All purpose Panzer General thread

[lord of the mark]

Now that ive gotten the patch installed, im having good fun with Panzer General 2. I'll try to post AAR's, comments etc. I bought the game as a jewel case and so dont have a manual (No PDF with the game, and the one i dled from a PG2 site didnt open in Acrobat) so i may have some questions, but for now im just trying things out.


Please post here your comments, questions, AARs, etc about any game in the 5 star general series - IE Panzer General, Panzer General2, Panzer General 3D, PG3 Scorched Earth, Pacific General, Allied General, etc.

[Urban Ranger]

I have never played PG2. PG3 is an improved version of PG 3D, and the balance is better, i.e., an experienced player doesn't get to steamroller the computer player. It's also got a branching campaign, so the scenarioes available depends on the one chosen in the previous round.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I have never played PG2. PG3 is an improved version of PG 3D, and the balance is better, i.e., an experienced player doesn't get to steamroller the computer player. It's also got a branching campaign, so the scenarioes available depends on the one chosen in the previous round.

In PG2 the scenario you get is dependent on how what happened in previous scenario - Decisive victory, victory, marginal victory, or defeat. No choice involved. If you want to play in a different order, you have to play the individual historical scenario.

[lord of the mark]

Last night i started on my 3rd scen of the blitzkrieg campaign. Having totally screwed up the previous scen, i had almost no infantry, and too few units overall. My force was too unbalanced for this to even be useful as learning, so i will start the campaign afresh next time i play. Didnt last night, as was too busy with real life.

[Grumbold]

PG 3D was pants imho, but I'd like to get my hands on a copy of PG3 SE. Its the only one of the series I never played.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Grumbold
PG 3D was pants imho, but I'd like to get my hands on a copy of PG3 SE. Its the only one of the series I never played.

PG3d was worse than PG2? why?

[Frankychan]

I only played the 1st Panzer General. The whole turn thing just didn't do it for me.....

Best Moment:

I challenged my friend that he couldn't beat me in the first German campaign (take the 2 Polish cities in 10 turns, I believe). I told him to be the Germans and he readily accepted.

Anyway, as Polish General I had some of my infantry and calvary units engage his attack force to stall for time. I left a token garrison in the first city, while building up my men in the 2nd. He laughed at the "pathetic" resistance I left in the first city, thinking that's all I had....until he saw my main defense.

Lets just say I won......

(then he had to challenge me in PTO and I lost.)

[Urban Ranger]

Never played PG2, so I can't compare it to PG3D. In PG3D (and PG3), a unit can do things as long as it has actions, and number of actions the unit has depends on the rank of the leader. Also, leaders can have two different sort of specials one is unique to his specialty (infantry, armour, etc.), and the other one is a bit random. Both are very helpful.

Leaders can be killed if his unit is destroyed, unless he has the Survivor special. Leaders increase in rank as you promote them, and number of promotions you get is somewhat influenced by the victory you get in the previous scenario.

In PG3D, a leader takes up more slots as he increases in rank, while in PG3, they all take up one slot. Other changes include: AA guns are weakened, second decoration (special) comes in at a random time, and armour leaders get a better special.

There are some types of actions a unit can't perform if the leader doesn't match unit (e.g. leader is anti-tank while unit is armour). Actually this is optional but I always turn it on.

Both are quite good, but PG3 is a definite improvement. It's too bad they haven't come out one for the Pacific theatre.

[VetLegion]

I've played PG3D and didn't manage to play more than two scenarios. An atrocious game.

Panzer General II on the other hand

Some general tips about PG II:

0. The obvious. Never only wound/damage enemy units. Always kill. It is better to kill one unit than to damage three, even if you manage to heavily damage them.

1. It is surest to win if you develop a good airforce. While you can play with only one or two fighters, it can be very frustrating in later scenarios when enemy gets really strong planes. Dragging AA guns around is pretty impractical, and they are not very good at getting expirience either. With a good airforce, which means at least four modern fighters and if possible, more (buy in early scenarios to get them expirienced), you can have a control of the skies, which is invaluable.

