Differences between this and Panzer Corps

[Alchenar]

There is literally nothing about PC that can be described as 'realistic' or 'historically accurate'.

These are not 'simulation' wargames and it's absurd to try to hold them to a standard that they have no interest in meeting. PC, like UoC and similar titles, are puzzle games with a theme of WW2 set on their rules. It's ridiculous to talk about unit designations and map historicity when really we're playing with counters on a map board in a computer. The only thing that matters is if the puzzle is interesting or not.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

There is literally nothing about PC that can be described as 'realistic' or 'historically accurate'.

These are not 'simulation' wargames and it's absurd to try to hold them to a standard that they have no interest in meeting. PC, like UoC and similar titles, are puzzle games with a theme of WW2 set on their rules. It's ridiculous to talk about unit designations and map historicity when really we're playing with counters on a map board in a computer. The only thing that matters is if the puzzle is interesting or not.

+1

[rodney727]

Well on Sargent level my cat could also do that. I think your response is really biased.. (Play on Rommel ). Then report back... I have spent the last few days playing nothing but this... It's a great game! GAW. That is. again with any game the higher the difficulty the harder it is. The two games are very much the same feel. If you don't like PC. You probably wouldn't like this. It's games like this that scream "put me on a tablet".

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

rogo727: If you play PC's DLC, the game quickly becomes historically inaccurate. The maps might be somewhat accurate, but the units you're facing are not necessarily accurate. By 1943, I'm running around with a 15 strength Aryan supermen core with the usual Tigers and engineers in halftracks that the Soviets can't hope to stop, because they have worse experience in the DLC, which seems to be primarily balanced for stand-alone play and not a continuous campaign. It's the same problem PG had: at some point, your core just becomes way too good and scenarios are not balanced towards that.

That, and the unit selection, is why I think PC doesn't offer a historically accurate simulation. The Zitadelle scenarios, for example, should be very difficult if not impossible, but in reality they are easy with a good core.

I enjoyed the original game, but the DLC was too easy after a certain point, although that was presumably changed with the 1945 DLC (which I haven't played).

Also: the idea that PC is "original", or that a game like GaW spawned from it, is flawed.

[rodney727]

Again with this... Guess Warsaw is located in France then? Nonsense !

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

There is literally nothing about PC that can be described as 'realistic' or 'historically accurate'.

These are not 'simulation' wargames and it's absurd to try to hold them to a standard that they have no interest in meeting. PC, like UoC and similar titles, are puzzle games with a theme of WW2 set on their rules. It's ridiculous to talk about unit designations and map historicity when really we're playing with counters on a map board in a computer. The only thing that matters is if the puzzle is interesting or not.

[ComradeP]

Well on Sargent level my cat could also do that. I think your response is really biased.. (Play on Rommel ). Then report back...

I believe I played on Colonel or General for the first playthrough. In my opinion, games should be balanced on "normal". PC isn't. My comments concern a reproducable result. Play through all the DLC starting in 1939 and check if the Soviets offer much opposition by 1943.

If you have a campaign with that many linked scenarios, attempts should be made to balance the entire campaign, or it quickly becomes uninteresting. I faced that issue with both PG2 and with PC. The core you could create was just too good.

Fewer player prestige and experience or something like additional AI strength should not be required. Sure, it's a nice option for those who want an additional challenge, but it should not be a requirement to keep the game interesting during a campaign.

The campaign for the original PC, which I tested, was OK, but in the DLC the attempt to link a large number of scenarios without offering multiple versions of the scenarios (with various starting strengths based on which DLC you started with), can quickly make things too easy after a certain point.

[rodney727]

Well of course I knew you were playing on one of the easiest levels. I didn't want someone who was thinking about buying PC, Be influenced by your bias comments about that game...again I state as with any game the higher the difficulty the more challenging it can be. I'm happy to see for someone who has not played PC, on the highest levels can state "can quickly make things too easy" which is a flawed in so many ways.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Well on Sargent level my cat could also do that. I think your response is really biased.. (Play on Rommel ). Then report back...

I believe I played on Colonel or General for the first playthrough. In my opinion, games should be balanced on "normal". PC isn't. My comments concern a reproducable result. Play through all the DLC starting in 1939 and check if the Soviets offer much opposition by 1943.

If you have a campaign with that many linked scenarios, attempts should be made to balance the entire campaign, or it quickly becomes uninteresting. I faced that issue with both PG2 and with PC. The core you could create was just too good.

Fewer player prestige and experience or something like additional AI strength should not be required. Sure, it's a nice option for those who want an additional challenge, but it should not be a requirement to keep the game interesting during a campaign.

The campaign for the original PC, which I tested, was OK, but in the DLC the attempt to link a large number of scenarios without offering multiple versions of the scenarios (with various starting strengths based on which DLC you started with), can quickly make things too easy after a certain point.

