Axis Operation 1944 Review

[DefiantXYX]

Germy did win retreating battles on the eastern front and lost the war. And the label says it all, they were retreating battles. So there is potential to win battles and lose the war. The fact that "High Command" gave real stupid orders was the next problem.

But at what costs?
The game is just not designed for that. If you "win" a battle and lose 50% of your core, otherwise it will just feel like a blitzkrieg scenario in 1941, you will be doomed in the next scenario.
So there is just 2 ways, either you fight at the wrong spot, like in AO 1944 most of the time, and wagners tell you how your allies got owned. The other way was used in 1943, you always come to late with your core fore, all you allies get whiped out in a few turns and the game doesnt notice, that you killed all whole russian army.
Both ways are not really satisfying and I am curious if thery might be perfect solution one day.
Thats the same reason allied DLCs do not really how. How could you build up a nice core, which is still one of the major parts of the game, if you are losing 2 years long everywhere?

Think it this way, the resources others could have used to achieve something on their frontline was transferred to supply your forces because you are doing well and on the main operation direction. YOU DRAINED THEIR RESOURCES to achieve your victories, and makes it looking like all the others are not doing their job at all because they can't get what they need to do so.

Thats an interesting approach but how do you explan sealion? Everyone sucks, you are the only army group that is making good progress. Talking about kursk there are two army groups, one sucks again, while you are curshing the russians easily. You cant say that your core had far more ressources than your friends...
And your core is not that big. For example if you check out the army size when you are defending the normandy, rommels army is huge, I would say 200-300 core slots. But they just suck, so its not like they did not get supplied, properly
And until 1944 you are fighting the hardest battles yourself. Stalingrad, Kursk, its not like you are bashing some noobs at some random spot, while the rest of your army is having a tough fight.

[Bee1976]

But at what costs?
The game is just not designed for that. If you "win" a battle and lose 50% of your core, otherwise it will just feel like a blitzkrieg scenario in 1941, you will be doomed in the next scenario.

Well to reflect that in a scenario i would (ok i wouldnt, obviously im to unskilled/stupid for modding...) but a scenario ingame that could reflect that:

A real big map to show its a massive frontline that you and your core has to cover.
6 parts in this map, all separated from another with no chance to combine your forces (that red zones).

now in each part 1 extraction point, which you can use to flee and save your units, and of course 1 deployment zone in each part. 110 coreslots all in all, and you have to fill all 6 parts of that map.

to win ahistorical, you have to hold all 6 parts of the map, without fleeing with a single unit
to win decisive you have to hold 2 parts of the map without using any extraction point for a single unit (still loosing the war)
to get a minor win, at least 1 unit from each part has to escape

and of course ai attacks with superior numbers, like 300 coreslots per part with massive artillery and air support. 800 coreslots of reinforcements, mainly deployed in those parts were you as the player performs the best. And if the AI manage to win just 1 part, the encirclement and supression for your core starts in all parts, because thats what happened.

that would show the real situation on the eastern front. A coreforce like ours woth 130+ slots would have had to cover a huge part of the frontline, not only a small area like we do in the game.

And thats the point, im pretty sure my best core can hold 3-4 of those parts....but im pretty sure it would be quite impossible for me to hold all. So i would lose some units and would start using the exit points on the other parts to not get fully surpressed and swarmed.
So i would be able to win single battles (or even dominate 1-2 of them with my uber units)on the frontline, but those gigantic odds would force me to retreat after that.

and yes i know its sounds unfun, im pretty sure thats the reason why we dont see such missions in the historical part

[Grondel]

Well to reflect that in a scenario i would (ok i wouldnt, obviously im to unskilled/stupid for modding...) but a scenario ingame that could reflect that:

A real big map to show its a massive frontline that you and your core has to cover.
6 parts in this map, all separated from another with no chance to combine your forces (that red zones).

now in each part 1 extraction point, which you can use to flee and save your units, and of course 1 deployment zone in each part. 110 coreslots all in all, and you have to fill all 6 parts of that map.