2. Spend auxiliary units or get own units expirienced? Use auxiliary ones for recon and tricky advancing into unknown. But always use your own units to finish enemy units, because that brings most expirience.

3. Spend some prestige on overstrengthening your tanks. It does wonders for their overrun ability.

4. Never, if you can help it, buy replacements on the field. I never did it.

5. Infantry eats tanks in cities.

6. Tactical advice: destroy unit by unit. I often get carried by the moment and do something like when having four enemy infantry to kill, I decide I can take down three with a tank when I weaken them, so I first weaken all three (say, two with an artillery shot, one with a bomber) and then move in the tank only to have it fail to overrun first unit (kill without overrun, or fail to kill) which leaves two of his units alive and me slowed for at least a turn. So, the rule is: Move, than shoot immediately, and go for one at the time.

7. Do buy a recon unit or two. Playing a couple of turns just to explore the map, or reloading after getting ambushed, you cheat yourself of suspense which is a great part of the game. However, if having lost a unit with a commander, people generally do reload.

8. Stay focused on the objectives. In scenarios like France, don't go around capturing flags with your fighting units. Do try to capture as many flags as possible, but it pays off to buy a cheap recon unit or two just for this task.

9. Don't delay taking cities until you kill all the units around them. Go straight for the city flag tile and kill whatever is left afterwards. Each turn enemy possesses a city, it brings him prestige (which means he can sometimes buy a very tricky unit and slow you down even more)

10. Always kill the strongest enemy units first. Especially tanks. You can usually ignore infantry for longer, as they do not overrun. Killing an enemy tank with a commander can be quite tricky. Usually, it is best to use bombers for this (one more reason why you need a strong fighter airforce). But in case air support isn't available, this is a an exception to the move-shoot rule. You may want to surround the tank before firing a shot. When surrounded, unit can't retreat so if it has strength of 6 and you kill 2 and suppress 4, it is dead.

11. Usually objectives are apart and you will have to form two groups of units. I try to have two big artillery in each (for softening) and at least one good engineer infantry (for killing well entrenched enemy infantry in a hurry). Also one recon and the rest are tanks. I do most of the kills with overstrength tanks and I like to have at least two bombers since they are more mobile than artillery so they can be moved around to where needed.

12. I was never sure does it pay more expirience wise to go for brilliant victory, or to use the couple turns to tactical victory for mopping up and getting expirience and distant flags. Ofcourse, you can't get a prototype unit this way, but they are only useful if you get a god airplane. What do you think?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I've played PG3D and didn't manage to play more than two scenarios. An atrocious game.

Why?

[Grumbold]

Primarily the leader system. In PG 1 and 2 it was the unit that mattered. If they were hardened veterans then they were solid troops and you prized them highly. In PG3d you could parachute a leader onto a new unit and turn it into the best unit you ever had.

I also hated the tension between unit numbers and leader quality. Any leader you used a lot got unfeasibly expensive. Fielding Rommel in Africa didn't mean they had to mothball the 15th Pz Div because he was attached to the 21st Them getting rid of this was the primary reason I wanted to play PG3 SE

I am also a fan of being able to upgrade equipment, which was far more restricted. Not a major pain, but building an awesome army was always part of the appeal for me.

The 3d terrain I found hard to deal with. It was not obvious why certain tiles were extremely effective at blocking LOS. In PG 1,2 it was obvious which tiles had been patrolled and which were dodgy. In PG3 it was far harder to tell but the scenarios were so time limited that you could not proceed with caution or afford to get continually ambushed.

The 3d look didn't add to the appeal of the game either. It made it feel more like playing with toy models, funnily enough.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Primarily the leader system. In PG 1 and 2 it was the unit that mattered. If they were hardened veterans then they were solid troops and you prized them highly. In PG3d you could parachute a leader onto a new unit and turn it into the best unit you ever had.

I don't think they are new units. They are units that are available to your HQ that you can choose. Besides, in PG3D, you rarely add new units. The only time that happened to me is when an existing leader dies and I need to fill that slot.

Originally posted by Grumbold
I also hated the tension between unit numbers and leader quality.

