/v/ - Video Games

>>13777274

>Panzer Corps

That's the obsolete version of Order of Battle, isn't it?

>>13777302

Most campaigns in Order of Battle are way too short. I went through the US Pacific campaign and was giving major upgrades to units every 2-3 missions, skipping several months from one battle to another. There were also quite a few bugs with the secondary objectives, like being able to sink the Yamato only for it to show up in a later mission to get sunk again. It'd be a great game if only it had the scenario design and game length of Panzercorps. The winter war, on the other hand, was also pretty fun and seemed lengthy enough for that particular campaign. The ski troops and supply mechanics in the game blended very well.

Also, Panzercorps 2 supposed to come out next year. I don't know if Order of Battle is supposed to be a sort of tech demo or if there's two different groups working on each. Either way, I wouldn't say that Panzercorps has been made obsolete.

>>13777618

But CM is more fun anon

>now where could my fuel be?

>tagswitch to Germany

oh

What is your tactical situation, /v/?

Pretty bad. In the north I have numerical superiority but virtually zero artillery so the advance is really slow. Meanwhile in the middle and south I'm getting fucked by their bombers and artillery. Hopefully I'll get Tver soon.

>>13813108

Combat Mission: Black Sea of the renowned Combat Mission series of tactical wargames.

>>13777388

It may not be your thing necessarily, but Steel Armour: Blaze of War, has an Afghan scenario.

It's a tank sim, not a wargame, but it's built on the same basis as Operation Star. You do command forces on a tactical level. Either just the armour, or you can also do everything. Bit more detached than Operation Star for commanding though, as you're locked in a tank (think, using the map to tell units where to go), but it's quality.

The Afghan scenario in SABOW has you going up against insurgents with insurgent tier equipment, as opposed to Operation Star that tried to level the playing field by giving significant Iranian armour support. The battlefield also has a more Afghan feel to it.

I found it quite comfy at least.

With regards to Chechnya, I feel you. I want to say Squad has such factions available, but that's a very different genre.

WHY IS THERE NO PACIFIC VERSION OF COMBAT MISSION

behold, the Sherman tank in its natural habitat :DD:DDD

This campaign is actually quite enjoyable; I didn't expect to enjoy TW:Tunisia as much as I have. Always figured Eastern Front was my preference - sandstorm fights are fairly comfy though, and fighting Sherman's or the US tank destroyers long range with anything but Tigers, is quite the entertaining challenge. The huge sight-lines complicate things a fair amount. Plus, there are plenty of little parts of the map where you can angle into sweet hull-down positions. US infantry too, with their M9 rifle grenades and bazookas, can actually be a bit of a threat to tanks.It causes an interesting issue in that when crossing desert, you want infantry to screen, but if the enemy are there, the infantry will have a terrible day - If they don't screen, often your first indication of contact will be a hit on your lead vehicle. This is particularly emphasized during the sandstorms.