So yeah, maybe another chance to turn things around would be nice, given as option. But that is what many historians argue, if it would be better gameplay wise to give people another chance for invasion of England, hmm, that's somehing to argue about. The thing is, you cannot turn the war around at this point anymore.
#PANZER CORPS STALINGRAD UPGRADE#
Then upgrade to Tigers and Panhers and FW190 and overstrength and hope you can decisively win Kursk. So just play defensively and gain oodles of Prestige, preserve strength. Yes, there is Stalingrad, but we rather move into the city and take the Crimea and oil fields, all that things, rather than fighting for Stalingrad. I also think this scenario should be called CAUCASUS. You also seem to get the same prestige amount, regardless if you win or lose Stalingrad, for Kursk. Or Italy in some cases, if England is still in, but only for a Major Victory. You are right, it's WIN/MARGINAL/LOSS -> Kursk. I was once better, but I apparently got rusty and instead of kicking England and Russia out of the War, here we are. I am at the Stalingrad scenario right now. So I wonder what the newly founded Panzer Corps Steam community makes of this. Obviously I don't expect the devs to make such a massive surgical strike into a game that is almost 3 years old, but is this a missed opportunity? You can (and people have) make this sort of campaign in scenario editor, but there's a difference between player-created scenarios and main campaign line. Now that's an interesting scenario or two, which would give more variability to mid-war Eastern front. Victory at Stalingrad would give Germans opportunity and resources to strike into Russia proper in a speculative 1943 offensive - upstream the Volga river against Saratov, Samara, Kazan and Nizhniy Novgorod, giving them alternate starting position against Moscow in 1943. Personally, I would welcome a bit more speculative what-if scenarios in the main campaing.
The Kursk pocket was created by Soviet operations Mars and Saturn after encirclement of Stalingrad and following German counter-attack at 3rd battle of Charkov. why bother if no matter what I do, I get to Kursk?įrom historical, or rather alternate historical point of view - if Germans had won the Stalingrad campaign, hence the Soviet counter-offensives between December '42 and March '43 failed, there wouldn't be any battle of Kursk. I would outright put my forces in danger, leave open flanks, sacrifice some inferior untis and drive motorized infantry in harm's way in trucks, just to get that decisive victory. This game is so good at getting the gamer at the edge of his chair, rushing his forces to flag objectives and make that decisive (major) victory in time. This basically makes Stalingrad scenario pointless campaign-path-wise, because no matter how you do at Stalingrad, you end up at Kursk. Sealion is moved to 1942 and if you miss that, the best you can manage is to push Overlord back to the sea and get peace with the Western Allies. But it could be won.īut in Panzer Corps main campaign, unless you beat Moscow on the first try in '41, you can't win the Western front. It was hell harder than Sealion '40, as the Allies were much stronger and more fortified, US were in the war fulltime, while you don't have the Italian fleet aid option. This basically allowed you to finish of USSR in time to get at Sealion '43. In the original PG1, if you won Stalingrad on Major victory, you went to Moscow '42. So please, skip the noob-calling.Īll of the following is under assumption you didn't achieved major victories in Low Countries and France in 1940.
First of all, I am a veteran Panzer General I & II player and I owned and played Panzer Corps way before it's made its appearance on Steam.
0 kommentar(er)