[ComradeP]

You seem to feel games should not be balanced on "normal" difficulty (100% is "normal"), but should require significant advantages for the AI before they are challenging to some extent. I disagree. A game should not require significant advantages for the AI in terms of prestige and unit experience, or something like fewer player turns, to be challenging.

To me, it's a campaign design issue if you have a very long campaign, don't offer scenario variants to provide any kind of scaling to account for a better core, and have to give the AI serious advantages from the start to keep things interesting. Sadly, that was one element where PC was no different from PG.

A higher difficult will presumably also make the game much more puzzle-like, as there's a much narrower margin for error.

You're essentially saying the player, not the designer, is responsible for how difficult a game is.

[rodney727]

Again while I respect your thoughts... I do feel the need to step in and respond when people make false statements about a game in which I like. It's good to read , and to see you back track and try to justify playing on easy levels. So thank you. Imagine buying a game with only one difficulty level! Please post more on your thoughts I'm enjoying this.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

You seem to feel games should not be balanced on "normal" difficulty (100% is "normal"), but should require significant advantages for the AI before they are challenging to some extent. I disagree. A game should not require significant advantages for the AI in terms of prestige and unit experience, or something like fewer player turns, to be challenging.

To me, it's a campaign design issue if you have a very long campaign, don't offer scenario variants to provide any kind of scaling to account for a better core, and have to give the AI serious advantages from the start to keep things interesting. Sadly, that was one element where PC was no different from PG.

A higher difficult will presumably also make the game much more puzzle-like, as there's a much narrower margin for error.

You're essentially saying the player, not the designer, is responsible for how difficult a game is.

[ComradeP]

I play on "normal", or whatever it is called in a certain game. I judge a game based on how balanced it is on that level. You might find it silly, but I find the very idea that the player should balance the game, not the designer, rather odd.

To me, that is one of the reasons why so many wargames have a simplistic AI, that doesn't put up much of a fight: those games often include ways to give bonuses to the AI, or penalties to the player, which to the designer somehow justified the mediocre performance of the actual AI.

If I would give myself 50% prestige, or the AI 150% or 200%, and some additional experience, it still doesn't make the actual AI better. At best, it gives it more to work with, but it can quickly feel quite artificial. For example, with more prestige the chance of a wall of units problem increases, where the AI places conscripts or some other cheap units around an objective so you can't take it on time.

Various penalties and bonuses also don't tackle the problem of having different campaign starting points, but just single scenarios regardless of the starting point.

[GrumpyMel]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Again with this... Guess Warsaw is located in France then? Nonsense !

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

There is literally nothing about PC that can be described as 'realistic' or 'historically accurate'.

These are not 'simulation' wargames and it's absurd to try to hold them to a standard that they have no interest in meeting. PC, like UoC and similar titles, are puzzle games with a theme of WW2 set on their rules. It's ridiculous to talk about unit designations and map historicity when really we're playing with counters on a map board in a computer. The only thing that matters is if the puzzle is interesting or not.

I have to agree with Alchenar on this. Don't get me wrong, PC is a fun beer n' pretzels game but as far as historical accuracy, it really doesn't enter in to the equation. Some of the maps are better then others but mostly it's not even trying for historical accuracy. Compare that to some of the more Grognard games like WitE or Decisive Campaigns or TOAW or even some of the Advanced Tactics scenario's and that starts to become evident.

I've played a bit of GaW so far and you can definately feel it's a bit better in that regard but it's still pretty beer n' pretzels which is perfectly enjoyable when you are in the mood for that.

[Erik2]

I was on the beta-team for PzC (the expansions).
My comments were mostly directed at the lack of historical formations and wrong Equipment types.
But I think it is fair to say that the devs prioritized fun and play balance above historcal correctness.
An example: I have designed a company-level scenario on Crete-1941 for TOAW and Decisive Battles. Very detailed and probably as correct OOB and equipment-wise as you can get it. The PzC versions have very little resemblance to the actual campaign, I pointed this out while the Wehrmacht Campaign version, but the Allied Corps Version published a year or so later hade the same design flaws.
I think this is a pity, since it is not that hard to get the facts straight first, then you alter stuff slightly to create a good play Balance and keep the scenario interesting.

To sum it up, I think GAW is going in the right direction and it will be interesting to see where it is headed after the eastern front.

Erik

[colberki]

Excuse me![:D]. Lets stick with the Eastern Front a bit longer. Maybe a1942-44 campaign with a grand encirclement in the Caucasus and Middle East would be very nice. Thanks!

[Erik2]

I was thinking more along a new game in a series which should shift to another front.

But I have got no objections to more eastern front.
If the editor is updated to a more friendly version like Ronald have suggested, I would like to create a scenario on the German attempt to launch a Kirkenes-Murmansk operation.

