Ideas for Panzer Corps 2

[Retributarr]

[urlhttps://www.bing.com/search?q=WWII+George+S.+Pa ... RS=CHECKED][/url]
Patton wanted to take on the Soviets 1945
http://www.ww2f.com/threads/patton-want ... 945.39074/

Operation Unthinkable
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
Operation Unthinkable was the name given to two related but unrealised plans by the Western Allies against the Soviet Union. The creation of the plans was ordered by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1945 and developed by the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff at the end of World War II in Europe.

The chiefs of staff were concerned that given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war and the perception that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there was a Soviet threat to Western Europe. The Soviet Union had yet to launch its attack on Japanese forces and so one assumption in the report was that the Soviet Union would instead ally with Japan if the Western Allies commenced hostilities.

The hypothetical date for the start of the Allied invasion of Soviet-held Europe was scheduled for 1 July 1945, four days before the UK general election.[5] The plan assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines.[5] That represented almost half of the roughly 100 divisions available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time.[3]

The plan was taken by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible because of to an anticipated 2.5 to 1 superiority in divisions of Soviet land forces in Europe and the Middle East by 1 July, where the conflict was projected to take place.[6] Most of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 10 divisions of the former German Wehrmacht, remobilised from POW status. Any quick success would be caused by surprise alone. If a quick success could not be obtained before the onset of winter, the assessment was that the Allies would be committed to a protracted total war. In the report of 22 May 1945, an offensive operation was deemed "hazardous".

[uzbek2012]

[urlhttps://www.bing.com/search?q=WWII+George+S.+Pa ... RS=CHECKED][/url]
Patton wanted to take on the Soviets 1945
http://www.ww2f.com/threads/patton-want ... 945.39074/

Operation Unthinkable
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
Operation Unthinkable was the name given to two related but unrealised plans by the Western Allies against the Soviet Union. The creation of the plans was ordered by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1945 and developed by the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff at the end of World War II in Europe.

The chiefs of staff were concerned that given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war and the perception that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there was a Soviet threat to Western Europe. The Soviet Union had yet to launch its attack on Japanese forces and so one assumption in the report was that the Soviet Union would instead ally with Japan if the Western Allies commenced hostilities.

The hypothetical date for the start of the Allied invasion of Soviet-held Europe was scheduled for 1 July 1945, four days before the UK general election.[5] The plan assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines.[5] That represented almost half of the roughly 100 divisions available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time.[3]

The plan was taken by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible because of to an anticipated 2.5 to 1 superiority in divisions of Soviet land forces in Europe and the Middle East by 1 July, where the conflict was projected to take place.[6] Most of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 10 divisions of the former German Wehrmacht, remobilised from POW status. Any quick success would be caused by surprise alone. If a quick success could not be obtained before the onset of winter, the assessment was that the Allies would be committed to a protracted total war. In the report of 22 May 1945, an offensive operation was deemed "hazardous".

Patton would fly farting and be glad that he wasn't drowned in the English channel ))) And so in those years it was dangerous to flirt with the USSR Stalin is not a fool Gorbachev )))
https://ruxpert.ru/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B0%D ... 0%A1%D0%A0
And so here you have a choice of attack The red army is the strongest

[Retributarr]

Oh!!!.. Shrieking... Debilitating... Paralyzing... Terror!!!:

Do some checking on "Alexander-The-Great" & "Napolon Bonaparte' "... they both fought against odds up 5 to 1... and succeeded!. Check it out.

Who cares if the odds are 2.5 to 1.0???. That doesn't mean too-much!... much if anything!.

What's much more troublesome and worrying is the "Russian-Winter & the Ability to keep Supplying your Troops in the field".

[Chobham]

Have you thought about recalculating the impacts of replacement. The Germans in 44/45 had some of the most potent units available even after the eastern front and suffering losses. I believe that if there is more than half the available original units there should be little no loss of experience as it the very experienced help the inexperienced. Is there any real statistics on this as we had multiple units who fount through multiple campaigns with significant changeover of personnel but were still a cohesive unit as morale, culture etc made up for the lack of experience of replacements then compare these units to completely untested units. I believe the answer is in these statistics and should reflect within the game.
I find the current system makes you too timid to preserve troops rather than enjoy the game and go on the offensive. Defense is no fun. Its PanzerCorp not hide and seek. I understand historical significance but we all know the gamers fun rating dictates sales ultimately.

