Best of the Campaign Series?

[pad152]

Best of the Campaign Series?

NWS is having a nice sale on HPS games, I've order Salerno43 and thinking of picking up one or two more. Which are considered to be the best of the Campaign Series?




Thanks

[Navarone]

Personally, I really enjoy EA '42.

Pat

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I think they are all good, it just depends on what battles interest you. If you've got a particular battle or campaign that interests you then you can't go wrong in getting it.

[Mini-Me]

Kharkov is quite good. Scenarios are varied and pretty well balanced IMO.

[Mike Cox]

Salerno is a good choice. I do like MG 44. Stalingrad has proved fun too.

[pad152]

How similar are the games Salerno & Sicily (any real difference?), they are pretty close to the same time frame 1943 in WWII and scope?

[Mike Cox]

Salerno includes several battles - Salerno, Anzio, Crete on smaller maps. Sicily is a map of the entire island.

[Dale H]

The best remains my sentimental favorite, Bulge '44. :D

Dale H


Best of the Campaign Series?

NWS is having a nice sale on HPS games, I've order Salerno43 and thinking of picking up one or two more. Which are considered to be the best of the Campaign Series?




Thanks

[Navarone]

Sicily lets you explore the "Patton Palermo Landing" Strategy in the Sicily Campaign.


El Alamein includes everything form the Gazala Battles through 2nd Alamein, as well as having "Operation Hercules" the never executed Airborne/Amphibious assault on Malta.

[Glenn Saunders]

How similar are the games Salerno & Sicily (any real difference?), they are pretty close to the same time frame 1943 in WWII and scope?

While that is the case, they are quite different. The terrain is a much tougher challange and the longer single Campaign with the Strategy | Operations for end round runs - or even the campaigns with Alternative Invasion sites with alternative German setup, makes Sicily quite unique.

Salerno, with Anzio and Crete make a nice game because there are three separate battle each which were too small to do as a separate Game. A little reading will tell you some of the difference between Anzio and Salerno and Crete, well that I feels is a little gem - short and a small campiagn covering the FULL islands operation, again with alternative Drop Zones and such.

On mass, I'd say Sicily as compared with Salerno has as many differences in aspects of the battle as Normandy has with Market Garden and Bulge.

Glenn

[Alan Sharif]

They are truly all great. My least favourites is Normandy but you can buy them all with confidence.

[Snarf]

My favourites are Sicily, Korsun Pocket, Kharkov and Bulge. I just picked up Salerno but was extremely dissapointed with the lack of research for the Crete OB and battle in general. I love HPS games but this lack of research makes me wonder about how much went into some of the other titles. The morale ratings show a total lack of knowledge of the battle (I had thought the rating of he 352nd Inf division in Normandy as a C was an abberration, it should have been a B minimum, it was after all a veteran division and fought heroically, but apparently that was not the only example of a grossly miss classed unit in a HPS game, as the Australian and New Zealand units in Crete are underrated (in particular the Maori's) with some of the Greek units very much overated especially since only a fraction of them actually had firearms), as are the locations of units. The AI is also attrocious, the New Zealanders abandoned the airfield without even being attacked. While they did withdraw historically it was only after heavy casualties and confusion. What surprises me is that it could have been so badly done when their is such excellant sources of information available. To give one example check this link then look at the game dispositions:

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/18/chapters/12.pdf

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/18/chapters/13.pdf

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/18/chapters/11.pdf

[Dion]

My favorite Panzer Campaigns title is Sicily '43, but I think the best game of any series is the newest edition, which would be Minsk '44. Check out the HPS website (Welcome to HPS Simulations, the Wargamer's True Ally (http://www.hpssims.com/)) as I believe they are in order of release.

[FastPhil]

How similar are the games Salerno & Sicily (any real difference?), they are pretty close to the same time frame 1943 in WWII and scope?

They have their different challenges(you get ANZIO with Salerno also). Sicily you fight Germans/Italians while Salerno just Germans. Historical Salerno is very hard to win for the Allies.