[Jakse]

My vote may not count for much, but compared with PzC I have two thoughts. This game is horrendously ugly compared to Panzer Corps. This game is way more fun than Panzer Corps. Part of it is that I have the same horrid Intel Chipset that Alchenar who posted in the tech area does. That said, it is all the mechanics or PzC but with historical set ups and objectives that are SO MUCH more fun. I am only 7 or 8 maps into the main campaign, but having to kill some units, capture some towns, and occupy some hexes is a fresh addition. I also don't get the puzzle feeling that I have to play a scenario three times for a victory that I do in certain PzC maps. The graphics bother me, but it is so much fun that I hope any lurker that isn't ready for WitE or DC will try this out.

[Jakse]

Rarely would I double post, but I just did the public beta update and holy shit this looks so much better. The text is a thousand times more clear. Thank you for this update and please continue to do awesome stuff like this.

[wodin]

Me too..sorry rogo..PC is no a game I'd put the words historical and realistic...it's a fun puzzle\strat game with a WW2 theme.

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Again with this... Guess Warsaw is located in France then? Nonsense !

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

There is literally nothing about PC that can be described as 'realistic' or 'historically accurate'.

These are not 'simulation' wargames and it's absurd to try to hold them to a standard that they have no interest in meeting. PC, like UoC and similar titles, are puzzle games with a theme of WW2 set on their rules. It's ridiculous to talk about unit designations and map historicity when really we're playing with counters on a map board in a computer. The only thing that matters is if the puzzle is interesting or not.

I have to agree with Alchenar on this. Don't get me wrong, PC is a fun beer n' pretzels game but as far as historical accuracy, it really doesn't enter in to the equation. Some of the maps are better then others but mostly it's not even trying for historical accuracy. Compare that to some of the more Grognard games like WitE or Decisive Campaigns or TOAW or even some of the Advanced Tactics scenario's and that starts to become evident.

I've played a bit of GaW so far and you can definately feel it's a bit better in that regard but it's still pretty beer n' pretzels which is perfectly enjoyable when you are in the mood for that.

[Rosseau]

Over the years, PC/AC series has been polished to a high shine. GaW does not have this advantage. I actually find the interaction of inf/armor/arty/AA/AT/Air much more fun/challenging than in GaW. Also, while the names and maps are more historical in GaW, I have yet to find the game play feeling that much more historical. Admittedly, I have only played AGN so far and the MP experience is better. I like the fact you have to defend your objectives so some crafty human doesn't sneak behind and win the game in one blow.

GaW does have that "one more turn" feeling, but there is also a bit of that "grind" feeling in some scenarios. However, GaW has more varied and realistic "skills" that units receive based on experience. So far, GaW has frustrated me at times with units that do not progress (albeit, following history) or having units to deploy but not hexes to deploy them on.

And, to make matters worse for my budget, I see EUIV on sale for $32 [X(] The temptation is great.

[Templer_12]

In the short time I am a Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 owner, I find enough differences that do not make me regret this purchase (And I was really skeptical here. Just a interesting review gave me courage).

Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 is a "tic" more demanding than Panzer Corps (the right "tic" I say).
And I confirm, Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 is set between Panzer Corps and the Decisive Campaigns series.
The whole "Thing" is fun, really fun.

It's a shame that so many be deterred of the graphics (which I find practical - but of course, it could be improved).
In Operation Barbarossa - The Struggle for Russia the unit grafics were a bit better. [:@]

[Templer_12]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Me too..sorry rogo..PC is no a game I'd put the words historical and realistic...it's a fun puzzle\strat game with a WW2 theme.

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Again with this... Guess Warsaw is located in France then? Nonsense !

I have to agree with Alchenar on this. Don't get me wrong, PC is a fun beer n' pretzels game but as far as historical accuracy, it really doesn't enter in to the equation. Some of the maps are better then others but mostly it's not even trying for historical accuracy. Compare that to some of the more Grognard games like WitE or Decisive Campaigns or TOAW or even some of the Advanced Tactics scenario's and that starts to become evident.

I've played a bit of GaW so far and you can definately feel it's a bit better in that regard but it's still pretty beer n' pretzels which is perfectly enjoyable when you are in the mood for that.

Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 is not a historical Simulation, but a well-made game with which you can spend many happy hours.
There is no reason to discuss whether, if ever, Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 is accurately oriented to historical facts.

[AceDuceTrey]

First, it's certainly good enough to purchase! It is a more realistic wargame than PC at the operational level primarily due to its "improved" handling of logistics (which was the Germans principle failure of Barbarossa). Also (unlike PC) infantry are given far more appropriate combat values (i.e., it's not just another tank war game). Whereas PG and PC were primarily wargames of attrition; GAW abstractly implements "Blitzkrieg" by designating key logistics junctions as objectives to isolate the soviet forces. Thus rapid thrusts by mobile forces can achieve victory without destroying the bulk of the enemy; and, the soviets are given key German logistics sites as well to interdict their operations. Sadly, there are still aspects of attrition in GAW because it still allows units to be instantly rebuilt to full strength if you don't finish them off.