to win ahistorical, you have to hold all 6 parts of the map, without fleeing with a single unit
to win decisive you have to hold 2 parts of the map without using any extraction point for a single unit (still loosing the war)
to get a minor win, at least 1 unit from each part has to escape

and of course ai attacks with superior numbers, like 300 coreslots per part with massive artillery and air support. 800 coreslots of reinforcements, mainly deployed in those parts were you as the player performs the best. And if the AI manage to win just 1 part, the encirclement and supression for your core starts in all parts, because thats what happened.

in theory the game engine is capable of sustaining such a scenario, but i doubt the majority of our computers can. with a map that big and that unit number i am pretty sure it would crash.

maybe, how it was with PC1 as well, we will see a "all europe with north africa"-map in 10 years when the hardware can sustain it and we can fight all battles at once.

sers,
thomas

[DefiantXYX]

in theory the game engine is capable of sustaining such a scenario, but i doubt the majority of our computers can. with a map that big and that unit number i am pretty sure it would crash.

Why is this game to intense, talking about the requirements? Graphics are ok, but I think an open world RPG or Shooter mit High Graphic should be more intense?! Or age of empires iv, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of units, running around all over the place simultaneously, all with fight animations. PC2 is round based and just one fight after another. But I am completly noobs in this kind of stuff

[Tassadar]

in theory the game engine is capable of sustaining such a scenario, but i doubt the majority of our computers can. with a map that big and that unit number i am pretty sure it would crash.

Why is this game to intense, talking about the requirements? Graphics are ok, but I think an open world RPG or Shooter mit High Graphic should be more intense?! Or age of empires iv, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of units, running around all over the place simultaneously, all with fight animations. PC2 is round based and just one fight after another. But I am completly noobs in this kind of stuff

1. Optimizing the engine is a constant process and a surprisingly difficult thing.
2. Engines have long surpassed the capacity of normal rigs (see Unreal Engine 5 demo). It's the hardware that's for now a limiting factor.
3. Console generations make hardware progress for game purposes less appealing, combined with a semiconductor shortage and graphic cards used for cryptocurrency mining, all this stalled hardware development.
4. We're approaching limits of die shrink cap in semiconductor manufacturing, at least until someone figures out something smart and new.

[terminator]

Why is this game to intense, talking about the requirements? Graphics are ok, but I think an open world RPG or Shooter mit High Graphic should be more intense?! Or age of empires iv, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of units, running around all over the place simultaneously, all with fight animations. PC2 is round based and just one fight after another. But I am completly noobs in this kind of stuff

I play this game with the cheapest basic gamer computer without problem.

[Wagner0445]

Hinting at the Nuke ending.

I dont think this is the intention, because it would be ver disappointing to get an ahistroic path where winning the battles matters and still lose at the end, because german yis nuked into oblivion.
My guess is, that this will lead to a "real" sea lion to stop the B-29s from taking off or getting those nukes. Or maybe the next air onl mission to intercept that bombers.

but im really bad with guessing. Kerensky surprised me with nearly every single mission on the ahistroic path.
My biggest concern is still the time. With the US, GB and the Soviet Union there are still 3 big and scary enemies on the table, and if the team deliver again 10 missions for the ahistoric path in 45, this means 3.3 missions to beat SU, 3.3 missions to beat GB and 3.3 missions to beat the US.

To be honest, 10 missions doenst seem to fit to beat just 1 faction in the last year of the war.
But maybe we will see a "win" vs GB and US on the ahistoric patch for AOWEST DLCs.
Unfortunatly there is no roadmap or something for the near future.

It seem that there is a possibility that we will get a 1946 DLC

We’ll see you next year for the epic conclusion of the Axis Operation campaign as the war finally reaches 1945.

Well...  its historical end at least.  After all, the Alternate History Campaign is still yet unwritten history.

