posts that you served in the Bundeswehr. Does any of this resonate with your experiences? I am guessing that you may have participated in NATO training exercises with American and/or other NATO nations' troops?
VirgilInTheSKY
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:26 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by VirgilInTheSKY »

adiekmann wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 3:07 am
Grondel wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:31 am
The Wehrmacht was not made of a bunch of superheroes. They were in general better trained and diciplined, yes, but the main difference is the subcommanders who enabled outstanding generals and commanders to do unbelievable things or accomplish manoeuvers that are unthinkable to most armies of that time.

sers,
Thomas
The US Army did a big study into the German Army after WW2. (With some searching you can probably find it somewhere online but I am not willing to make the effort.) They basically were looking into what made them such an effective fighting force even when the odds were strongly against them so that they could implement what they learned into improving the training of future American soldiers. One of the conclusions that I remember (this is something like 25 years ago when I read this) was that the individual German soldier possessed more personal initiative than the average soldier of even the other Western Allies, or more specifically the GI. I am talking privates/corporals/sergeants, not officers. In their opinion, their training methods stressing camaraderie and teamwork rather than a very top-down officer to grunt, or noble to peasant-like relationship was one of the keys to developing more effective average soldiers. Many other armies' soldiers where almost helpless to act when/if communication with their superiors were cut off. This especially paid off in the dark late years of the war when things were often chaotic and desperate for the Heer and there arose a need for independent action at a squad to platoon level. Hazing type of events, or officer abuse of those under them, occurred far less often than say in the British Army because those types of activities were detrimental to the goal of forming cohesive units. In Oberst Hans von Luck's book, Panzer Commander, I remember him telling a prewar story of a one soldier in his barracks who habitually came late from partying in the nearby town. The whole unit suffered because of it. So in the middle of the night they basically beat the shit out of him and that was the last time that he returned late. This "we work as a team, we succeed as a team, and we fail as a team" mentality was deliberately stressed in training. It's origins, the US Army study found, were in the Hitler's Youth program (which was the model that they United States founded the Boy Scouts on) so it began even before boys were old enough to serve in the Wehrmacht.

I have never served in the military of any country so I do not profess to have any first-hand knowledge, but the United States likes to claim they have the best trained troops in the world. I know they did implement some things that they learned in the study in the training of their own armed forces. Perhaps, Grondel, you can shed some light onto this topic? I have inferred previously from some of your posts that you served in the Bundeswehr. Does any of this resonate with your experiences? I am guessing that you may have participated in NATO training exercises with American and/or other NATO nations' troops?
Kind of close to what I had learned from a video on Youtube made by Military History Visualized (or Not Visualized side?) about why didn't the Wehrmacht collapse in 1944. They do not, say, fight for the one in command of them, but form groups and teams they feel attached to and fight to not let friends and comrades down. Units are formed based on the region a soldier comes from, which fortifies the bond to each other, thus allows them to put more trust in the whole system. Vertical trust is also high, as the commanders and officers know what his soldiers can do and can't do, soldiers know that he is fighting for a correct goal even if he does not have that much intel to tell the whole picture, everyone just tries to do his best and believes in the others doing the same. German officers also had a high death rate due to often being at the frontline and trying to take initiative whenever they can, which leads to soldiers putting trust into them because at least they are not cowards hiding in a headquarter 100 miles away when giving orders, and willing to sacrifice for such bravery and inspiration. Unqiue uniforms of each branch helps with self recognition, etc etc.
Grondel
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:07 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by Grondel »

adiekmann wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 3:07 am Does any of this resonate with your experiences? I am guessing that you may have participated in NATO training exercises with American and/or other NATO nations' troops?
Yes and no.

While the US forces adopted lots of our training methods they stuck to the British way of leading armies.(I am out of service for some time now, but i doubt this has changed since) The main difference ist still the way orders are given.
The "Auftragstaktik" i mentioned earlier even made it as a word in several other languages.

The British way of leading units comes from the middleage Lord/Peasant relationship. Lord, in our case officer, gives orders and peasants follow without knowledge of the goal that is to be achieved.

An example.
A British unit gets the order to take hill 234. Artillerie strikes turning hill 234 into hollow 234. They will still rush it and try to take it or call their officer asking for new orders.

