Can Germany win the overall Campaign?

[TonyUk]

I have all the DLC's except the last one, and have not played for around 3 months. I have a feeling that know matter
how well the Germans perform, they will always end up back in Berlin or thereabouts. Now if Germany gains Moscow/Stalingrad or whatever, that should knock Soviet Union out of the war, and only leave the western allies to deal with. There should be no question of going to Citadelle or Bagration if Germany wins in 1942.

Somehow I think not, and this is what prevents me from playing the game. I am a HOI3 player and the incentive is to change the course of the war if playing as Germany. In Panzer General causing a stalemate in the Ardennes caused a peace settlement. So in PC can Germany actually win the war, or at least force a stalemate at the end?

[RPKUPK]

I hear you. I am quite disappointed that no matter how well the player does, such as decisive victory, the war front or war itself continues to be lost. The whole campaign is pointless. Why have a simulation then?! Why not just read a history book? The upcoming Panzer Corps campaign '45 will be the same thing. A loss. Then will come the onslaught of the Mediterranean or Afrika Panzer Corps. Guess what will happen, despite ALL decisive victories? Germany loses Africa, then Sicily, then Italy then the War. Surprised? Don't be. The games is seriously flawed. I'm not going to waste my money anymore.

[TonyUk]

ORIGINAL: RPKUPK

I hear you. I am quite disappointed that no matter how well the player does, such as decisive victory, the war front or war itself continues to be lost. The whole campaign is pointless. Why have a simulation then?! Why not just read a history book? The upcoming Panzer Corps campaign '45 will be the same thing. A loss. Then will come the onslaught of the Mediterranean or Afrika Panzer Corps. Guess what will happen, despite ALL decisive victories? Germany loses Africa, then Sicily, then Italy then the War. Surprised? Don't be. The games is seriously flawed. I'm not going to waste my money anymore.

Quite right, there is no motivation for me to play and end up up losing anyway. There has to be a reasonable chance
of changing history, otherwise pointless. I think they should have the scenarios for skirmish mode only, but have one continuos campaign 1939-1945 and that means Western, Eastern and North Africa all in one. Ok Japan can be a separate Pacific campaign 1941-5. Then you would have a decent game.

[greykemp@gmail.com]

I seriously suggest TonyUk and RPKUPK start their own game company called Wild Fantasy Adventures. Seriously. You can declare victory by playing any scenario and winning as the Germans. Realisticly the question would otherwise be...what now?
Let's say the Germans "win" in Russia. Now considering how opposed Communism and Facism are, not to mention Russians vs Germans it's hard to see how Russia would be "knocked out of the war". Among other things most of the problems the Russians had in 42/43 were because they were moving all their heavy industry east so losing Moscow/Stalingrad would not have been a war winner. However, lets say it happens. Now Germany needs to occupy 8, 649, 500 square miles of the Soviet Union...Exactly HOW are they going to send anyone to fight the Western Allies? Their entire population (including Austria) in 1940 was only 79,375,000 people including women and kids. 91 Germans per square mile if they empty the homeland and all move to Russia. BTW, the "White Russian" population, not including the Union countires was 115,000,000 approx. in 1940.

Then, how are they going to get across the Atlantic ocean. Assuming they can take AND OCCUPY England.So, make up any fantasies you want but don't get angry that a fantasy "operational" game doesn't let Germany conquer the world.

[RPKUPK]