[Bee1976]

I saw that too, sounds really promising

But i try not getting too excited, that might lead to a big disappointment. Ill just wait what happens. The best news from that post is, that pc2 is still growing, that is well deserved and i hope that means a lot of more development

[DefiantXYX]

Yeah, maybe they can create a new team, to work at AO West and Allied DLCs simultaneously.

[Wolfenguard]

mhh from my view, there are some great missions, but not enough.
if you choose the ahist path and dont make the two special operations you are left with 7 strategic mission
The dday was, handled in 1 Air support mission, i liked to see something like a small Story mission in Front of it, where we get informations about the the DDay and can send some Trucks, to build the rommel Spargel or lay minefields. We can only build a small amount of thing, and/ore a change of the mission. when we get the information that rommel is wounded we take over the command of the ground units.

the big Problem is, like some people alry said, the game feels like, yeah i overstomp the enemy but all others get overstomped so it dont make really a differce if we win the scenarios or not.

another Problem, are the heroes we get at the start of every mission, with the large amount of missions in the first SCW and AO we are overruned with heroes, some are good some are bad,
the randomes are some part of the Problem too, sometimes you get a good batch of heroes and sometimes its more meeh,
i think a bether solution would be something, where we get heroes based on the stuff we do in the missions. Like in Fantasy Gerneral 2, where units gets traits when they entered a specific location. For Panzer Corps 2 it can be a little different like, you get a specific hero or a trait if you kill a named unit like killing the lincoln bat in scw you get slaughtere or the night witches in the air spec ops you get double fire aso.

The same goes with the general traits, we can choose at the beginnig of every ao new traits so, we min max the traits, depending which ones are necessary for the ao. like in scw no arty and air are free points, we found enough new arty stuff in the campaign and our air units are bad and not really usefull since we are half trough the scw and we get new stuff from home. I think we should be choose the traits at the beginning of the ao/scw and can buy new traits or change traits with the cc points. So we can use the cc points who are left, at the end of campaign (or to buy special prototypes or heroes)

Another small Problem are the Air Special Operation. Some are Fun others not, but the Problem is, there are no benefits of the mission. We get some more CC or in some missions some new prototypes but in the end yes it dont really change things. Like if we play this missions, we dont have air support in the next mission aso. We see this in the air scenario bombing Stalingrad, we play this map 2 times. the First time, where we have the air only Special ops and next we play the same map with all our units and it dont change the map. it would be nice, if we do the air special op, the next map changes like, we get help from ai controlled units who defend specific positions, so we only need to conquer the other targets.

The other issue is what some players say "we dont get the informations what happened at the other Fronts".
There should be a field HQ, like in Fantasy General 2, where we get bethween the missions or at specific points. Where we can exchange the CC Points, Train heroes (change heroes aso.) and read reports/messages from the home. If we read specific reports. we get a information like "oh this is a report from ourer Afrika Corps" we get the ability to play a small mini campaign with a general, with specific traits.

[DefiantXYX]

I really like your some of your ideas but I fear we are playing the wrong game for it. PC2 is no RPG, although I got some aspects of this genre. Maybe thats something for PC3, manage your army, your soldiers, supplies and so on between the scenarios

I agree with you talking about heroes and general traits. There should be a rebalancing. Maybe this might happen in a huge update, when the first storyline of DLC is done
I am just playing the PC1 Mod again. In 1943 just got the tank hero with zero slots and the random hero was zero slots too. 2 free tanks with overstrengh is 15% more core slots. 15 panthers with ignore entrechment and rapid fire can overrun everything as long as there is ammunition...or you punish yourself and just do not use these heroes...old story.

[Grondel]

I am just playing the PC1 Mod again. In 1943 just got the tank hero with zero slots and the random hero was zero slots too. 2 free tanks with overstrengh is 15% more core slots. 15 panthers with ignore entrechment and rapid fire can overrun everything as long as there is ammunition...or you punish yourself and just do not use these heroes...old story.