When you use Auftragstaktik to command your unit you will not only give the order to take hill 234, but also tell the reason why. This sure takes a minute or two more, but when the soldiers carriing out the order know that we want an MG-nest build atop that hill they will, after the artillerie strike, take Hill 235 instead to enable the MG-nest to be build.

In my experience this is the main difference between German and other forces. Afaik only Israel adopted this so far.
When i was at the officer-school we had lots of other countries officers visiting to see how we do things.
If u are interested try googling "Auftragstaktik/Innere Führung". I don't know if there are any english sources explaining this.

If u have more questions feel free to ask.

sers,
Thomas
adiekmann
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1331
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:47 am

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by adiekmann »

Wikipedia has an English translation and explanation that you can read here for those who are interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics

Thank you for your answer, Grondel.

Military knowledge comes, I think, in different forms. That from what you read, that from experience serving in an armed forces, and that from seeing combat firsthand. From talking to various veterans you get totally different perspectives from the last two, never mind just from reading about it. I remember a veteran saying once that what even the most realistic movie cannot duplicate is the smell of the battlefield. The decaying bodies and blood; the burned out vehicles and burning structures, and so on. I had uncles who served in WW2 and one grandfather in WW1. My grandfather passed before I was born, and my uncles never wanted to talk about it. Well, once he did the last time I saw him before he passed away. I learned that he was in the Königsberg pocket when he became a POW in Siberia. Did not return to Germany until 1950. I don't think anybody can fully understand the horror of war without experiencing it themselves firsthand, and for that I do not envy those who have.
Grondel
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:07 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by Grondel »

adiekmann wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 1:31 am I remember a veteran saying once that what even the most realistic movie cannot duplicate is the smell of the battlefield. The decaying bodies and blood; the burned out vehicles and burning structures, and so on.
that is very true. thank god TV's cannot reproduce smell....
Patrick Ward
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 2:49 pm
Location: A small island in the Outer Hebrides.

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by Patrick Ward »

terminator wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:56 pm The look of the partisans does not really suit me especially in winter :

Changing the camouflage, it goes a little better :
Just in case you missed it.

https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewto ... 97#p986997

Pat
............................

Pat a Pixel Pusher

............................
nexusno2000
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by nexusno2000 »

Slowly working my way through the ahistorical path. The "weirdness" continues. Too few battles and too many weird objectives and setups. Doesn't feel like a war game at all.

Add to this the mega-strength enemy units with hero combos, more super-heroes for me, my equipment is generally just better that the enemy's, heavy OS, lots of heroes... at this point, there is no challenge, nothing.
Green Knight
https://www.youtube.com/c/GreenKnight2001
UncleAi
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2021 12:54 am

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by UncleAi »

nexusno2000 wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 8:36 am Slowly working my way through the ahistorical path. The "weirdness" continues. Too few battles and too many weird objectives and setups. Doesn't feel like a war game at all.

Add to this the mega-strength enemy units with hero combos, more super-heroes for me, my equipment is generally just better that the enemy's, heavy OS, lots of heroes... at this point, there is no challenge, nothing.
Yes. We only have initiative in very few scenarios. I hope in ahistorical 1945 we can back to the full offensive.
VirgilInTheSKY
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:26 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by VirgilInTheSKY »

UncleAi wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 11:55 pm
nexusno2000 wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 8:36 am Slowly working my way through the ahistorical path. The "weirdness" continues. Too few battles and too many weird objectives and setups. Doesn't feel like a war game at all.

Add to this the mega-strength enemy units with hero combos, more super-heroes for me, my equipment is generally just better that the enemy's, heavy OS, lots of heroes... at this point, there is no challenge, nothing.
Yes. We only have initiative in very few scenarios. I hope in ahistorical 1945 we can back to the full offensive.
I'm sure we will. The end of historical 44 mentioned that we will launch our own offensive in this winter.
WalterTFD
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:27 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by WalterTFD »

I've made it through the historical path with my Limited Force Concentration (1 hero per unit) playthrough. Genuinely very challenging and good missions, for the most part! I quite enjoyed it. Next up I'll be trying to change history with my more conventional hero playthrough.
SilverLine
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:15 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by SilverLine »

Just finished historical path. Minsk offensive would have been my favorite, if I had been able to use my core.