That was done mainly to balance the game.

Originally posted by Grumbold
Any leader you used a lot got unfeasibly expensive.

It may seem that way. However, a unit with a level 10 leader really are at least as good as 3 similar units with a low level leader - particularly for artillery.

Originally posted by Grumbold
I am also a fan of being able to upgrade equipment, which was far more restricted.

You can always drop your leaders into newer units.

Originally posted by Grumbold
The 3d terrain I found hard to deal with. It was not obvious why certain tiles were extremely effective at blocking LOS.

IIRC, the manual explains this. Also, certain units can camouflage, and you don't spot them until you are up close. At any rate, you can use terrain to your own advantage too.

Originally posted by Grumbold
In PG3 it was far harder to tell but the scenarios were so time limited that you could not proceed with caution or afford to get continually ambushed.

I suppose you mean PG3D? Usually, where the enemy puts hidden units are generally logical in a scenario. E.g. at a choke point, in a village or city, etc.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Panzer General II on the other hand

Some general tips about PG II:

Good tips, I'll add a few.

I generally aim for a force of abound 6 fighters 4 bombers 4 arty 1-2 pionere inf 1 bridge inf, and 2-3 SS, 2 recon and 6 tanks. Sometimes for fun I've had an 88 AT gun. If I get a cool prototype that may change the numbers a bit.

This force is also good for splitting into 2, 3, or 4 smaller groups.

Focus on overrun kills. Arty and bombers are great for setting up a tank to get 3 or more kills in a turn.

While the enemy still has an airforce keep your bombers next to your fighters and try to have them above your arty. When attacking their airforce try to hit from opposite sides so that if you can't finish it off it won't be able to get away.

I often will intentionally not get Brilliant victory in Dunkirk so that I can do England in 43 which allows you to upgrade your units to better shape for taking out the US. Otherwise you go from 41 in Russia to 45 in the US and you only get enough to upgrade about half your force.

I don't know if you get more for the extra objectives than for a BV.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't think they are new units. They are units that are available to your HQ that you can choose. Besides, in PG3D, you rarely add new units. The only time that happened to me is when an existing leader dies and I need to fill that slot.

true, but if Rommel moves from one unit to another, the former behaves like a bunch of rookies while the next magically becomes Elite. This applies across diverse unit types so it isnt just the same troops getting an equipment upgrade.

That was done mainly to balance the game.

Not in a way I like. Force pool strength and prestige balanced it nicely in the previous games while providing an advantage to those who had excelled in nurturing their troops.

It may seem that way. However, a unit with a level 10 leader really are at least as good as 3 similar units with a low level leader - particularly for artillery.

Possibly, although you needed a viable number of troops. Personally I *hated* going from one scenario to the next and actually fielding less units than before because my leaders had advanced faster than my maximum leader/force pool limit.

You can always drop your leaders into newer units.

You could not upgrade all your tanks if you had the prestige. You were limited to your equipment pool which was not improved by prestige. So you were being limited by equipment availability date, equipment availability in the pool, prestige AND leader mix. Too many mismatched limits imho. Tank units may have got fielded with bad leaders, but not with a pilot because no army personnel were available

IIRC, the manual explains this. Also, certain units can camouflage, and you don't spot them until you are up close. At any rate, you can use terrain to your own advantage too.

It does, I just don't like it when you're pushed to move very fast and you can't reconnoiter in force like an army could. The 2d system was more elegant.

I suppose you mean PG3D? Usually, where the enemy puts hidden units are generally logical in a scenario. E.g. at a choke point, in a village or city, etc.

Um, yes. I pointed out I dont have PG3SE yet. Unit placing is logical at mission start and I'm not moaning about tearing into a town only to get shot to pieces. That is a dumb mistake anyone should be cured of in PG1

With the turn by turn nature of the game units fall back out of visible range all too easily when an advancing army would normally remain in contact. In PG1&2 recon units etc can be relied upon. In 3d a unit can be one tile away and hidden. Recon view range isn't because they have bigger binoculars, it should be active patrol elements peering into these nooks and crannies

A lot of this stuff is purely subjective but for *me* PG1 & 2 were lots more fun than PG 3d. I suggest you try them out since they're games I would heartily recommend. Changing the leader "weight" is enough of a change for me to be keen to try 3 SE and see how much I like it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Grumbold
true, but if Rommel moves from one unit to another, the former behaves like a bunch of rookies while the next magically becomes Elite. This applies across diverse unit types so it isnt just the same troops getting an equipment upgrade.