Even with those heroes u should feel challenged, when trying to go for bonus objectives.
When i play myself i do not use hero combinations that remove base game mechanics, like vigilant or ignore Entrench on tanks, overrun + lethal on 21 cm and stuff like that.
I stay away from unbalanced general traits like meticolous planning, too.

but stuff like zero slot + consolidator should not brake the balance of the mod.

but in the end, each needs to decide whats fun to him.

sers,
Thomas

[SAVOIE73]

Hello,

Again great stuff,
However a bit disappointed by very short campaigns.

When DLC 1945 is expected ..?
Hope that one will be much longer.

Best regards

[DefiantXYX]

Even with those heroes u should feel challenged, when trying to go for bonus objectives.

Actually thats true, even with strong combinations its challenging, since I had no really useful heroes most of the time and I play a bit lazy. Watching videos while playing and so on
Stalingrad was tough, I was too lazy to change my army, so I could not make everything in time, since the enemy was very well entrenched. Although I dont really like the way how the the enemy got strenghened. Why should almost any soviet unit got extremly strong heroes? Soviets only got masses of men and stuff, if they had also quality war would have over in 1941.

But in 1943 I got a Panther G, 15 strength which is ignoring entrenchment. This monster overruns everything, the hole defense line in one or two turns.

but in the end, each needs to decide whats fun to him.

Yes, you are right, but for me its hard to put things away the game is providing.

[Grondel]

Although I dont really like the way how the the enemy got strenghened. Why should almost any soviet unit got extremly strong heroes? Soviets only got masses of men and stuff, if they had also quality war would have over in 1941.

It is always a stretch between history and fun/challenging to play. Anf even if the Russians had masses, they still had skilled generals and saldiers, too. Especially during the '43 offense u are capable of crushing in 1943NH the Russians made lots of very surprising moves of man and material, attacking in area and from vectors unexpected from the German Generality.

Easy exmaple for this is the Battle at Kursk where Kurt Deichen (who can be recruited during Elista 1943NH) barely prevented a Russian flanking manoeuver that would have heavily damage the 4.te Panzerarmee.

The preudice that Russians are only a lot and thats it (yes, i like to use that one, too ) is not quite fair.

The main reason for the decision to have lots of "heroes" on the Russian units was, thats its way easier than changing the units or creating units with that trait. Which would have been the other option.
Just think of it like this. The enemy adopts to ur tactics htroughout the war. In the beginning 39-41 u can overrun even infantrie in closed terrain with vigilant/ignore entrenchment, but they learn and Infantrie assigned to guard cities get Ferocious defense preventing them to be overrun in closed terrain.

The main aspect of the Game for me is a Challenging Tactic game.
When it comes to ww2 scenarios PC2 sure is the best looking atm, but sadly not very challenging. Thats what got me into modding.

sers,
Thomas

[DefiantXYX]

The preudice that Russians are only a lot and thats it (yes, i like to use that one, too ) is not quite fair.

Well, germany lost like 5 million soldiers in a world war.
The soviets lost 13 millions just on one frontline.
Thats while germany was bombed to ground for years while the soviets reached supplies by the allies.
It is impossible that under that conditions a war could last several years, if both sides got well experienced soliders in their ranks.
But thats history, not panzer corps 2. Your way to make it harder might be somehow ahistorical, but is still good fun and something new.

[Grondel]

Well, germany lost like 5 million soldiers in a world war.
The soviets lost 13 millions just on one frontline.
Thats while germany was bombed to ground for years while the soviets reached supplies by the allies.
It is impossible that under that conditions a war could last several years, if both sides got well experienced soliders in their ranks.

The following might be a new view on things, but when u look at the last 200 years no one wants to go to war with Germany unless we start it.

The MG42 was the by far most feared weapon in WW2. It's firepower was tripple that of the Allied equivalent while costing half as much and could be produced in half the time. It had several nicknames i will not mention here, but it's easy to google. It was used evrywhere. On vehicles, as infantrie weapon stationary or on the move.
It's successor is still in use with the MG3 and afaik used in 40 something NATO-states as primary infantrie weapon.