Seriously, I started 1944 looking to fight overwhelming Soviet attacks, and it mostly didn’t happen. Meanwhile, Minsk scenario scenario was so well designed. Axis positions were vulnerable, Red Army streaming from everyone threatening to encircle, and we were not allowed to fight THAT? Such a huge missed opportunity. It could have been optional for the player to command the 5th Panzer or bring their core and take on the challenge.
FunPolice749
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:52 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by FunPolice749 »

SilverLine wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:39 pm Just finished historical path. Minsk offensive would have been my favorite, if I had been able to use my core.

Seriously, I started 1944 looking to fight overwhelming Soviet attacks, and it mostly didn’t happen. Meanwhile, Minsk scenario scenario was so well designed. Axis positions were vulnerable, Red Army streaming from everyone threatening to encircle, and we were not allowed to fight THAT? Such a huge missed opportunity. It could have been optional for the player to command the 5th Panzer or bring their core and take on the challenge.
IMO that is kinda the point. Being on the historical path you have one road to head down and it's leading to Berlin. You are weaker, smaller, and less capable than the Allies now and there are events that are happening that are just completely out of your control. There is no chance to change history by saving Minsk or anything. The best you can do is save some meager remnants from a pocket in the next scenario. Not everyone is gonna like that but I like that the historical path is showing how things are falling apart everywhere and the best the player can do is watch or have minor victories on various battles. I think it's much more interesting than like the base campaign where you can completely destroy the Soviet forces in Bagration yet somehow are still losing at every point because it was historical.
VirgilInTheSKY
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:26 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by VirgilInTheSKY »

SilverLine wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:39 pm Just finished historical path. Minsk offensive would have been my favorite, if I had been able to use my core.

Seriously, I started 1944 looking to fight overwhelming Soviet attacks, and it mostly didn’t happen. Meanwhile, Minsk scenario scenario was so well designed. Axis positions were vulnerable, Red Army streaming from everyone threatening to encircle, and we were not allowed to fight THAT? Such a huge missed opportunity. It could have been optional for the player to command the 5th Panzer or bring their core and take on the challenge.
The problem is, that allowing player to deploy his core in critical large battles will certainly lead to OP cores steamrolling across everything and still lose the war becuase it is the historical path, or inferior cores get completely destroyed and not able to continue anymore. Focusing on minor but successful battles while describing the situation in briefing to create the atomsphere is a better idea for me.
As Kerensky has said, steamrolling over everything will not be allowed anymore, and if you want to win large critical battles in late war, that's what's in the ahistorical path now.
o_t_d_x
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:39 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by o_t_d_x »

My major problem with panzer g. games: You just control the tactical aspect on a little part of the front, thats not enough for me. And many other games give you control over anything, but no tactical combat. Thats boring too.

That way you cannot change anything. Long wars are won by the better economy (at least if you can protect your ind.) - short wars by the armys. (a major reason for the german lightning warfare concept) Look at the enormous losses the allies had, but it didnt matter, their industry replaced anything fast. (and they had enough foolish underclass idiots that sacrificed their lives for their oil and weapons lobbys - because these two always win the wars and the underclass guys are ALWAYS the loosers of the wars, no matter which side or nation...look at the ukrain, poor ukrains die for american economy agenda IF this is true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbAfH65jGI4) Honestly: i like miss wagenknecht, she is known for beeing reasonable and honest, even political adversarys appreciate her. But can this be true ? If its true, then the ukrain suffers for nothing. And we europeans pay a lot for energy to make america great again. Yeah big thanks to uncle sam IF thats true. :evil: )

I love civ v, because it combines the economy, the strategical AND the tactical aspect in an easy to learn and hard to master enviroment. If i dont have enough oil, i have to deceide: Do i give up my navy, to have air support ? Or do i give up BOTH to have more tanks ?

The frustrating aspect of 44, youre talking about is, that you have to suffer of bad decisions, that others made. If i fail to defend my oil production, then its clear that i have not enough tank divisions to fight on all parts of the very long front effectivly.

But if a text window says, that i am loosing despite winning all the time, well that ähm sucks. 8)

The only solution: Civ VII needs an entrenchment system, a supply system and a much better ai. Or pc 3 needs control over economy, spying, technology, foreign affairs (diplomacy) etc. and of course a much better AI.