DigIn is shallow in the strategic realities of WWI! The whole goal of the war for Germany was to seize natural resources (oil, farmland, etc.) and room to expand her peoples. If, I said, "IF" a few decisions were made differently, such as completing the capture of Dunkirk to cut off the retreating British and French--Britain would have been unable to defend herself leaving the British Isles open for invasion and conquest. "IF" Germany had continued to knock out radar and airfield at the Battle of Britain the battle may have turned out very differently. "IF" Germany made the decision to produce long-range bombers to reach the Urals or the US this would altered the industrial advantage the Allies had. "IF" Germany had not diverted new wonder weapon production from fighters to bombers they may have not lost the war due to loss of air superiority. "IF", Germany had conquered Western European Russia it would have had enormous consequences in that Germany would have diverted industrial production to submarine warfare to strangle sea cargo to Britain and perhaps making D-Day, the invasion of Europe impossible. A Russian collapse might have allowed just ONE panzer division, and/or ONE Luflotte and/or ONE submarine fleet to be transferred to the Mediterranean and North Africa theater allowing the Afrika Korps and Italy to seize the Middle eastern oil fields closing down the Suez canal!So DigIn, DON'T tell me strategic battles as represented in Panzer Corp (HELLO! battles called Stalingrad, and Kursk, and Ardennes) were not meaningful???!. Perhaps the game disingenuously represents them as such with the weird game model of playing operational style battle on huge strategic map levels. Likewise, if this game were called "Allied general" what "IF" the Allies had not rushed into Belgium in May 1940, or counterattacked Germany in September 1939, or been more aggressive in the North African campaign, or had not set Operation Market Garden in motion, or had prduced a long-range fighter earlier? Do you NOW get the point? There is no "IF" in the Panzer Corps expansion campaign series.
AND, look at what happens in a Panzer Corp "decisive victory." Usually to get that victory level the Germans wipe out EVERY unit on the map!! How TOTALLY unrealistic is that?! Battle after battle! And, **YAWN** don't fall back on your "operational" explanation. Look at the battle maps---Paris, Warsaw, Stalingrad, Kursk, Moscow. Strategic areas--industry, national capitols--with a flawed game engine fought at a goofy operational level.
OK, now you can see that though Panzer Corps is interesting to play--**Bang, Bang**, medals, and awards, BIG Deal. It's a very flawed game design and BORING. Its STUPID to play strategic battle after battle (with a flawed operational engine), win a decisive victories, yet have no consequence on the war's outcome. As I said folks, don't waste your time! Go read a book.

[VPaulus]

There's a lot of people who wanted the historical path.
Please stop calling people STUPID because they appreciate this kind of approach. Because if it's BORING for you it isn't for the others.

[Shawkhan]

It would be nice to add a few extra battles after decisive victories in some of the scenarios. The idea of a single Panzer Corps single-handedly winning WWII is a bit naive to say the least. The ability to mitigate the short-term situation would be reasonable however. To successfully withdraw from Stalingrad for instance, is a significant achievement. Allowing a larger core in a following battle and a possibility of perhaps an earlier Kursk subsequent to a victory at Stalingrad would be an example of how the game could be modified to reflect overwhelming success. It would take imagination and a good grasp of the possible alternative history involved in order to see this become a reality. There will probably be some modder who will eventually undertake this worthy objective. The overall outcome of the war would still take place somewhere in the vicinity of Berlin however.

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: RPKUPK

OK, now you can see that though Panzer Corps is interesting to play--**Bang, Bang**, medals, and awards, BIG Deal. It's a very flawed game design and BORING. Its STUPID to play strategic battle after battle (with a flawed operational engine), win a decisive victories, yet have no consequence on the war's outcome. As I said folks, don't waste your time! Go read a book.

Then why in the world did you buy and play every DLC?[&:]

[James Ward]

Germany can win the standard campaign, just knock out Russia, Britian and the USA.
The DLC do not depict as large of an area as the standard campaign, they only depict smaller secotrs of the front. While ou can do great and get nothing but DV's in the DLC, Moe Larry and Curly who are commanding other sectors of the front do not do so hot so you can't really 'win' the war in the DLC's. You can just win your sector.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Germany can win the standard campaign, just knock out Russia, Britian and the USA.
The DLC do not depict as large of an area as the standard campaign, they only depict smaller secotrs of the front. While ou can do great and get nothing but DV's in the DLC, Moe Larry and Curly who are commanding other sectors of the front do not do so hot so you can't really 'win' the war in the DLC's. You can just win your sector.

Regardless of all this, I love the DLC's and own every one of them. It's just fun.

[rodney727]

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

There's a lot of people who wanted the historical path.
Please stop calling people STUPID because they appreciate this kind of approach. Because if it's BORING for you it isn't for the others.

+1