Size/counter density wise, Sicily, Salerno, and Market Garden pretty small, then EA and Tobruk, N44 BB44 and the East Fronts are all pretty big.

I hate complex decisions, so I just by them all as they come out.:clown:

[Glenn Saunders]

My favourites are Sicily, Korsun Pocket, Kharkov and Bulge. I just picked up Salerno but was extremely dissapointed with the lack of research for the Crete OB and battle in general.

I was going to leave this one alone but I couldn't in all fairness do that. While this reflects your opinion there are some counter points worth voicing.

++++++++++++++++++

To Snarf the Lurker:

First of all I apologize as it seems I may have struck a nerve on the quality I assign the ANZAC units in the Crete portion of Salerno ’43 (which includes Salerno Anzio and Crete – for those that are not aware of what is in the game), and this fact as well as the AI’s abandoning on a key location on at least one play in one Scn has prompted you to say the game lacks research.

I am not about to explain to you what went into the game or try to convince you that you are mistaken. It is not about who is right and worng. Your opinion is of course yours and not something I would ask you to change. I would however suggest to anyone else reading this that when a large force holds an island, and when an Air Invasion is one of the ways that they expect to be attacked. And when a smaller force makes this air attack (and it isn’t a surprise) and when the fight results in the smaller elite force prevailing over the larger defending force, than it stands to reason that overall there is a quality difference in the two sides. This makes sense to me in the big picture and was the effect I sought to recreate when I assigned the overall game quality values.

Now I have to be honest, I can’t go back though the OOB today and look at any single units and tell you WHY I assigned the value one way or the other. And I agree with part of what you said where you say where “only some of the greek actually had firearms” and would add that many of those that were armed may not have had many rounds of ammo for those guns. But the Greek Quality is not generally very high, nor is the fire values (Hard \ Soft attack or assault) assigned to them anything great either. So the overall result is they are much worse than any regular ANZAC Inf unit.

I looked though the OOB and I found one Greek Units which I assigned a B rating for – a B – go figure most were D' and many F's too. Now off hand I confess I am no longer sure why the unit that I assigned a B to (all seven counter) was given but I am pretty sure I read something somewhere which suggested the unit rated a higher value as the other Regt right with it in the OOB is rated an F. But the B unit still has a fire value and an Assault value of less than half of the standard ANZAC Inf unit.

Now all that said – you made a point about the Maori's and I have this unit in Alamein too – I know if is a damn fine unit and so it is already rated a B which is pretty damn good I would say. But if you really feel it desearves an A then here is what I would ask you to do.

Find a single reference in the literature directly pointing to events on Crete concerning the Moria’s where it shows that a B is wrong and a A if clearly the best pick for the quality of this unit while in action on Crete – and I will cheerfully reconsider the B I gave them in favour oof giving them an A (all four units of 231 allied uits in the game). One link is all you need and quote the line so I can find it easily but remember it must pertain to the uit fighting in Crtete - not elsewhere. (email the reference to HPS Support)

You had a point on the game that:
“The AI is also attrocious, the New Zealanders abandoned the airfield without even being attacked.” ….and I can’t dispute what you are saying at all. If you say it happened – it did. But let me counter with a few points.

1) It is the very same AI that is in your favorites “Sicily, Korsun Pocket, Kharkov and Bulge”
2) The AI was recently improved with the release of Minsk. Salerno has now been patched and should have those AI improvements.

I am not sure whether this changes the situation at all here but I know I just heard from a regular player who was testing the new KORSUN Patch for me (look for that to release later this week) and he commented that “AI def more intelligent.” So you can take that as you like.

Finally – regarding another title you said:
“The morale ratings show a total lack of knowledge of the battle (I had thought the rating of he 352nd Inf division in Normandy as a C was an aberration”

….and I can only say that I didn’t design or have much input into the quality values of the 352nd Inf Div in Normandy – the OOB was designed by someone else. However, if you email this comment to HPS and you include with it a single quote supporting your claim, we can certainly look at it and consider a change in the next update. However I will also point out to you that we’ve recently had input from a player who was very concerned that the changes made in recent updates have resulted in a situation where it is impossible to win as the Allies. So understand we have to walk a very fine line between what you think is “an atrocious quality rating that resulted from poor research” and what someone else says is “an atrocious situations where the Allies can’t possibly win.” Note however we paid attention to the later remark – tested a number of times by different people and found that Omaha is not impossible but is a damn hard fight – which comes to think of it fits with what I think history has recorded the events to have been.