By the way: What do you think will we have sooner ? Nuclear fission, in real life, or good gaming ai for complex tactical games ? :lol:
Last edited by o_t_d_x on Wed Dec 14, 2022 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
VirgilInTheSKY
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:26 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by VirgilInTheSKY »

o_t_d_x wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:30 pm My major problem with panzer g. games: You just control the tactical aspect on a little part of the front, thats not enough for me. And many other games give you control over anything, but no tactical combat. Thats boring too.

That way you cannot change anything. Long wars are won by the better economy (at least if you can protect your ind.) - short wars by the armys. (a major reason for the german lightning warfare concept) Look at the enormous losses the allies had, but it didnt matter, their industry replaced anything fast. (and they had enough foolish underclass idiots that sacrificed their lives for their oil and weapons lobbys - because these two always win the wars and the underclass guys are ALWAYS the loosers of the wars, no matter which side or nation...look at the ukrain, poor ukrains die for american economy agenda IF this is true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbAfH65jGI4) Honestly: i like miss wagenknecht, she is known for beeing reasonable and honest, even political adversarys appreciate her. But can this be true ? If its true, then the ukrain suffers for nothing. And we europeans pay a lot for energy to make america great again. Yeah big thanks to uncle sam IF thats true. :evil: )

I love civ v, because it combines the economy, the strategical AND the tactical aspect. If i dont have enough oil, i have to deceide: Do i give up my navy, to have air support ? Or do i give up BOTH to have more tanks ?

The frustrating aspect of 44, youre talking about is, that you have to suffer of bad decisions, that others made. If i fail to defend my oil production, then its clear that i have not enough tank divisions to fight on all parts of the very long front effectivly.

But if a text window says, that i am loosing despite winning all the time, well that ähm sucks. 8)

The only solution: Civ VII needs an entrenchment system, a supply system and a much better ai. Or pc 3 needs control over economy, spying, technology, foreign affairs (diplomacy) etc. and of course a much better AI.

By the way: What do you think will we have sooner ? Nuclear fission or good gaming ai for complex tactical games ? :lol:
Panzer Corps and its brothers have always been tactical games without touching the strategical layer of wars, which is the perspect I actually love because I don't want to manage logistic, economy, doctorines etc on my own like in Civ or HoI, those things just bother me too much. And that's why I love their take on historical path here more than that of base campaign. The ultimate question of "winning all the battles and lose the war" when playing war games as Axis Powers. Now they actually let you lose it, get tricked or just not in place to help the situation at all, while still allowing you to proceed and see how the war was lost. No, please, just keep the game in its own genre and let the others cover those aspects.
o_t_d_x
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:39 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by o_t_d_x »

VirgilInTheSKY wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:44 pm
o_t_d_x wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:30 pm My major problem with panzer g. games: You just control the tactical aspect on a little part of the front, thats not enough for me. And many other games give you control over anything, but no tactical combat. Thats boring too.

That way you cannot change anything. Long wars are won by the better economy (at least if you can protect your ind.) - short wars by the armys. (a major reason for the german lightning warfare concept) Look at the enormous losses the allies had, but it didnt matter, their industry replaced anything fast. (and they had enough foolish underclass idiots that sacrificed their lives for their oil and weapons lobbys - because these two always win the wars and the underclass guys are ALWAYS the loosers of the wars, no matter which side or nation...look at the ukrain, poor ukrains die for american economy agenda IF this is true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbAfH65jGI4) Honestly: i like miss wagenknecht, she is known for beeing reasonable and honest, even political adversarys appreciate her. But can this be true ? If its true, then the ukrain suffers for nothing. And we europeans pay a lot for energy to make america great again. Yeah big thanks to uncle sam IF thats true. :evil: )

I love civ v, because it combines the economy, the strategical AND the tactical aspect. If i dont have enough oil, i have to deceide: Do i give up my navy, to have air support ? Or do i give up BOTH to have more tanks ?

The frustrating aspect of 44, youre talking about is, that you have to suffer of bad decisions, that others made. If i fail to defend my oil production, then its clear that i have not enough tank divisions to fight on all parts of the very long front effectivly.

But if a text window says, that i am loosing despite winning all the time, well that ähm sucks. 8)

The only solution: Civ VII needs an entrenchment system, a supply system and a much better ai. Or pc 3 needs control over economy, spying, technology, foreign affairs (diplomacy) etc. and of course a much better AI.