German MG42 nests were only overrun by Russian infantrie when they were out of ammo, at least if i can believe what i was told by my Grandpa and his friends. Some of whom were there in person and not like us just in books and films/documentaries.

If u add into this the Prussian schooling system, which is sadly still in practice in its base, u get a very well equipt force that was trained to be disciplined from 3 years old.

But back to ur point with comparing 5 Million to 13 Million dead.
The way Russian military operates hasn't changed much since WW2. While the Wehrmacht had a very strong backbone of subcommanders enabling them to utilize what we call today "Auftragsführung" or "Auftragstaktik" the Russians had a decent officer-core but no backbone of subcommanders to ensure their orders are carried out the way they should be.
Sadly this extremly efficent way of leading an army is only used in Isreal and Germany.
In my view this is the main reason for this huge difference.

The Russians surely had one or the other outstanding soldier or leader. But without the subcommanders or military structure u cannot bring them into effect to make a difference.
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

[Retributarr]

But back to ur point with comparing 5 Million to 13 Million dead.
The way Russian military operates hasn't changed much since WW2. While the Wehrmacht had a very strong backbone of subcommanders enabling them to utilize what we call today "Auftragsführung" or "Auftragstaktik" the Russians had a decent officer-core but no backbone of subcommanders to ensure their orders are carried out the way they should be.

sers,
Thomas

Before WWII became an active engaging conflict... "Stalin" purged most of his 'Officer Corps".

That would or could probably help to explain the initial lack of 'Command and Control' in the early days. It took the Russians a long-time to get their act together to remedy this situation... just based alone on the numerous historical mass-encirclements of the Russian Forces in the early years... in which there seemed to be a severe lack of guidance or control to avoid these unprepared for calamities!.

[DefiantXYX]

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.

Yes, excatly. Thats what the heroes are in the game. There is no Jon Rambo, or Maverick, the heroes make a unit slightly better. You could combine all infantry heroes to one unit and it still would get wiped out easily in open field.
It makes sense, that most of the german units got some experienced dudes, who make the unit better while soviets only have new units...but a lot of new units.

[VirgilInTheSKY]

Before WWII became an active engaging conflict... "Stalin" purged most of his 'Officer Corps".

That would or could probably help to explain the initial lack of 'Command and Control' in the early days. It took the Russians a long-time to get their act together to remedy this situation... just based alone on the numerous historical mass-encirclements of the Russian Forces in the early years... in which there seemed to be a severe lack of guidance or control to avoid these unprepared for calamities!.

Just adding some depth to this Purge:
The Red Army was in an even worse state before the Purge, actually. Even Stalin himself couldn't have an idea of how many enlisted men did the Red Army have, and most of them were poorly trained or equipped (if any). Many officers didn't follow the order that was given, nor were they loyal to the country at all, which made them nothing but a hidden threat to the Red Army itself if something bad happened.
The Purge might have killed many innocent soldiers, NCOs and officers, but it did, as the name suggests, also removed many unstable factors that could cause a whole moral collapse should it not happen before the Axis Powers marched into their land. The Red Army suffered losses no country had taken before, yet they were still willing to fight against a greater foe, similar to the Wehrmacht soldiers after their whole frontline collapsed in 1944.

Part of the heavy losses in early days was also due to the lack of supply and training, many units around the border didn't even have ANY ammo and fuel supply when Operation Barbarossa started, including a lot of the best armoured units at that time, the fearsome KVs and T-34s. The equipment update also didn't catch up, with obsolete BTs and T-26s still everywhere while the newer vehicles bothered by all kind of quality and maintenance problems due to the emergency evacuation of all the factories that produces them. Even the best soldiers and generals couldn't do anything if they have no ammo to fight, nor any fuel or transport to move.