Please convince me this is different from Panzer General!

[Solaristics]

I've only recently been following this game, mostly because it looked like a bit of a PG clone early on and I'm pretty much over that style of game - first played the original SSI version 20 years ago (himem.sys, I still hate you) and many of the incarnations since up until last year. While it was a fun ride, I feel like it has run its course, as I'm getting less and less game play out of my purchases.

Still, I'm a little intrigued by the apparent extra depth of this game. I've watched the play throughs and read the product description, and it still looks and feels very PG to me, but I'd like the opinion of people playing it. In particular, I'd like to know how the campaign works and is structured beyond the fact that it is branching with unit carryover, which is straight out of the PG playbook.

Thanks!

[zakblood]

with video's AAR and twitch feeds already done, what else i'm not sure i can or anyone can say or to show you, the difference is chalk and cheese tbh

i loved panzer general, peoples general and tbh anything like it, but while it shares some things with them all, ease of play etc, then it starts to form a gap and move away from it, in my opinion of course, some may disagree, others may say clone, so i guess it all depends on your play style and views and taste, as nobody here can make you buy it, so flip a coin, do you want heads or tails?

i like it and think it's enough different to have supported it, but then again who i'm i anyway

[Solaristics]

with video's AAR and twitch feeds

Thanks for the quick reply. As I mention in the OP, I've watched the videos and while I can see from them that there is more depth in the mechanics, I'm still not convinced there is "clear blue water" between this incarnation and the previous ones. I was after some reflections from players, as watching a video doesn't always impart the nuances of the experience, particularly around the campaigns.

[zakblood]

sorry kept editing it, but feel free to ask more, most will give a better or more correct answer

[Erik2]

Consider this. I have beta-tested this game for almost a year, played each campaign at least 8-10 times and I am still not tired of it.
Take a peek into the Scenarios folder and see how much time I've spent with this gem.
I'm a Panzer General (+ PzCorps) veteran too. I think this game has more depth and is sufficiently different to warrant a purchase.
Especially the naval functions are quite a step-up (also from Pacific General).
The objectives in this game are quite varied, much more so than PzC.

Hope this helps
Erik

[Solaristics]

The objectives in this game are quite varied, much more so than PzC.
Erik

That is definitely one of the issues I had with PzC - could you explain the objective variation a bit more?

[zakblood]

also please consider this, the developers are a pain, in a nice way i'll say, but a pain in any stretch of the word or meaning is correct, and now i'll explain why, with question asked by members here

viewtopic.php?f=264&t=64206

just one to look at ^^

most show games as games and don't bother with too much detail tbh, these have planes that turn around if back seat fires it's the man who fires from the back is in that type of plane, then you wonder or i do why it wasn't out 6 months ago, they fiddle a lot and don't want to release, as it's there baby and don't want you to play it until they think it's ready for you...

next,

Question: I know that this game is NOT a heavy history factual based offering, so I ask out of curiosity the following question:

I saw a IJA infantry unit using a Flame Thrower at War Plan Orange. Did the IJA have Flame Throwers in 1941/1942 time frame? NOT a big deal game play wise, just curious about it insofar as actual history of the War in the Pacific.

and i replied,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93/Ty ... amethrower


Designed 1932

In service 1933 - 1945

it was there only option as they had poor anti tank weapons so pressed the type 100 into a anti tank roll as well, as a dual purpose weapon it had mixed results but got used till the end of the war.

so while it's not a sim, if it's in, it's real...

so what i'm trying to say but not doing to good on it is, while it's fun, it has also had the research, and after being with them for a while now, if they wasn't happy with it, you wouldn't be looking or playing it, but it's a judgement call if it's your type of game, i'll play anything, i'll test anything, but i don't like everything, and as the money isn't going in my pocket, can say as i like, when i like, so if it was rubbish, i'd be the first to say it, old and gold i am, while the game is new and 5 star gold... and a future classic

aged 48 this year, i also remember dos, windows 3.1 and the joys of higher memory use

[bebro]

The objectives in this game are quite varied, much more so than PzC.
Erik

That is definitely one of the issues I had with PzC - could you explain the objective variation a bit more?

There are generally primary and secondary objectives, which vary in nature quite a lot. It's way more than just take or defend point/city X.

Usually primary objectives are needed to win at all, secondary are nice to have for a number of reasons. IMO a key difference to PzC is that achieving a certain goal in one scenario can influence later scenarios in that campaign > like "destroy a given number of enemy aircraft!" > "enemy air power weakened in later battle(s)".

[Longasc]

It's looking a lot like Panzer General/Corps.

But rugged defense and close terrain are gone, concealment and supply lines and different naval engagement strategies and stuff make it very different. Artillery and AT-Guns already behave totally differently, it's another game.
Trying to play it like Panzer General lead to me asking a ton of questions, just check the forum. And I had to restart, it didn't work out nicely.

So yeah, it's very deceptive to think of it like Panzer Corps in the Pacific. The units work together differently. IMO it's better how it works in OobPac! Give it a try, I expected to purchase Panzer Corps in "Pretty & Pacific", was quite surprised, positively!

[Solaristics]

Thanks for all the comments guys (keep 'em coming!).

IMO a key difference to PzC is that achieving a certain goal in one scenario can influence later scenarios in that campaign > like "destroy a given number of enemy aircraft!" > "enemy air power weakened in later battle(s)".

If you fail in a battle - that is, not achieve the primary objective - do you have to redo the battle, or are you branched to a battle that represents your failure? e.g. if the USN lose Coral Sea are you then branched to a "what if", such as the defence of New Caledonia, or do you just have to repeat the battle until you win?

[Myrddraal]

The game engine does support branching campaigns, but the official campaigns don't use this feature. We opted to go for longer linear campaigns. Future content might well do though.

Having said that, the secondary objectives do have an impact on the later scenarios, so completing or failing to complete secondary objectives does allow you to alter the course of the campaign.

[Solaristics]

The game engine does support branching campaigns

So, does the scenario editor let me create these branching campaigns, with branches triggered by success or failure in a given scenario, or do I have to wait for a potential future release of an official campaign?

[adherbal]

It does. You'll need to do some txt file editing to create campaigns at the moment, but we intend to add a more user friendly way later by means of a WYSIWYG campaign editor.

[Solaristics]

It does. You'll need to do some txt file editing to create campaigns at the moment, but we intend to add a more user friendly way later by means of a WYSIWYG campaign editor.

[TDefender]

From Wargamer's today first impressions:

If I were to summarise where this game sits I would say it has taken the winning parts of Panzer Corps and added to them in depth and detail whilst retaining enjoyable playability.

[PoorOldSpike]

If you're talking about Fantasy General your best bet is to go to this thread where they hang, to slug it out with them..-

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 58&t=92199

[WarHomer]

I find OOB better and more fun in almost all aspects, except for some campaigning aspects.

The campaigns are still a bit short and carry-over in the serial ones doesn´t quite feel on the money.

[PoorOldSpike]

Weird, this thread had 16 replies and the original poster mentioned Fantasy General, but for some reason most posts have vanished and now I'm only seeing a couple..

[Erik2]

I can still see all posts.

[PoorOldSpike]

I can still see all posts.

Strange, I can only see five, perhaps I need to re-configure my forum display settings.

PS- And in my 'Submarine Warfare' thread, Prataa posted in it yesterday (18 June at 21:27) but a big part of his post is just empty space with no text or picture in it, weird..