As I pointed out, advanced options is not available to a leader if he changes to a different type of unit, IIRC. So Rommel can't make an arti unit to do Bombard, say.

Originally posted by Grumbold
Not in a way I like. Force pool strength and prestige balanced it nicely in the previous games while providing an advantage to those who had excelled in nurturing their troops.

I can't really comment on that. I know a few elite units can tear through the enemy defense much faster than a large number of normal units, simply because they have each have so many actions available.

Originally posted by Grumbold
Possibly, although you needed a viable number of troops. Personally I *hated* going from one scenario to the next and actually fielding less units than before because my leaders had advanced faster than my maximum leader/force pool limit.

I agree that's quite rude, though experience shows that increase in ranking outweighs having more units. For example, 3 units of artillery at rank 3 each vs 1 unit of artillery at rank 9. The 3 units at rank 3 can't do anything, can't even move at maximum without risking taking extra casualties. OTOH, the rank 9 piece can zip through the map, blast the heck out of a few enemy pieces, and still get actions left over for resupply.

Originally posted by Grumbold
You could not upgrade all your tanks if you had the prestige. You were limited to your equipment pool which was not improved by prestige. So you were being limited by equipment availability date, equipment availability in the pool, prestige AND leader mix.

That seems to be more realistic to me Anyway, usually you don't have the problem in PG3D as fewer and fewer units are under your command. In PG3, that generally do not matter much because high ranking leaders aren't that common. Also, generally there is sufficient hardware available for you, even if you don't get the most advanced equipment for all the units. Which makes sense because you're just leading one of the groups.

Originally posted by Grumbold
Too many mismatched limits imho. Tank units may have got fielded with bad leaders, but not with a pilot because no army personnel were available

Not sure what you are saying here. Though fighters and antitanks don't need matching leaders. Esp fighters. They just need loads of actions.

Originally posted by Grumbold
It does, I just don't like it when you're pushed to move very fast and you can't reconnoiter in force like an army could. The 2d system was more elegant.

Your group doesn't move very fast anyway, because artillery (towed) move got 3 movement max. And I am not going to go anywhere without the arti pieces

Originally posted by Grumbold
That is a dumb mistake anyone should be cured of in PG1

Nof if they didn't start that way

Originally posted by Grumbold
In PG1&2 recon units etc can be relied upon. In 3d a unit can be one tile away and hidden. Recon view range isn't because they have bigger binoculars, it should be active patrol elements peering into these nooks and crannies

Recon units still have a longer view range, and there's an action for you to send active patrol out that further increases your range. Besides, they get their first movement free.

Originally posted by Grumbold
Changing the leader "weight" is enough of a change for me to be keen to try 3 SE and see how much I like it.

SE is harder than PG3D because of the adjustments made. More of a challenge, though.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
As I pointed out, advanced options is not available to a leader if he changes to a different type of unit, IIRC. So Rommel can't make an arti unit to do Bombard, say.

Advanced options, no, but they get all the benefits of multiple actions while the former unit loses them. So quality of the tropps under command counts for absolutely nothing, the leader is everything. In PG1/2 if the 15th Panzer excelled in Poland, Norway and France it would be veteran troops in the next mission no matter who led them or what tanks they were given to drive.

Not sure what you are saying here. Though fighters and antitanks don't need matching leaders. Esp fighters. They just need loads of actions.

A unit should be commanded by an appropriate commander, no matter how incompetent. You should never have to match up a pilot leader with an artillery brigade or have a tank commander flying a stuka because of mismatches in the force pool/leader pool.