By the way: What do you think will we have sooner ? Nuclear fission or good gaming ai for complex tactical games ? :lol:
Panzer Corps and its brothers have always been tactical games without touching the strategical layer of wars, which is the perspect I actually love because I don't want to manage logistic, economy, doctorines etc on my own like in Civ or HoI, those things just bother me too much. And that's why I love their take on historical path here more than that of base campaign. The ultimate question of "winning all the battles and lose the war" when playing war games as Axis Powers. Now they actually let you lose it, get tricked or just not in place to help the situation at all, while still allowing you to proceed and see how the war was lost. No, please, just keep the game in its own genre and let the others cover those aspects.
I can understand your point of view. But the economy is the heart and the oil is the life blood of every (big) war. For me these aspects are absolutly necessary, to have a challenging and pleasing war game experience.

Regarding pc 2 i sadly have to admit: i already dont play it any longer, lost interest much faster then with part one. The dlcs are not what i like because of low difficulty, many filler missions (air war only and such stuff...), units always beeing on the same spot with every new playthrough (even my old pc mod makes it better). And the grand camp. mod is good, but i just dont want to play the old gc again. I modded these maps with pc one for my mod endsieg, i just cant see em anymore. I know them better then my garden. (but thats just my unique perspecitve - if you look at an objective way on the mod i just can say: good work modding team)

I understand, that the company makes more money with easy and conventional design, but for me its just not worth the buy. Sorry.
Wagner0445
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:35 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by Wagner0445 »

o_t_d_x wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:30 pm That way you cannot change anything. Long wars are won by the better economy (at least if you can protect your ind.) - short wars by the armys. (a major reason for the german lightning warfare concept) Look at the enormous losses the allies had, but it didnt matter, their industry replaced anything fast. (and they had enough foolish underclass idiots that sacrificed their lives for their oil and weapons lobbys - because these two always win the wars and the underclass guys are ALWAYS the loosers of the wars, no matter which side or nation...look at the ukrain, poor ukrains die for american economy agenda IF this is true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbAfH65jGI4) Honestly: i like miss wagenknecht, she is known for beeing reasonable and honest, even political adversarys appreciate her. But can this be true ? If its true, then the ukrain suffers for nothing. And we europeans pay a lot for energy to make america great again. Yeah big thanks to uncle sam IF thats true. :evil: )
Honestly, your historical and political analysis is wrong and reaks of populism and ignorance. That you like Nazi Wagenknecht proofs that.

And game wise then don't buy play tactical games. PC is a tactical strategy game and the main draw of the game is that I don't have to manage a whole nation but take on the job of a General/Fieldmarschall.
If you don't like that play strategic Command, HOI4/3, ect.
wecker
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:54 am

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by wecker »

Wowi - I just finished the historical path after taking first the ahistorical path.

I must say I am impressed and dissapointed with the DLC AO 1944 :oops:

So let`s take a look - and remember this is my subjective personal view:

Good:

- Rommels fate in the ahistorical path. It really made a lot of fun, although we know that even in an alternative reality this would have been nearly an impossible feat :D
- New war theaters like Persia
- The introduction of Elite objectives - I had to start almost every scenario new until I made a reconaissence where the enemy was

Not good:

- As I was afraid we get 20 Scenarios - 10 of them Historical - 10 of them ahistorical. This is not nice. It gives you the feeling that every path is much too short. As many people including me suggested before the release it would have been better to make 2 DLCs. As one colleague here mentioned - it feeled too rushed. There was no coherent story and mood
- 10 scenarios leave not much room for your core forces. There was again one air-only scenario - the Normandy. And there was the scenario with Minsk where you received NOT A SINGLE own core unit to fight with... :cry:
The Herrlingen scenario with Rommel was completely without a fight. These were two complete wasted scenarios :roll:
I mean the point of a campaign is I want to fight with my core as a whole...


Conclusion:

All in all I had problems to motivate me to fight both ways to the end. I did it out of curiosity - and now I feel not satisfied if you understand me. I know you tried to make the historical part realistic - and somehow it was better then the ahistorical one. The ahistorical felt like a mess. Here I got again the feeling it does not matter what I do - the Axis will loose anyway. Although I won every scenario and achieved all Elite objectives.