[BaronVonWalrus]

Have you thought about recalculating the impacts of replacement. The Germans in 44/45 had some of the most potent units available even after the eastern front and suffering losses. I believe that if there is more than half the available original units there should be little no loss of experience as it the very experienced help the inexperienced. Is there any real statistics on this as we had multiple units who fount through multiple campaigns with significant changeover of personnel but were still a cohesive unit as morale, culture etc made up for the lack of experience of replacements then compare these units to completely untested units. I believe the answer is in these statistics and should reflect within the game.
I find the current system makes you too timid to preserve troops rather than enjoy the game and go on the offensive. Defense is no fun. Its PanzerCorp not hide and seek. I understand historical significance but we all know the gamers fun rating dictates sales ultimately.

For some players, the fun is actually in succeeding whilst preserving your core units and knowing when to defend, when to push back locally and when to go on the general offensive.

[steelwarrior]

It would be awesome if we could have in the GC naval core units. Starting with the conquest of Poland with naval action, then Norway, Fall Gelb and Fall Rot, Battle for the Atlantic, trying to starve out Russia (Land Lease) and England. Later Sea Lion and conquest of America and the maybe war with Japan and action in the Pacific. Just dreaming...

[Retributarr]

It would be awesome if we could have in the GC naval core units. Starting with the conquest of Poland with naval action, then Norway, Fall Gelb and Fall Rot, Battle for the Atlantic, trying to starve out Russia (Land Lease) and England. Later Sea Lion and conquest of America and the maybe war with Japan and action in the Pacific. Just dreaming...

"steelwarrior": Please... keep-on... "Just dreaming...".
I have little-interest in 'Naval-Actions' myself... but!!!... that does not mean that I'm not interested in your 'Novel-Naval-Intervention-Approach'-Idea's dealing with this particular aspect of WWII. That would be great if the Game-Developers would try to incorporate some or all of your summarized suggestions into the future PzC2 Grand-Campaign!.

Depending on how the 'Player' would like to handle 'Naval-Action-Results'... the player could then choose from a selection of reactions such as... has no-effect on 'Historical-Events'... or that 'Naval-Activities' are not going to be considered at all , or has certain variable results or consequences from 'Naval-Action'... on the 'Historical' outcome... or even has a 'Major-Influence' on what happens on the continent... as a result of the players 'Naval-Adventures'!.

Since you "steelwarrior" ... present yourself as an 'Avid-Fan' of this particular venue... then if it is really in your interest to see this concept go somewhere... offer to provide the 'Developers' a detailed run-through of what you might have in mind... maybe they will go-for-it?.

[steelwarrior]

Yes, a little naval game would surely spice things up and make naval units not just canon fodder. I would love to elaborate, if the devs are interested, but if not...I have other things to do ;-D

[Retributarr]

Yes, a little naval game would surely spice things up and make naval units not just canon fodder. I would love to elaborate, if the devs are interested, but if not...I have other things to do ;-D

Well!... I don't think your going to be approached by anyone who would be seeking your special insights on Naval-Confrontations!... in the European-Theatre', if they do?... that would be just fine.

On the other hand!... why-not 'Now' take the time to go-through the "History" of these event-situations...and see if you can flesh out some plausible details... which could include actions that could have taken place, but didn't... that can in-turn be made some use of!... for utilization/implementation in the Game itself!. Study the actual 'Historical' sequence of events of the various separate past naval engagements... then... work out a story-line with actions and consequences for each separate 'Naval-Theatre'... that can then be processed into the 'Game' itself.

If you like... you can 'Post' your investigations and recommendations here at this 'Forum'... and then those who are 'Naval-History' buffs... can make their contributions to you to help smooth out the details of this historical/theoretical undertaking... 'to then Take-Off!'... into 'Gaming-Reality'.

[steelwarrior]

Sure, Kriegsmarine supported the invasion of Poland with its big guns and at the same time hunting Polish destroyers and subs and German subs hunting polish transports that are trying to evacuate to GB. This could be the start of a naval side of the campaign. Then the sub war could be introduced (as a separate scenario) with certain amount of transports and maybe destroyers to be sunk in a certain amount of time. Then we have Norway - a bigger fight between Kriegsmarine and GB where the big guns, destroyers and subs could be involved as well as some air war alongside the invasion of Norway. The the German Kriegs Marine could face off against some Belgian, Dutch and French naval assets alongside the land invasion Fall Gelb and Fall Rot. TRying to sink as many assets as possibe and giving support from the coast lien - this would be rather fictional as a big engagement, but engagemnets actaully happende during this time. Then there could be an earyl Sea Lion facing of the British Fleet defending the channel and the Kriegsmarine supporting the landing. I would suggest Germany heavily relying on subs - but having more assets as historically depending on the players success in ealier missions. Or if no early Seal Lion the Land lease to the SU could be a scenario where German subs could try to destroy as many transports as possible again which would cahnge how many land lease units the SU can field during the war. Then there could be the battle of Leningrad wehre Kriegsmarine beats the SU fleet and supports the conquest of Leningard. There could be a battle of the black sea around Sevastopol with a fictional amount of German naval units brought in by trains facing of the SU black sea fleet with Romanian help. All the while there could be the battle in the Med sea mostly done by Italian naval assets against the GB naval assets. Fighting for Malta and supporting the North African war from the coast. Then there could be the war in the Atlantic for control of the sea and cutting of GBs support from the colonies and the USA. When the war in the East has been won there could be the battle for the Atlantic as a domination wat for the Atlantic ocean with lost of German naval assets after the ressources of the SU were taken, maybe together with an air war element. Ther could be a late Sea Lion and the invasion of the US with lost of naval action along the coasts going for domination of the seas. When the US has bee conquered there could be the fictional war with Japan for total domination starting a whole Pacific campaign with lost of naval action including the conquest of Japan. So far ;-D