All in all, its just that PG2 did this much better, so PG3d was actually change for the sake of change that made the gameplay and the historical accuracy worse. I'd rather feel like I'm driving on Moscow with a slightly strange army than that I'm playing toy soldiers in a sand pit. PG3d feels more like the latter

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I've played PG3D and didn't manage to play more than two scenarios. An atrocious game.

Panzer General II on the other hand

Some general tips about PG II:

0. The obvious. Never only wound/damage enemy units. Always kill. It is better to kill one unit than to damage three, even if you manage to heavily damage them.

1. It is surest to win if you develop a good airforce. While you can play with only one or two fighters, it can be very frustrating in later scenarios when enemy gets really strong planes. Dragging AA guns around is pretty impractical, and they are not very good at getting expirience either. With a good airforce, which means at least four modern fighters and if possible, more (buy in early scenarios to get them expirienced), you can have a control of the skies, which is invaluable.

2. Spend auxiliary units or get own units expirienced? Use auxiliary ones for recon and tricky advancing into unknown. But always use your own units to finish enemy units, because that brings most expirience.

3. Spend some prestige on overstrengthening your tanks. It does wonders for their overrun ability.

4. Never, if you can help it, buy replacements on the field. I never did it.

5. Infantry eats tanks in cities.

6. Tactical advice: destroy unit by unit. I often get carried by the moment and do something like when having four enemy infantry to kill, I decide I can take down three with a tank when I weaken them, so I first weaken all three (say, two with an artillery shot, one with a bomber) and then move in the tank only to have it fail to overrun first unit (kill without overrun, or fail to kill) which leaves two of his units alive and me slowed for at least a turn. So, the rule is: Move, than shoot immediately, and go for one at the time.

Zero - yeah, ive figured that out.

1 - hmm, 4 fighters? i dont want to overload on air - ive heard thats a bit of an exploit - or is that fixed in PG2? 4 fighters sounds reasonable, though

2. thats tricky, trying to use core units and NOT lose them - im still getting the hang of it.

3. Havent tried either overstrength or overrun yet.


4. Really??? Why not?


5. Yeah, Ive figured that out too.


6. Sounds right

[Grumbold]

4 fighters is good by the later scenarios, but by then you'll have 4 of most things...

You should rarely lose cores if you make sure to support them (arty behind your inf, fighters over the arty etc) but its bound to happen from time to time if you are strict about never reloading.

Overstrength and overrun are both very useful.

I do use replacements during battle when I have to. Its a loss of prestige but if it means the unit gets to fight on then its well worth it since they usually earn more prestige back. If its nearing the end of the scenario dont do it unless you plan to take them overstrength.

Infantry are mincemeat to tanks in cities too, provided you've softened them up enough that their entrenchment level is comfortably below the experience level of the armour.

On the 'kill, not wound' arguement, its normally true, but there are occasions when it is not so. If you can get 3 units adjacent to an enemy it cannot reinforce. Bomb a line of those units and they all either die in a turn or two or have to pull back in an attempt to reinforce. That can pull a whole line out of entrenchments into positions where they are easier to kill. As long as you advance and maintain contact you have gained ground, removed their entrenchments and lost nothing.

When you're trying to get experience for new troops allowing a weak enemy unit to escape and reinforce is also quite nice. Meanwhile your elite troops are doing the real work.

[BeBro]

I played Allied General and I think what you call PG2 (there's confusion since it was sold in Germany as PG3D, and the real 3D was sold as PG4 I believe). Also I played Peoples General which uses the same game engine and gfx style as PG2, but plays in modern times (I can only recommend it), and Pacific General which is similar to Allied general in graphical aspects.

I liked these games very much, esp. the concept of the core units which get experience and are used for a whole campaign.

To the air force discussion: yes, experienced fighters are a must, as well as good strike aircraft. In some cases (eg. British Mosquitos) they are quite capable in defending themselves against enemy fighters, so you can compromize here, and go perhaps for more of them instead of more fighters.

Something about anti-tank guns, but especially for tank destroyers in AlliedGen and PG2 (and clones): they are supposed to be used for defense, so move offensively, but fight defensively with them against enemy tanks unless they are very experienced. This goes esp. for US/UK TDs against later German tanks.