And that – FWIW is my opinion and counter points to your remarks! I do hope you and everyone enjoys their PzC Experience and would remind you that if you don't like the values and quality assignments we made in the game you can use the edoitor and make changes - create your own mods and make them available for download by other. Not every game system allows that much flexibilty.

Glenn

[Mike Cox]

Actually one of the great things about PzCamp games is the editor. It is a pretty simple thing to make tweaks to bring scenarios, oob's etc into line with 'the way things outta be'. Granted most of mine are for personal use and gratifcation, but it is easy.

Anyhow, I hope you take Glenn up on his offer, over the years I have seen the PzCamp team very receptive to corrections on various details when proof is offered.

[FastPhil]

My favourites are Sicily, Korsun Pocket, Kharkov and Bulge. I just picked up Salerno but was extremely dissapointed with the lack of research for the Crete OB and battle in general. I love HPS games but this lack of research makes me wonder about how much went into some of the other titles. The morale ratings show a total lack of knowledge of the battle (I had thought the rating of he 352nd Inf division in Normandy as a C was an abberration, it should have been a B minimum, it was after all a veteran division and fought heroically, but apparently that was not the only example of a grossly miss classed unit in a HPS game, as the Australian and New Zealand units in Crete are underrated (in particular the Maori's) with some of the Greek units very much overated especially since only a fraction of them actually had firearms), as are the locations of units. The AI is also attrocious, the New Zealanders abandoned the airfield without even being attacked. While they did withdraw historically it was only after heavy casualties and confusion. What surprises me is that it could have been so badly done when their is such excellant sources of information available. To give one example check this link then look at the game dispositions:

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/18/chapters/12.pdf

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/18/chapters/13.pdf

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/18/chapters/11.pdf


First of all-thanks for the links.:D I downloaded the first volume of the Official Histories tonight. But would like to say one needs to be careful with the 'Official Histories' whether it be US, England, France, Soviet Union or Australia. They have a natural tendency to portray things in the best light for the side writing it. As for the game as a gamer I tend to be concerned about the overall effect not specific units-does the system work together to produce the desired effect. JMHO

As for the 352nd ID-I do not think that many German Infantry Divisions at this stage of the war would be better than class "C" although individual units within a division might be rated higher or in the case of OST battalions lower.
I don't remember the reference now, but it was a detailed discussion.
The Division was formed in November 1943 and reached a strength of about 12,000 men(a mix of vets and youth). It's first fight was in Normandy and it did a creditable job. But if it is better than a C what are the parachute divisions and the 91st Airlanding-we are not even talking about Panzers and SS. On the flip side it was much better than the static divisions deployed-better fire power and much more mobile. So to me 'C' seems right. Prior to the Invasion, France was a rest area for troops on the Eastern Front to recover in before being sent back East. Permanent ones were normally inferior units made up of the old, the young, the sick and infirm with little organic transportation and reduced weapons. The Static units on the coast relied on the fortifications to offset their lack of mobility. When reading about the German Army in Normandy, you see references to 'stomach' battalions etc indicating they were composed of men with stomach ailments. It gives me shivers to think of the 'dysentery' battalions.:nuts: JMHO

[Glenn Saunders]

As for the 352nd ID-I do not think that many German Infantry Divisions at this stage of the war would be better than class "C" although individual units within a division might be rated higher or in the case of OST battalions lower.


You know - I went looking tonight for that thread where the guy was suggesting that Normandy was now so hard for the Allies (after various changes to the engine over time) that it was "unplayable" he claimed. Can't find it - but it was somewhere and not long ago.

