Sunday, 27 March 2011 15:18

Victory Conditions in Panzer General II

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

This week I picked up the old Panzer General II from GOG.com. It’s great retro fun, but the one element that bothers me is the victory conditions.

In PZGII, there are only two victory conditions – you must either take or hold all of the victory points on a map. In the case of attacking, you are given one of three grades – brilliant victory, victory, or tactical victory, depending on how long you take to capture those points. These conditions bother me for two closely related reasons. First, they are extremely oversimplified and easy to exploit. I’ve found myself several times being very “gamey” in my tactics, sacrificing all other considerations to make it to that last victory point. Once I captured the last point with a severely wounded infantry unit, down to its last point, with the French completely surrounding the hex on five other sides, poised for a massive counterattack. But it didn’t matter, because I instantly won as soon as I made it onto the magic hex.

Second, the victory conditions are completely binary. In addition to the aforementioned exploit, you can execute a brilliant operation – maneuvering around enemy forces, methodically using your artillery to smash up the enemy, and break through with minimal casualties – only to fail utterly because your attack stopped a hex short. In one campaign, I had to go back and restart a battle because, with two turns to go, an enemy squad I missed during my attack snuck behind my lines to capture a victory hex back by my starting point! On the flip side, it doesn’t matter in a scenario if I utterly wreck my army in the process – I still win or lose based solely on speed.

The way to fix this is to add some kind of scoring, regardless of whether you take all the hexes. You would earn more points by taking victory hexes, but lose them for taking casualties. The system works a lot better in a campaign, because your units carry over from one mission to the next. If you lose an expensive tank or dive bomber unit because your risked it recklessly in vain pursuit of a brilliant victory, you will be kicking yourself in the next mission. There are still some major flaws – weakened squads always return to full strength between missions for free - but the campaigns are where the game comes into its own.

So, this raises a bunch of other topics. What makes a good victory condition in a game and how does it effect the gameplay as a whole? What games have great or unusual victory conditions? Which ones dropped the ball? When is it appropriate for a player to set his own conditions or play in a consequence-free sandbox? I’m going to trail off here, for fear of going overlong, but I’d love to hear some opinions and experiences. Maybe I’ll do a series talking about victory conditions in different games. What do you think?

 

 

 

Read 4410 times Last modified on Friday, 17 May 2013 03:52
Ritalingamer

Matt Richardson is a freelance social media consultant and web traffic analyst in Charlotte, North Carolina. He has a degree in History from Davidson College, with a special interest in military history and the Civil War. He has rotted his mind with video games since childhood. You can follow Matt at @MT_Richardson.

2 comments

  • Comment Link RitalinGamer Wednesday, 06 April 2011 18:25 posted by RitalinGamer

    Rob -

    Thanks for the feedback. I always appreciate your opinion.

    To clarify, I'm not suggesting that the concept of time limits as a whole is flawed, just the fact that there's very little weight given to other factors. For example, if I do a generally good job in Steel Panthers: World at War, but don't take all of the objectives, I at least get a "draw" or "close defeat," whereas PGII effectively gives me the finger and tells me I outright lost. It's like having a 40K Imperial Commissar for a superior officer (or early war Stalin, I suppose).

    I will agree that PG does demand a very different sort of thinking and priorities than other wargames. Whereas in most strategy games I'm very cautious and methodical, PG has forced me to take more risks, often charging straight ahead without adequate scouting to keep to the timetables. Exactly like you said. I feel a little like Von Kluck in 1914, rushing madly ahead to keep up with the sacred Plan.

  • Comment Link Rob Zacny Saturday, 02 April 2011 00:53 posted by Rob Zacny

    To be effective, scenarios have to have a cut-off point, and that almost always seems contrived. However, timetables are important, and history shows that time is often as decisive as casualties. It's not hard to imagine off-map circumstances that inform victory conditions.

    But my main argument in favor of PG's victory conditions is that they reward aggression and risk-taking. It might seem absurd that thrusting a recon company into an encircled hex can win the battle, but usually it takes careful planning and daring to even get in position to pull that off. PG's victory conditions force you to go "all in", while I think the weighted scores you consider above can lead to overcautious play, always doing things by the book.

    It is much, much better in the campaign than in the standalones, of course. In the campaign, as you say, losing veteran units on a risky maneuver stings a lot. You always have to balance force protection with the need to go take ground.

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.

Copyright © 2013 Ritalin Gamer. All Rights Reserved.