Panzer Corps - Panzer General Spiritual Sequel

[Jason]

<strong>[ Announcement ]</strong>

Slitherine/Matrix are aiming to get your beer & pretzel juices flowing by name-checking Panzer General several times in this <a href="http://matrixgames.com/news/744/Panzer.Corps.Invades.Stores.In.Early.2011" target="_blank"><strong>Panzer Corps</strong></a> press release.
<blockquote>In 1994 Strategic Simulations Inc. (SSI) released a title that would change the face of strategy gaming forever. Panzer General delivered an exceptionally easy to learn gameplay system and was such a captivating game that it became a benchmark for future designers for years to come.

In 2011 a project developed by The Lordz Games Studio and published by Slitherine, will see fans of the series rejoice for the release of Panzer Corps. Following in the footsteps of the popular SSI masterpiece and sharing with the General series the same level of engagement and strategic depth, Panzer Corps will keep an unmistakable "PG feeling" whilst improving and refining the gameplay and balance.

Iain McNeil, director of Development at Slitherine said: "With this game we are trying to bring the golden age of strategy gaming back to its roots. This game is Slitherine's homage to one of the greatest strategy titles of all time and we are working hard to ensure we capture the flavor of that masterpiece, yet update it with features and a graphical style that will appeal to a modern strategy gamer".

Panzer Corps will feature 26 scenarios on 21 unique maps, covering most major battles of the European Theatre of World War II and including a few hypothetical 'what if' scenarios based on your actions.

Tim van der Moer, Managing Director of the Lordz Games Studio said: "There are many World War II strategy games out there, but Panzer Corps will blow you away. We are putting all our efforts to make a memorable game, that can stand the test of time the way Panzer General did".</blockquote>

 

[commie]

This is going to be fucking HUGE!(for me at least) Even the graphics are of the original PG style, crisp and clear, and not the more cluttered, pseudo-isometric of PG II!

:salivates:

 

[Burning Bridges]

A good start! But I still prefer the old interface. Hopefully they can pull it off.

 

[commie]

Old interface was great, but I like having everything on the same page and at least the icons are more or less identical to the ones in PG. Having a minimap visible without needing to constantly click on a button is also good.

I also see authentic Polish weaponry here like P.23 Karas! Good stuff.
Unless they totally screw up the AI, I can't see this as anything but a must buy for me, being the biggest PG fanboy around

 

[GarfunkeL]

I still hate the simplistic approach to combined-arms warfare that PG took, even if it was, apparently, necessary for the learning curve to be as soft as it was.

Still, PG was mostly fun and it's not like we are drowning in quality strategy games anyway so this is good news.

 

[commie]

I still hate the simplistic approach to combined-arms warfare that PG took, even if it was, apparently, necessary for the learning curve to be as soft as it was.

Still, PG was mostly fun and it's not like we are drowning in quality strategy games anyway so this is good news.

I beg to differ as I didn't see that as the point of PG to provide a 'realistic' tactical combat. Rather it was an attempt to reflect the operational idea of the blitzkrieg and very few games have done this as well as PG. You can pretty much only win; except for those battles where you're on the defensive, which pretty much only happen because you failed at blitzkrieg anyway; by following the tenents of this type of warfare; bypassing strongpoints where possible, concentrating force to create a breakthrough, rapid thrust into rear areas and cutting off enemy armies from supply, always striking for the objective and not getting held up etc.

It's almost like an instruction manual for this type of warfare, abstracted to it's most basic form.

 

[Burning Bridges]

But gentlemen, this has really been discussed enough since PG came out.

OF COURSE it's not the most deep or realistic wargame. It's strengths lie rather in the athmosphere, gameplay, balance and innovation. But how many other games have the ability to turn you in one evening from a total rookie into a life-long devotee of turn based games? I once started Poland as one such noob, the idea of turn based game was almost totally alien to me, in France I was already hooked.

@commie: but you have a very good point about PG being essentially about the essence of Blitzkrieg. I was born a defensive strategist, this reflected in the way I used to play chess when I was younger, and other things, and I would say it was PG that eventually instilled me an understanding for the advantages of the offense, for seizing and denying the initiative,etc.

