Why do you still stick with the OG Panzer Corps?

[Locarnus]

[...]
I would argue that PzC 2 adds too many bells and whistles, and it's hard for me to find the energy to launch it. IME splitting units is basically a power gaming option to force 100% prestige surrenders, which has always been broken, even at the highest difficulties. Further, there are ways to tune PzC 1 to effectively have unit slots. I think deducter's mod in terms of pricing and availability and upgrade penalties does it wonderfully (even though it is almost ten years old!).

Agreed.
PzC 2 has very interesting mechanics, though after some time it feels more like "playing the mechanics" than "playing the scenario/game".
For example the special heros have such an important role, that I caught myself searching for the right units to fit my heroes, rather than the other way around. And then giving those units a camo pattern to show me which heros I put on that unit.
And then trying to distinguish those units among the 3D ground and air unit clutter.

Overall some stuff feels a bit like "putting the cart before the horse". Which might be an unintenional sideeffect of having so much more cart variety available...

[fgiannet]

It seems that most game developers focus on making sequels easier and more visually appealing. I suppose the goal is to keep expanding the market. Certainly some amount of this is necessary because new equipment is one of the first things people ask about whenever a new mod is announced (even on this forum). The majority of players seem to enjoy variety of units (regardless of how historically relevant they were) above all else. I am beginning to see the logic in adding even more options (watch how excited a YouTube player gets over a new hero, or farming them, and it does not take long before you begin to design the sequel around them). There may be a psychological/compulsive element to it.

Maybe that is why the market for strategy games has grown so much since the days of “tiny blocks with X’s and O’s in them” (my friends used to laugh at me for playing WWIII on my Commodore). Easier game/more options/better graphics = more casual players = expanded customer base.

[ghostfearReal]

I like RPG and this game is more RPG than action or war or simulation. In terms of entertainment, it is like an epic adventure which makes me wants to go back again and again.
The characters in this RPG are the infantries, tanks, fighters, and etc. Each with strength and weakness which allows countless combination to max their potential. Why do I care for these? It is because they use WWII as background. I am already familiar with these characters as they were my interest before ever playing this game. But, this is just the setup for a good RPG. The key of engagement and attachment of a great RPG is the growth of the characters and emotional attachments.
With each fight, your units starts to gain experiences. These units (characters) become unique and give the player the added satisfaction of accomplishment. With upgrades and heroes, the leveled up units can face tougher opponents, classic RPG in play. Because heroes and upgrades are limited by units, you can clearly identify them thus grow with them. Each units can be renamed and bring with them their entire history. These units/characters start to draw an emotional attachment to you thus you want to see each fight the next battle. Your previous efforts were never wasted. The hours spent on these characters and these adventures (scenarios) seems not enough because you want to be with them to win more and more. It is satisfying. It is like a good tv soap. Do I really want it to end?
PC2 seems not understanding this reason for PC1's success.
PC2 makes the characters hard to form attachment for the simple reason of heroes. Each time you are allowed to switch heroes from unit to unit, all these units becomes generic. It is like Batman has Superman abilities whenever they change costumes. Who would care for them? In PC2, you are pressured and incentivized to do just that with hero swap thus each unit's (character's) straggles are greatly reduced and in term your emotional attachments. With progression, I am less and less attached to each character because they are just generic base for my superheroes. Not a good RPG. (the magical heroes does not help either. You can capture more tanks than the enemy has, for a game that uses WWII as base for engagement.)
The dream would be PC1 remastered. PC1 is one of the Best RPG out there and it need to be remastered.

[fgiannet]

Wow, that is fascinating...... even an avid fan like Goose2 has said he would not play Panzer Corps without the Rudel hero (who might be considered a wizard in this RPG while Oleg Dir is the thief?). Vaporizing a unit with a Rudel airstrike becomes as satisfying as vaporizing someone with a fire ball from your wizard.....the WW 2 units/setting/briefings are only for appearance (making fantasy appear more realistic). Your basically still exploring dungeons with your adventure party.

What an absolutely brilliant way to expand a customer base for a World War 2 game....turn it into a (Dungeons and Dragons because I am old) RPG. That explains so much and is so insightful. Great observation!

That explains why it appeals to so many players. It also explains why so many players disregard/disable things they find inconvenient in the game instead of developing new strategies.....the experience (achieving great victories, emotional attachment to heroes who only get stronger) is far more important than the history (or strategy) itself. The things I thought were silly are actually the games greatest strengths (and everyone has their own history....a player with an entire army of Tiger or KV-1 tanks believes they are playing historically). You are right about it being like a soap opera. Make it feel difficult but the heroes must win in the end or the viewers (players) will lose interest.

I will never look at Panzer Corps or these forums the same. Outstanding.