[Retributarr]

You're off to a "Flying-Start"... but!!!... You need to 'Organize' your 'Information' under 'Separate-Title-Headers' with some concrete-data...such as [Accessible Active Serviceable Ship Quantities Available _ Locations of Ship-Types...etc.]

Include some 'Historical Background of the current status of the existing Fleets regarding such important details as to their current 'Deployments and 'Readiness'... their 'Sea-Worthiness and Combat-Effectiveness'... their 'Vulnerability to Opposing Factions_ such as... verses to Enemy Air & Shipping... mine-fields... etc '... the availability of 'Fuel-Reserves' to sustain 'Fleet-Operations' [Intermittent or Full-Scale Fleet Operations]... and so on!.

Not only that... but try to include the assessments of the probable 'Survivability'... of ships engaged in various types of 'Fleet-Operations' [All-Factions]. For-Example: Early in the War... the Allies had little effective capability/capacity to deal with the 'U-Boats' [U-Boats were very effective then]... But!... also had some limited success with dealing with Surface Ships at sea or in harbors [By Bombing Them while at Anchor if in Range of their Bombers_ This goes or both sides]... sometimes even at great loss and cost!.

Once a 'Clear' assessment of all of these 'Variables' has been brought to the 'Forefront'... then a reasonable-realistic projection of what could be undertaken or what could/can be done or what would then be a reasonable or an unreasonable course of action or actions can then be ascertained... and put into play!.

Maybe this is just "Too-Much" for the average 'Schlunk-The-Midget' to deal with... But!!!... I think that you have the "Right-Stuff" and are 'Not' in that 'Category'... and that 'You' have the 'Technology' or the 'Where-With-All' to carry on through this Arduous-Research/Investigation!. Others will readily participate and help out as well!... judging by many past comments from others... there are quite a few of you that are interested in these matters.

[naughtybalrog]

Two wishes:
1) Capture aircraft,
2) Engineers to be able to destroy bridges.

[naughtybalrog]

Re: Awards

Why are Anti-Aircraft units eligible for an Anti-Infantry Veteran Award but not an Anti-Aircraft Veteran Award?

[uzbek2012]

Two wishes:
1) Capture aircraft,
2) Engineers to be able to destroy bridges.

Engineering tank T105 (USA)
In 1943, the United States military industry proposed the design of the t76 engineering tank. the armored Vehicle, built on the basis of the serial M4 Sherman medium tank, was equipped with a launcher for solid-fuel unguided missiles, mounted in place of the gun. Such weapons allowed the engineering tank to fire at various obstacles and fortifications of the enemy from a certain distance, but the proposed project had noticeable disadvantages. Soon an attempt was made to improve the car, but the new prototype under the designation T76E1 also did not differ in outstanding characteristics. Further development of the T76 project was abandoned, but the existing ideas were decided to be implemented as part of a new project, the main element of which was to be the T105 launcher.
the goal of several engineering tank projects was to create a self-propelled armored vehicle capable of destroying various obstacles and obstacles using unguided missiles with a high-explosive warhead. Previously, launchers were tested, which are a package of guides for small-caliber missiles, but they did not justify themselves. Because of this, the T76 project was launched, involving the use of 7.2-inch (183 mm) missiles. They should be launched using a barrel-guide placed in place of the standard tank gun. This method of using missile weapons allowed us to solve the tasks with acceptable efficiency.

Even more Fantasy in the game )))

[brumleek]

Hello all.

I had not the time to go through this thread yet so I apologize for stealing someones idea if it's the case. What I miss in PC2 is the ability to capture enemy air units. Lets say I deny the enemy the possibility to evacuate from airfield by seizing all other nearby airfields and I capture the last airfield with several planes on it. Why would they crash and be destroyed?