So from my experience, for people who are completely new to strategy games, and who want to get into them, PG is still the ideal starting point. And PG is very much like chess, so I think you will also become a better chess player through it.

 

[commie]

@commie: but you have a very good point about PG being essentially about the essence of Blitzkrieg. I was born a defensive strategist, this reflected in the way I used to play chess when I was younger, and other things, and I would say it was PG that eventually instilled me an understanding for the advantages of the offense, for seizing and denying the initiative,etc.

So from my experience, for people who are completely new to strategy games, and who want to get into them, PG is still the ideal starting point. And PG is very much like chess, so I think you will also become a better chess player through it.

Well said, and you being defensive is EXACTLY how I was, using my strength on the defense as a base upon which to launch a counterattack in traditional wargames, boardgames and indeed, like you: Chess. Took me a while with PG to finally grasp the concepts of speed and maneuver and not keep running out of time to take my objectives due to my methodical approach. I also like the tension PG would create between the need for speed and the temptation and need to divert your forces to farm some experience and/or to totally destroy some damaged enemy units so they wouldn't be a thorn in your side later on. I too became a better and more aggressive player due to what PG taught me(even though I still favor the defense given the choice).

PG was the game that I played for 26 hours straight once back in 1995...I just couldn't stop(apart from the usual toilet and food breaks), and for this it remains in my top 5 games of all time.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Funny, also quite exactly around 1995 was the only time in my life I got a caffeine poisoning, because of PG. I must have played 20 hours straight and and when I finally fell into my bed - dead tired - I could not sleep for several hours because my heart was racing, and I was panicking that I would get a heart attack. I must have had consumed something in the range of 10 litres of coffee! And my coffee is VERY STRONG

 

[commie]

Funny, also quite exactly around 1995 was the only time in my life I got a caffeine poisoning, because of PG. I must have played 20 hours straight and and when I finally fell into my bed - dead tired - I could not sleep for several hours because my heart was racing, and I was panicking that I would get a heart attack. I must have had consumed something in the range of 10 litres of coffee! And my coffee is VERY STRONG

Great minds think and drink alike eh?

 

[Burning Bridges]

Don't do it, it's really a horrible feeling, and may also be dangerous ..

 

[Monk]

Maybe they can include features found in games like Meier's Crusade in Europe, like brigade or division-level units that combine armor and infantry, etc., more realistic numbers for each unit (e.g., 9,128 infantry, 22 tanks), air units that return to air fields, and supply lines.

 

[commie]

Maybe they can include features found in games like Meier's Crusade in Europe, like brigade or division-level units that combine armor and infantry, etc., more realistic numbers for each unit (e.g., 9,128 infantry, 22 tanks), air units that return to air fields, and supply lines.

I think that's needlessly complicating things. Don't get me wrong, I love detailed to the individual man statistics and kill tables in wargames where it suits(War in Russia), but in an abstract game like this I don't think it's all that necessary. I expect War in The East: The Struggle For Russia to be heaven in this respect though, with everything detailed to the last and historically accurate formations.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Maybe they can include features found in games like Meier's Crusade in Europe, like brigade or division-level units that combine armor and infantry, etc., more realistic numbers for each unit (e.g., 9,128 infantry, 22 tanks), air units that return to air fields, and supply lines.

I think perhaps this is what you really want:

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/390 ... w.to.Paris.

A very good game, but it's so much work compared to e.g. Panzer General, so I keep postponing it.

 

[spectre]

Sweet lord, I'm having such a boner right now...

 

[oscar]

The only thing that weirded me out about Panzer General was air strikes destroying half a division in a day.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Yes, the 5-star strength 15 Stuka, that was everybodies darling

It was actually very funny, when you played against a mate, and his unit was gone after one single attack. ah, the butthurt

When I remember things like that PG was not a very realistic weargame, that I agree.

 

[Monk]

Maybe they can include features found in games like Meier's Crusade in Europe, like brigade or division-level units that combine armor and infantry, etc., more realistic numbers for each unit (e.g., 9,128 infantry, 22 tanks), air units that return to air fields, and supply lines.

I think that's needlessly complicating things. Don't get me wrong, I love detailed to the individual man statistics and kill tables in wargames where it suits(War in Russia), but in an abstract game like this I don't think it's all that necessary. I expect War in The East: The Struggle For Russia to be heaven in this respect though, with everything detailed to the last and historically accurate formations.