It also explains why Slitherine has moved on. What major improvements could be made? Any changes to make the game more historical will ultimately reduce the fun for many players. In fact, you would only want to add more fantasy/RPG elements while giving them a historical appearance (which it seems they did with PC 2).

Great point about the heroes in PC 2 but I would imagine a whole new segment of gamers (who probably felt PC 1 heroes were too restricted) loves the flexibility......and their market will continue to expand.

[fgiannet]

Nikividd once said, if I remember correctly, it is almost a requirement to include capturable equipment in a mod. The statement seemed odd to me but now makes perfect sense. It is kind of like putting an Easter Egg in a game. Search all the rooms of the castle because you might find a magic sword.

Focus on what makes gamers happy, at a primordial/chemical level, and the underlying subject becomes irrelevant (it is just an excuse to engage reward centers in the brain). It really is genius.

[Locarnus]

I like RPG and this game is more RPG than action or war or simulation. In terms of entertainment, it is like an epic adventure which makes me wants to go back again and again.
The characters in this RPG are the infantries, tanks, fighters, and etc. Each with strength and weakness which allows countless combination to max their potential. Why do I care for these? It is because they use WWII as background. I am already familiar with these characters as they were my interest before ever playing this game. But, this is just the setup for a good RPG. The key of engagement and attachment of a great RPG is the growth of the characters and emotional attachments.
[...]

A very interesting take on what makes PzG/PzC so great. And also what went missing with PzC 2, where the "invisible" heroes play a far greater role, while the actual units are more like supporting characters.
Also somewhat reminds me of Civilization vs Humankind. The latter made each individual civilization a bit more exchangeable, reducing player identification and increasing tracking complexity (for following non-player factions).

[ghostfearReal]

The heroes are the loots of PC1. Attack heroes are weapons, defense heroes are armors, initiative heroes are gloves, etc. Strength is life, ammo is mana, reinforcement is potion where resupply is mana potion. Good RPG has good loot system which makes it addictive. Each attack is like pulling on a slot lever, something amazing might drop, like +3 attack hero. Of course legendary items or heroes are required for end game play for most players. The game is a long grind. The loots make the grind worthwhile and, in my opinion, required for replayability. PC2 sets loot drop to 0%. All loots are prescript and amazingly, prescheduled. The loots are only dropped at end of each level (or scenario). There is no anticipation or reward for any attack you make. It is just grind after grind after grind for years and years to come. I am not sure I have the patience to wait till the end of each level for a battle that takes hundreds of attacks without any chance of any loot until the very end.
PC1 remastered can invest more on the loot system thus make PC1 great again. Like set bonus (range + spot=+1 ammo bonus see better shoot better save ammo. This makes all those bad heroes good if you are lucky.), legendary drops (instead of prescript, would it be amazing if any of your units can grind a legendary hero after 1000 kills?) There are so much more untapped potential in this game.

[sbpc1]

There are so much more untapped potential in this game.

that is correct

[heinzrondorf]

PC1 remastered can invest more on the loot system thus make PC1 great again. Like set bonus (range + spot=+1 ammo bonus see better shoot better save ammo. This makes all those bad heroes good if you are lucky.), legendary drops (instead of prescript, would it be amazing if any of your units can grind a legendary hero after 1000 kills?) There are so much more untapped potential in this game.

Some great ideas there. I would love to see something like what you describe!

[fgiannet]

And the heroes should probably speak directly to the player at times.....then the player would develop an even greater emotional connection to them. You could have the script just grab the name of any hero on the board if the historical one was killed (but who doesn’t restart a turn if a hero gets killed? ).

Otto Carius (with picture) directly telling the player they are the best panzer commander ever...I think that would feel amazing to a lot of players (talk about a bonding experience). The psychology of this is utterly fascinating and I am so grateful for this authentic conversation (the slot machine analogy is incredible). It has elevated my consciousness and given me so much clarity.

GhostfearReal has laid bare the most essential aspects of gaming. So much is explained in just a few short posts of his. Why did Baraccada’s videos pretend like he was facing unexpected challenges? Because people want the Soap Opera (“will our brave hero save the day???? Tune in next week..”). I never understood why Bracada would feign surprise over the computer spamming units around Bristol (which it does every time), during his Sealion video, but......that was to build tension (“will our hero be able to overcome this unexpected/insurmountable challenge?”). That probably should be built into more scenarios (oh no! The Russians have got reinforcements....Hurray we have received reinforcements...oh no now Stakva is releasing strategic bombers....= greater interaction).

The slot machine analogy is pure genius. The constant possibilities of receiving a random (key word) award is a huge incentive to keep playing (there is a specific psychological term for it....). This (along with the RPG elements and uncomplicated rules) is what makes the game. Not the history or the strategy. It is like finding out all the many ways Facebook is meant to induce chemical reactions in your brain (instead of benevolently connecting you to old friends).