You might also think of having paras in your core forces for taking objectives far away - it can be tricky, since they must have a bit experience before they are effective, and there's a certain risk that you run into unknown resistance when dropping them far behind enemy lines, but OTOH they can be quite useful

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Advanced options, no, but they get all the benefits of multiple actions while the former unit loses them. So quality of the tropps under command counts for absolutely nothing, the leader is everything.

I don't think performing multiple actions is a sign of a better unit. Performing advanced actions, on the other hand, is. It's just me, though

Originally posted by Grumbold
A unit should be commanded by an appropriate commander, no matter how incompetent.

You can do that most of the time, just that with a bad leader, your unit is going to suck.

Originally posted by Grumbold
so PG3d was actually change for the sake of change that made the gameplay and the historical accuracy worse

You don't think getting any equipment you wanted is ahistorial?

[lord of the mark]

dang - with the help of the above comments i was close to a brilliant victory in the polish scena, i had a leader and all that, and the game crashed

Even with the patch (v1.02) the game is still buggy, at least on my system. Gotta remember to save.

[BeBro]

Another note: suppression can be very useful, esp. in scns where you get strategic bombers (I never had them in my core army, though).

I remember a scn in Allied General were the German AI had a nasty Jagdtiger unit which inflicted heavy losses when I played it the first time. In later tries I bombarded it, and surrounded it so that it couldn't get supplies or reinforcements. IIRC bombarding a unit with a strategic bomber does not only suppress, but it also reduces its ammo, so after two bombardments and some attacking the Jagdtiger was left without any capability to fight back. I think PG2 this works too, since it is very similar gameplay-wise.

So if you cannot kill dangerous enemies at once, sometimes you can at least suppress them so that they cannot act effectively against you.

Suppression or air support can also help if you use paras as I posted above for taking objectives behind the front lines

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Frankychan
I only played the 1st Panzer General.

I challenged my friend that he couldn't beat me in the first German campaign (take the 2 Polish cities in 10 turns, I believe). I told him to be the Germans and he readily accepted.

Anyway, as Polish General I had some of my infantry and calvary units engage his attack force to stall for time. I left a token garrison in the first city, while building up my men in the 2nd. He laughed at the "pathetic" resistance I left in the first city, thinking that's all I had....until he saw my main defense.

Lets just say I won......

Actually, this first scenario was almost impossible to win as Germans against half-competent human opponent. As you say, just buy some units and stall for time - Germans don't have enough units to break through fast enough for a victory.

Ditto Barbarossa. Was simply incredibly easy as Russians.

Kursk, on the other hand, was almost impossible to win as Russians. Kursk as Russians was the most difficult scenario I've ever seen in a computer game. Civ III on Sid is easy in comparison

First PG was really good. *Fond memories*. PG2 was OK. From there, it was all downhill.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ErikM
First PG was really good. *Fond memories*. PG2 was OK. From there, it was all downhill.

Same reason why we veteran Civvers find the original the best.

[Oncle Boris]

If I can mind a comment about PG2- the point of Brilliant victories, is that they are increasingly harder to get as they net you less prestige. It's the highest challenge.

[Tamerlin]

I will come back to this thread later as I don't have much time this week end. I am just popping here to write that some people have adapted People's General (IMO the best gaming engine of the General Serie) so that you can use all the PG II units and scenarios with... People's General.

It's called People's General: World War II (or PG: WWII) and can be found here:

http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/PEG_DOWNLOADS.asp

P.S.: all those interested in WWII wargames should give Strategic Command a try.

[lord of the mark]

I have enjoyed the game thus far - had some difficulty with the Finland scen, which required more strategic approach than the first two scens

[Urban Ranger]

I found SSI's Clash of Steel - Future Edition online, which is sort of similar to Strategic Command AFAICT. Simplified, it seems.

[Tamerlin]

Post edited in order to remove an unauthorized link...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
You can find many older games at this website:



Beware: there are some Gator pop-ups today

tamerlin: The owners of this site do not allow links to the above site. Please edit your post, so this thread does not get deleted.