Panzer Corps 2

As a veteran of Panzer General and Panzer Corps 1, I consider Panzer Corps 2 a deeply flawed sequel — not because it is difficult, but because it actively punishes competence and breaks the core design principles that defined the series for decades. The Battle of Moscow ’41 exposes everything that is wrong with the game’s campaign and scenario design. Even a technically correct victory requires constant reinforcement, unavoidable attrition, and massive prestige bleed. I finished the scenario with roughly 600 prestige despite careful play, standard replacements only, and preserving my experienced core. The next scenario (Kharkov) then assumes a rebuilt, functional army — with no compensation whatsoever for the economic collapse Moscow forces upon the player. This is not challenge. It is economic sabotage disguised as difficulty. The scenario design is fundamentally broken: Victory hexes are scattered across the entire map, forcing overextension. The player must capture Moscow and immediately endure an overwhelming Soviet counteroffensive. Enemy forces arrive in relentless waves of infantry and heavy armor. There is no meaningful pause, no disengagement option, and no strategic “out”. You either reinforce and bleed prestige, or you lose irreplaceable core units. There is no clever alternative. Skill does not change this outcome. Worse, the game’s economy actively encourages perverse strategies: letting core units die to avoid reinforcement costs, rebuilding them later, abusing AI behavior, or excessive save-scumming. Preserving veteran units — once the heart of Panzer General and Panzer Corps — is now often economically irrational. In Panzer General and Panzer Corps 1, good play was rewarded. Efficiency mattered. Long-term planning mattered. Hard battles could be recovered from. In Panzer Corps 2, long defensive scenarios function as grind traps where prestige drains regardless of how well you play. Winning no longer feels satisfying. It feels like surviving a design mistake. Preempting the Usual Developer Defenses “It’s historical.” Historical difficulty does not justify broken progression. History explains pressure, not mandatory economic collapse. Good historical strategy games translate difficulty into interesting choices — not forced attrition with no player agency. “Just lower the difficulty.” Lowering difficulty does not fix structural problems in scenario pacing, prestige economy, or campaign continuity. It merely hides them. A well-designed strategy game should reward skill at all difficulty levels, not punish it. “You’re supposed to lose units.” If the optimal strategy is to deliberately sacrifice experienced core units, then the campaign economy is fundamentally misdesigned. A Panzer Corps game where unit preservation is discouraged has lost its identity. “It’s meant to be brutal.” Brutal can be fair. Moscow ’41 is not. It is oppressive without being clever, punishing without being rewarding, and difficult without offering meaningful strategic alternatives. Final Verdict Panzer Corps 2 does not fail because it is hard. It fails because it is hostile to good play. The Battle of Moscow ’41 is emblematic of the problem: poor mission pacing, unavoidable attrition, and a prestige economy that collapses by design. Where Panzer General and Panzer Corps 1 respected player skill and long-term planning, Panzer Corps 2 replaces them with grind, punishment, and frustration. This is not evolution of the series. It is a regression — and a profoundly disappointing one for long-time fans.

Although, it is an improvement over its predecessor on graphics, sounds and visuals. The game over all fails to give the user the satisfaction the first one gives. I liked the first game, it was keeping the tradition inherited from the panzer general series however this one fails to do so. Overly extended gameplay and forcing you to farm prestige points beyond necessary... this is a disappointment for me. I must tell you I am a veteran on turn based games especially hundreds of hours burned on PG-1 , PG-2, PG-III (which is the first 3D /isometric release of the title) series as well as PanzerCorps series. (I guess this last sentence exposed my age) But all in all, this one is just not for me. let me give you a one sentence comment by the good old gamespot titles: "Almost but not quite"

I have spent 500+ hrs on this game, and thousands playing the original....what I can say is that something is missing from the second one. It just doesn't have the same feel and nostalgia that the first one brings. The resources this game takes is surprisingly high, im running an alienware computer and needed to turn down my settings to get the FPS up. A lot of the units/scenarios seem lopsided and underdeveloped. I am not going to pickup anymore of the expansions for the retail price. I feel like they are not worth the $10-20 a piece PLUS the base game. Maybe in a couple years when the whole collection comes on sale for 75-90% off

Bad voiceacting, terribly wonky mechanics, AI cheating like crazy. The devs sacrifice all of the game's competitive/MP skirmish potential in favor of their DLC policy, which is selling campaign DLC. The Skirmish ("Random Scenario") mode can be described as ramshackle at best. Features to adjust parameters for the randomly created maps are completely missing, you can't set up teams the way you like and the join-mechanic can best be described as cryptic. You can't really play against the AI either, because it treats mechanical limitations as mere guidelines - fog of war doesn't matter, their units always do more damage than yours, and sometimes they outright refuse to die. (Not kidding, I just had a campaign game where it took me 3 turns to kill a 1-HP infantry unit.) The game is still fun to play PvP with a friend, if you absolutely love the unit- and faction variety. But buying the game at full price is the equivalent of being historically accurate Germany in 1945 and wasting resources on making a Landkreuzer Ratte. Can recommend the game at ~80% off. Edit: One more thing I'd like to mention is that the naval combat is ridiculously bad. And the AI doesn't build ships in skirmish, even if it owns a port and there is no land access to the rest of the map. KekW