1) Would it be possible to capture enemy planes if there is no location to escape to available?
2) Also would it be possible to force surrender by forming an aerial blockade around the airfield and taking the airfield by ground units? Can zone of control be used to prevent enemies for fleeing in PC2 aerial warfare?

[Schlack]

Can I suggest a small QoL interface change here?

Some of the 1939 scenarios in the recent DLC have a shedload of mines which all appear on the ingame unit menu (left panel) and aircraft at the bottom - my poor scroll finger! Is there a need to keep the minefields in this menu or at lease can the unit categories be collapsed hiding the detail of the unit types were not interested in

[adiekmann]

Hello all.

I had not the time to go through this thread yet so I apologize for stealing someones idea if it's the case. What I miss in PC2 is the ability to capture enemy air units. Lets say I deny the enemy the possibility to evacuate from airfield by seizing all other nearby airfields and I capture the last airfield with several planes on it. Why would they crash and be destroyed?

1) Would it be possible to capture enemy planes if there is no location to escape to available?
2) Also would it be possible to force surrender by forming an aerial blockade around the airfield and taking the airfield by ground units? Can zone of control be used to prevent enemies for fleeing in PC2 aerial warfare?

I brought this suggestion up months ago. It was considered previously during either beta or development, I do not remember, and the explanation why it was not included sounded reasonable to me.

I do not remember it entirely and am unwilling to look for that previous post/thread. However, here's at least some of the basic rationale that I remember why what you suggest was ultimately not included.

Unlike its predecessor, PC1, when you acquire "captured" enemy equipment in PC2 you are not given unlimited reinforcements (usually) with some special exceptions. Meaning, when the units take losses to its strength, you only get to reinforce it from a pool of "extras." Those extras also need to be captured. That with aircraft would be difficult to do. Much more so than with tanks, guns, armored cars, etc.

Now add to that fact that historically very few allied aircraft of interest were actually captured intact. Not enough to fill out an entire squadron and never mind spare parts or replacement aircraft. In reality, most captured aircraft were used only for evaluation purposes.

There were probably other reasons that I do not recall, but the point is that it was seriously considered from what I remember and ultimately decided against.

[brumleek]

Hello all.

I had not the time to go through this thread yet so I apologize for stealing someones idea if it's the case. What I miss in PC2 is the ability to capture enemy air units. Lets say I deny the enemy the possibility to evacuate from airfield by seizing all other nearby airfields and I capture the last airfield with several planes on it. Why would they crash and be destroyed?

1) Would it be possible to capture enemy planes if there is no location to escape to available?
2) Also would it be possible to force surrender by forming an aerial blockade around the airfield and taking the airfield by ground units? Can zone of control be used to prevent enemies for fleeing in PC2 aerial warfare?

I brought this suggestion up months ago. It was considered previously during either beta or development, I do not remember, and the explanation why it was not included sounded reasonable to me.

I do not remember it entirely and am unwilling to look for that previous post/thread. However, here's at least some of the basic rationale that I remember why what you suggest was ultimately not included.

Unlike its predecessor, PC1, when you acquire "captured" enemy equipment in PC2 you are not given unlimited reinforcements (usually) with some special exceptions. Meaning, when the units take losses to its strength, you only get to reinforce it from a pool of "extras." Those extras also need to be captured. That with aircraft would be difficult to do. Much more so than with tanks, guns, armored cars, etc.

Now add to that fact that historically very few allied aircraft of interest were actually captured intact. Not enough to fill out an entire squadron and never mind spare parts or replacement aircraft. In reality, most captured aircraft were used only for evaluation purposes.

There were probably other reasons that I do not recall, but the point is that it was seriously considered from what I remember and ultimately decided against.

Hello adiekmann.

Thank you for your answer and for summing it up for me. I agree completely with your historical explanation. Still I would like to have the option - even if it is a historical non-sense. I would use this mechanic as "self-inflicted difficulty modifier" and hunt every single airfield on the map just to make my aircraft park as diverse as my ground forces are . Luckily we have 1939 DLC as a consolation prize but I don't want to spoil anything more for people who did not play it yet.

[adiekmann]

Luckily we have 1939 DLC as a consolation prize but I don't want to spoil anything more for people who did not play it yet.

Correct. The "prize" you are referring to is an example of one of those "special exceptions" that I was talking about. So I expect to possibly acquire one way or another other Allied aircraft over the course of the AO. I just hope they're careful not too overdo it, otherwise it starts losing its specialness.

[GUNDOBALDO08]

Given the desire of the developers to face theaters never seen on a videogame I would have a couple of suggestions for AO1940:
1) Italo-Greek war since October 1940
2) Italian-British Libyan theater from July 1940. in both cases the dates do not overlap with the French campaign which must not be compromised (as happened for Poland instead)