Now while I don't see the other guys remarks as valid either - that is I don't agree that Normandy is too hard for the Allies - it did cause us to retest the Normandy Game on several beaches to ensure something didn't happen that we weren't aware of. Anyway - I had two plays from different guys over the same areas including Omaha. Omaha Beacg is one tough fight as it is with the 352nd ID rated as C Quality.

Anyway - I am not planning on pursuing this issue further unless Snarf or anybody else wants to. I am happy to help set up a separate Scn where we make the 352nd ID a B or even an A or a mix of whatever you guys want or think is best. Then we can get a couple guys to play this against the AI and see if they can still get off the beach. If it results in a better game AND if we get the info I previously asked for to support the change historically, we can consider it.

But I think it might make it too difficult to play and in itself be a worse simulation of the events and we won't to it if it makes the game impossible to play or win either. I guess what I am saying is that sometimes things that may appear at first to be reasonable points, may not result in the best overal affect in an operation scenario.

Glenn

[lezgo killemall]

Permanent ones were normally inferior units made up of the old, the young, the sick and infirm with little organic transportation and reduced weapons. The Static units on the coast relied on the fortifications to offset their lack of mobility. When reading about the German Army in Normandy, you see references to 'stomach' battalions etc indicating they were composed of men with stomach ailments. It gives me shivers to think of the 'dysentery' battalions.:nuts: JMHO
not to mention all the conscripted troops who had absolutely no desire to be there, and would look to run away or surrender at the earliest possible chance. from what ive read most of them only fought because they literly had a gun to their head.

[Cherper]

I think that my favorite is probably Bulge. I know that there are newer games and they look and play great, but for sentiments sake Bulge is the one for me. It reminds me of the lost hours of youth spent playing a bunch of Bulge wargames with my brothers. Good memories.

[lezgo killemall]

I think that my favorite is probably Bulge. I know that there are newer games and they look and play great, but for sentiments sake Bulge is the one for me. It reminds me of the lost hours of youth spent playing a bunch of Bulge wargames with my brothers. Good memories.
yeah, bulge is one of my favs, and im hoping we will see it included in the next round of updates. please :halo:

had just gotten the campaign game underway using the one avail on glenn's site, but id just as soon start over playing w/ the new udates.

[FastPhil]

I think that my favorite is probably Bulge. I know that there are newer games and they look and play great, but for sentiments sake Bulge is the one for me. It reminds me of the lost hours of youth spent playing a bunch of Bulge wargames with my brothers. Good memories.

Bulge has always been one of my favorites. Wacht AM Rhein is one of the few board games I still have but with B44 it is more a keepsake then active use. Original AH Battle of Bulge was also a favorite.

[Jeff Gilbert]

I will stick with Sicily '43 as my favorite.
Infanitly replayable, infanitly customizable ... big, tough battle all contained on a single island.

Truly wonderful for me.

[redbear415]

all are good personal i will buy all i have bulge moscow kurks minsk korsun stalingrad and normandy bought today france and smolenks. this game are really fun to play

[Sgt_Rock]

I really like Market-Garden 44 as its one of my favorite campaigns and has alot of what-if possibilities as well. Plus its campaign game is very manageable.

Bulge '44 is my favorite title as like Danny S. Parker I am a Bulge fanatic. I have played the campaign and MANY of the altnerate versions I put together several times and burned out on it for a bit but am sure to be back at it sooner or later. Some folks dont like the terrain but if you learn to work with the terrain rather than fight it then you can really gobble up some ground in the advance.

Salerno '43 is one of my favorites. I really like the Anzio landing campaign battle. Despite being in the open its a real grinder of a battle. German unit firepower is offset by the incredible array of Allied artillery, ships and airplanes.

I am currently also playing the Kharkov '42 campaign battle. Both sides have their day in this one.

All in all the Panzer Campaigns series is one of my favorite WW2 series. Right up there with TAOW, Steel Panthers and Squad Battles as well as the Grigsby series of Pacific games.

I have not played the Minsk game yet.

Looking forward to seeing Glenn and company do Von Manstein's campaigns big time. They are my favorite campaigns in the East along with Stalingrad.