It also explains why people complained about not being able to buy Wehrmacht units in McGuba’s Hungarian Mod. Sure it was a mod about the Hungarian Royal Army but.....it would be so much more fun to blast through it with German equipment (then you could have the accomplishment of clearing the map as well). I think I even remember someone posting they changed the movement of the towed artillery (there was no early SP Arty) to 6 so it could move around without trucks (that makes sense now because the history is not really important). McGuba was probably very smart to award medals directly to the player and players probably should get medals like Easter eggs in maps (complete with pictures from award ceremonies). Everything makes complete sense now.

I am absolutely stunned by how simple the psychology is.....it is the same whether it is a Romantic Comedy (will our heroes fall in love despite the odds?) or a war movie (will our platoon of heroes, surrounded and out of ammunition, hold off that enemy regiment?) or Panzer Corps. Fun/easy (without inconveniences), personal connection, constant random rewards, and the heroes must win in the end (player experiences achievement) sounds like the keys to great entertainment/games. Explains so many mobile games today as well....explains some political campaigns....and the old casino I was a floor manager in (except the winning in the end but we did hand out cheap items to make players feel like they achieved/accomplished something for all the money they lost)......wow.

GhostfearReal is making a profound observation. The history or strategy is no longer important. Ease and interaction are key.

I wonder when that changed though....a PC Gamer review of PzC 2 tells players to stay away if they do not want to know the difference between their sturmgeschutz and panzerkampfwagon. That is a very basic distinction. Why play a WW 2 game if you do not want to know things about WW 2? Why would a game reviewer even feel it necessary to tell players that? I suppose it is like someone owning a classic car while not knowing or caring anything about cars themselves. They get interactions from it (nice car!) and that feels good. The point of any computer game is to make someone feel good as well (decisive victory general!). Feel superior to Manstein even if you do not want to learn about strategy or equipment. It is all the same mechanism I suppose. Things should get simpler over time.

So I thank you greatly! Panzer Corp is a great game and this is a great forum. You have shined a brilliant light on the essential elements of this game, society, entertainment, etc. So many things now make perfect sense (which means I can let them go).

Thank you for your brilliant and authentic observations.

[faos333]

.... So I thank you greatly! Panzer Corp is a great game and this is a great forum. You have shined a brilliant light on the essential elements of this game, society, entertainment, etc. So many things now make perfect sense (which means I can let them go).

Thank you for your brilliant and authentic observations.

What a nice post, thank you

[ghostfearReal]

You are very welcome!

[gaius21]

no soviet campaign in 2.

[Wargamer74]

I know this is an old thread but the reason I stay with the first Panzer Corps is I love how easy the game is to play while at the same time being challenging especially later in the Grand Campaign plus I really prefer the board game style of the 2d graphics over 3d. Going 3d with Panzer Corps 2 makes it look like a completely different game and maybe I’m getting older, but it looks a bit childish to me. I think the first game is still one of Slitherine’s/Matrix best looking 2d games they have. Also, no other game compares to the amount of content and scenario design you get with the gold version. It’s sad this game isn’t being supported anymore. Hopefully one day someone can get the source code and expand on this great game even more.

[rubyjuno]

Not going to argue with any of that… made even better by all the magnificent mods from the amazing Panzer Corps community.

[Uhu]

I really advise to try out also the mods, especially the Battlefront Europe one as it is almost a new game with a tons of features and also with a possible multiplayer option.

I know this is an old thread but the reason I stay with the first Panzer Corps is I love how easy the game is to play while at the same time being challenging especially later in the Grand Campaign plus I really prefer the board game style of the 2d graphics over 3d. Going 3d with Panzer Corps 2 makes it look like a completely different game and maybe I’m getting older, but it looks a bit childish to me. I think the first game is still one of Slitherine’s/Matrix best looking 2d games they have. Also, no other game compares to the amount of content and scenario design you get with the gold version. It’s sad this game isn’t being supported anymore. Hopefully one day someone can get the source code and expand on this great game even more.

[stormbringer3]

I had to pass on Panzer Corps 2. The heroes in that game are IMO too extreme. I still play Panzer Corps Gold quite often. It's a great game.

[Tedder]

I have been playing Panzer Corps for years. I have played every campaign dozens of times, and the main campaign over hundreds of times.
I would like to try the mods, especially Battlefront Europe, but I’m afraid I may be too computer illiterate to install a mod.
Is there a link to step-by-step instructions on how to install mods? I don’t even know where to begin.

[PeteMitchell]

I dont have a link right now but it is explained on the forum, either via the mod enabler add-on OR by copying the entire PzC folder and then just adding the mod there.

I had written it down previously step by step for goose_2

[Tedder]

Thanks!
With that information, I should be able to get one of my teens to walk me through it. I forgot there was a mod forum.