I had this game for awhile because it was on Sale. I only began playing it recently. Having played Panzer General long ago, I thought meh, could be fun. Based on reading forum boards my experience is not unique. You fumble through the learning curve, each time getting a little further in the campaign only to go back. Until you hit Stalingrad or Crusader scenario and go wtf is this? Because you learn youre not playing a tactical military game but a puzzle. A puzzle of prestige. Your units are inferior until you make it out of the slog. Once you can get those Tigers rolling! Its satisfying to be on the offensive. But then the game ends just when it started getting good. Up until then, it takes 5 German planes to take out 1 British? Until you get jets. Yeah I know, there are Grognoids who will say git gud. And I watch videos of "combined arms" surround them! Farm prestige! Who has time and units to surround every opponent so they dont flee? Or how can you not stretch yourself to beat the time limits on scenarios? How do you survive overwhelming odds in Crusader? You see, its a puzzle. Perfect core units. Perfect General attributes. Perfect moves. Prestige management! Yeah, this.....this is not fun. Its a tedious puzzle. Your satisfaction and joy is suppose to from figuring out a complicated puzzle. There was hope. I saw a hack for getting prestige. But it doesnt seem to work in steam. Would be nice, Then you could make it past the BS and get to the fun stuff.

No Allies or Soviet campaigns. Order of Battle is better.

先叠个甲：这款游戏本身素质不差，如果我没玩过那一款上世纪末的同类型游戏，我应该会给个好评。那款游戏就是John Tiller's Campaign Series. 同样是回合制六角格棋盘战棋游戏，这款游戏与Campaign Series比起来简直和手游一样粗糙，除了画面更精致、上手难度更低、做出了海战空战系统以外没一个地方比得上后者。 这里说下我个人认为Panzer Corp2（以下简称PC2）不如Campaign Series（以下简称CS）的地方： ·PC2中几乎所有单位除了炮兵和海军射程居然都只有一格，而且一个格子里只能放一个单位，无论这个单位是步兵、坦克、还是装甲车。这就限制了很多战术选项，把战斗变得很愚蠢：当你的步兵准备进攻一个敌方据点时，后面的装甲部队全部在看戏，如果你想把它们调上来支援，那就得冒着被敌方步兵攻击的风险——因为大家的射程是一样的； ·而在CS中，一个格子内能放四五个单位，可以发动人海/步坦/装甲突击，没错，CS中还有个突击系统，可以直接命令一个或多个单位通过突击直接攻占有敌方单位的格子，把格子中的敌军消灭或逐出，不用像PC2里的单位那样和敌人对射直到一边的生命值耗光。此外，CS里不同的单位射程不同，你的装甲单位再也不用冒着被敌方非反坦克单位伤害的风险与敌人玩肉搏战，而CS还有个溃逃机制，可以通过攻击敌方单位，使之混乱或逃跑，混乱的单位攻防能力都会降低，溃逃的敌军会放弃原本驻守的格子后撤，我方就能轻易占领这些格子； ·CS中的远程火力支援机制做的也非常好，不像PC2简单粗暴。CS中有视野机制，如果一方的所有单位都看不见被攻击的格子，那么这方的炮兵就可能会把弹药打在错误的格子中，飞行员也有会选择攻击他在当前回合看得到的目标，甚至误伤友军，而非指哪打哪，符合二战水平的远程支援； ·PC2中的作战单位太少了，甚至没有机枪单位，不过有了也没用，因为所有直射火力单位射程都只有一格，不像CS中机枪射程普遍比普通步兵单位远，可以掩护我方步兵进攻或在开阔地形有效杀伤敌方步兵。除了步兵，CS里的单位数量和PC2相比多如牛毛，各种二战中的参加了实战的陆军武器和单位只有玩家想不到的，没有玩家找不到的； ·PC2的高地机制有些过于离谱了，占据高地的单位加成非常厉害，倒也不是说这个机制做的不好，而是与CS比起来真的非常粗糙。在后者中，高地虽然也能提供良好的视野，并且敌方仰攻也很困难，但因为不像PC2中都只有一格射程，所以高地上的单位也更容易暴露在敌军的远程直射火力比如机枪、坦克炮、反坦克炮之下，如果高地上没有构筑阵地便往上爬基本就是自讨苦吃，这比PC的高地机制要更细化； ·与CS相比，PC2的内容量实在少得可怜，除了那几个德棍战役和西班牙内战外就没了。CS系列光二战版就包含三个游戏：《西线风云》《东线风云》《旭日东升》，官方战役就涵盖了西线东线太平洋，上百个任务。如果你会用那个简单到我爸都会用编辑器，也能作出西班牙内战，甚至是外国游戏基本不会涉及的二战中国战场和国共内战——在《旭日》的编辑器里给了玩家国共军队的单位。Matrix Games的论坛上甚至早有玩家做了韩战mod，可脱离本体独立运行，包含编辑器，免费下载。此外，CS系列还有越战和1948-85年五次中东战争的版本，这不比PC2刺激？ PC2与CS相比也不是没有优点，比如前者做出了制空权机制，后者没有战斗机，也不存在制空权一说，空军系统和地图外炮兵支援差不多，能不能阻止空袭全靠地面防空火力。另外一个优点就是做出了海战，而CS里只有小艇，驱逐舰以上舰船只能作为地图外炮兵支援存在。当然，最大的优点还是PC2上手容易，各种机制简单易懂，而且节奏快；而CS是那种机制繁琐、节奏慢的游戏，而且由于机制过于繁琐，现在的发行方甚至配了一个140页全英文的pdf说明书，我反正是没怎么看，全靠自己摸索。