I mean I am no N**i, but playing an ahistorical DLC on the Axis side is only good if you conquer England, defeat the Soviet Union and invade the USA. This would have left ample opportunities like doing your own Sealion after sinking the Allied fleet in the English channel, you could have conquered Persia and met the Japanese in India and so on. These would be ahistorically satisfying DLCs. Now I am feeling like loosing again...

Nevertheless I am curious about the AO1945 and I hope this will be the last one of this series and of this team with Kerensky.

I hope that the Pacific Campaign will be better and more interesting - they say another team will do this.

And please: open the game to the modding community. I understand that you will introduce better sounds and music. But maybe you can add animations or movies at the end. Like in PG3 a victory parade. I see nice mods on YouTube with greater maps, more units and a lot of new vehicle models and here we get only two or three new models per DLC from your side.

So this is only my view - but maybe I am not alone.
Cheers
Retributarr
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1267
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:44 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by Retributarr »

Grognard's From French grognard (“grumbler”).
Image
Napoleon's Old Guard Grenadiers... were known as "the Grumblers" (French: les Grognards) because they openly complained about the petty troubles of military life... even voicing their personal concerns directly to the Emperor himself.

"Grumbling!"... is a necessary endeavor in order to help direct or to make aware to those who have the ability or the "where-with-all" to effect the desired changes... in order to make the "what-ever-situation" more acceptable.

Perhaps!... in the "Future"... those who are designing these 'Games' could or should venture forth to make a request from the "Forum Audience"... to find out... what they would like to see included in a "DLC". Why-Not?... what harm can that do?.
Wagner0445
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:35 pm

Re: Axis Operation 1944 Review

Post by Wagner0445 »

wecker wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 10:26 pm Wowi - I just finished the historical path after taking first the ahistorical path.

I must say I am impressed and dissapointed with the DLC AO 1944 :oops:

So let`s take a look - and remember this is my subjective personal view:

Good:

- Rommels fate in the ahistorical path. It really made a lot of fun, although we know that even in an alternative reality this would have been nearly an impossible feat :D
- New war theaters like Persia
- The introduction of Elite objectives - I had to start almost every scenario new until I made a reconaissence where the enemy was

Not good:

- As I was afraid we get 20 Scenarios - 10 of them Historical - 10 of them ahistorical. This is not nice. It gives you the feeling that every path is much too short. As many people including me suggested before the release it would have been better to make 2 DLCs. As one colleague here mentioned - it feeled too rushed. There was no coherent story and mood
- 10 scenarios leave not much room for your core forces. There was again one air-only scenario - the Normandy. And there was the scenario with Minsk where you received NOT A SINGLE own core unit to fight with... :cry:
The Herrlingen scenario with Rommel was completely without a fight. These were two complete wasted scenarios :roll:
I mean the point of a campaign is I want to fight with my core as a whole...


Conclusion:

All in all I had problems to motivate me to fight both ways to the end. I did it out of curiosity - and now I feel not satisfied if you understand me. I know you tried to make the historical part realistic - and somehow it was better then the ahistorical one. The ahistorical felt like a mess. Here I got again the feeling it does not matter what I do - the Axis will loose anyway. Although I won every scenario and achieved all Elite objectives.

I mean I am no N**i, but playing an ahistorical DLC on the Axis side is only good if you conquer England, defeat the Soviet Union and invade the USA. This would have left ample opportunities like doing your own Sealion after sinking the Allied fleet in the English channel, you could have conquered Persia and met the Japanese in India and so on. These would be ahistorically satisfying DLCs. Now I am feeling like loosing again
10 Scenarios is quite much honestly. There weren't many real battles the germans fought 1944 which didn't end in a total disaster. There is a reason why everybody says that Kursk Broke the Neck of the Wehrmacht.

I don't know. Taking England, the US, and the Soviet Union is already in the standard campaign and it was already made in PC1. I think it's boring to fight again and again the same scenario in every game. From 1943 it was clear that Germany would have to trade land for success. 1944 was the year in which you solidified the advantage you gained in 1943. As Rommel foreshadows the soviet army can be encircled now meaning the ahistoric 1945 path will most likely end with the soviets losing the war. Without the Manpower of Ukraine, the Soviets are running low on men and the lost Armies at Bucharest sealed that fate. I must say this route is for now the most realistic and best approach to a war-winning Germany.
Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps 2”