I don't know if it will make things complicated, i.e., like replacing "10" with a more realistic number. Meier's "Crusade" had that and it fit in only one or two floppy disks. It was also very easy to play.

From what I remember, the stats were as simple as (or simpler than) PG. For example,

2nd SS Panzer Div (green, veteran, crack, elite, etc.)
14,427 infantry, 42 tanks
Movement: deployed, mobile, transport, entrenched, fortified, etc.

I think the tables used for the game were like those in Dunnigan's book. The difference is that the game was not turn-based but ran in real-time. Also, division-level units were used, with a few brigades for some scenarios. Air units attacked designated areas and returned to base; there was no battle between air units.

Finally, to Burning, thanks for mentioning "Decisive Campaigns."

 

[Burning Bridges]

That's all reasonable, but then it would not be Panzer General anymore.

One thing I'd personally like to see changed is the air attacks. In PG the airplanes made their run then hung over the enemy units for a whole turn. I think it the airwar in PG was quite oviously just an afterthought.

 

[commie]

That's all reasonable, but then it would not be Panzer General anymore.

One thing I'd personally like to see changed is the air attacks. In PG the airplanes made their run then hung over the enemy units for a whole turn. I think it the airwar in PG was quite oviously just an afterthought.

Yeah, I'd even lose some minor battles deliberately, just to build up experience for my air units which would then be devastating later on. Airpower is far too powerful in PG, maybe it should cause more disruption and fewer losses, as carpet bombings Panzer Lehr style weren't all that common in WW2. Losses inflicted were substantial(though hardly of the 90-100% devastation an elite air unit can do in PG), but it was the loss of readiness and disruption that was the real benefit of airpower, what with the Germans only being able to move around at night easily, and to take far longer to join a fight and have a rough time preparing a defense.

 

[Monk]

I also remember one review of Operational Art of War, where there was a reference to a recon unit attacking an anti-tank unit (I think) and problems involving that. Some games can probably solve this by allowing stacked units that work with each other, and I think in PG some units can help adjacent ones.

With that, it's probably much easier to just use division and brigade-level units (maybe one can just stick with armored, infantry, and airborne) and then add some points for air and ground (including anti-tank) defense, etc., as units are ordered to entrench or fortify.

Units can send recon automatically, and if enemy units are detected they will appear on the map. The player can also send air recon for a particular area, again launched from HQ.

Maybe for air battles, if intel reports of a possible bomber attack, the player can order fighters to a particular area, with encounters taking place by chance. Again, air units return to fields after each mission.

Again, maybe these features shouldn't make the game more difficult to play; they might even make it easier to play, but they might make the game more realistic.

 

[commie]

I also remember one review of Operational Art of War, where there was a reference to a recon unit attacking an anti-tank unit (I think) and problems involving that. Some games can probably solve this by allowing stacked units that work with each other, and I think in PG some units can help adjacent ones.

With that, it's probably much easier to just use division and brigade-level units (maybe one can just stick with armored, infantry, and airborne) and then add some points for air and ground (including anti-tank) defense, etc., as units are ordered to entrench or fortify.

Units can send recon automatically, and if enemy units are detected they will appear on the map. The player can also send air recon for a particular area, again launched from HQ.

Maybe for air battles, if intel reports of a possible bomber attack, the player can order fighters to a particular area, with encounters taking place by chance. Again, air units return to fields after each mission.

Again, maybe these features shouldn't make the game more difficult to play; they might even make it easier to play, but they might make the game more realistic.

Good ideas there Monk. I think that some ideas regarding air combat and interception were in WW2 Time of Wrath, which took the combat style of PG and added extra layers of complexity. Airpower is rightly more a support force rather than a killer in itself.

 

[ZbojLamignat]

Game looks very nice, but I don't think I need anything more than PG2 + Adlerkorps + Open General.

Not only does it provide virtually limitless amount of good scenarios/campaigns, but also fixes all the gameplay issues like simplicty or unit balance. Plus, you get to run in perfectly in any resolution in a window as a bonus

 

[a budda]

comes out this wed hopefully

 

[Von Paulus]

It's out. :D