Very few of the younger readers will remember Panzer General, the venerable but highly-respected SSI wargame that successfully bridged the 'uncrossable chasm' between casual gamers and die-hard wargamers. PG managed to provide the immediacy and action-orientation that casual gamers need to maintain interest in a game, as well as providing enough of a chess match (simple rules whose execution must be just right...) that the grognards as well gave it a great deal of attention. Who could forget the PG Norway scenario?
But the fact is PG is long past, and the latest incarnation of the license is more quickly understood by those who've never played a PG game in their lives. PG3SE (the East-Front version of and very much like, PG3dA) took the PG methodology and gave it a good hard shake. The basic root functions are still there - each unit has hard and soft attack values, each combat they're in uses up an ammo supply point, etc - but they are significantly influenced by the "leader focus" in PG3SE.
The involvement of leaders is the largest single difference in the system between PG1/2 and the PG3d titles. In the PG3 products, each unit must be given a leader from a roster of them randomly generated at the beginning of each scenario and dynamically throughout campaigns. These leaders have ratings and experience levels not tied to the units themselves, and they can typically provide a unit with significant
advantages in combat. Further, as leaders are used in combat, they are more and more likely to develop special skills such as being a particularly tenacious defender, or a wary commander who is immune to 'ambush' results. The leaders - managing their deployment, keeping them safe, using their particular skills - add a not-unwelcome new level of tactical choices for the player.
The units themselves do develop skills as well, and this is the second major departure from the original series. Almost like
war-role-playing, units develop talents for "attacking from the sun" or infiltrating enemy positions, which add a pleasant variety to the mix of units. No longer might you have 'simply' a couple heavy tank units in your force. Instead, each unit has its particular utility and tendencies that suggest certain deployments and when combined with the right commander, can be devastating.
The combat system underneath all this is functional, but certainly not advanced much from it's early-1990's predecessors. For example, as in previous versions artillery (or if an air attack, an ADA battery) can fire first, before the resolution of attacks on adjacent supported units. Oddly, the AI is still seemingly unconcerned with stripping units of the devastating power of said artillery, and much more aggressively goes after Recon cars.
In terms of materiel, SSI has eschewed the monstrous and comprehensive TO&E lists of such titles as Rising Sun, instead feeling that a relative few archetypes are representative of the majority of other technologies and units.
Likewise, unit densities are quite a bit lower than they used to be - typically the player will be managing fewer than 16 units at a time. This is a benefit for new players, but reduces one's tactical options
significantly, and distills most of the scenarios to a two-part operetta: first the move to contact, then the careful choreography of attacks of a few-turns duration which will determine whether your campaign advances or if you reload from the last saved game.
This leads me to comment on one particularly egregious problem of which players need to be aware. During most scenarios you are given a briefing explaining your goals in the context of the wider scope of the war. In campaign games, the scenario generated is usually the result of your progress through the scenario tree, each branch offering you a different line of scenarios from Leningrad to Rostov. However, it's worth noting that despite your general staffs' thorough briefings on your victory conditions, you will find to your chagrin that a simple single capture of one of your VP cities means that you have lost the scenario, no recourse, no appeal. This is at the least simply not fair, at the worst disingenuous. Lower total unit counts mean that the player is less likely to be able to 'spare' a carefully purchased frontline unit for garrison duty. Is it coincidental that the AI and scenarios seem to prefer wide flanking maneuvers? In some circumstances, I'd credit this to the AI design, but while playing I saw too many examples for it to be anything but scripted. I wasn't very happy about that.
What is immediately evident is that the new PG3d titles do offer a significant improvement in eye candy. In this department, they are unsurpassed in the current crop of computer wargames. Unit models, animations, and terrain are fantastic - shoot down a Stuka, and it flies around inside its hex in flames and noses over to plummet into the ground. Tip to the wise: good idea to head into the sys config options on startup. Speed up the unit animations to save yourself a huge amount of time in every turn. Smoke, rain, fog - all occasionally blanket the map in a very mood-enhancing way.
Since the level of unit animation detail is far, far higher than that which could be supported for everything, the difference between the units and the background is a little jarring. The units are crisp, clear and detailed. The terrain upon which they move is blurry and
indistinct, much like an aircraft recon photo. At first glance it seems realistic, but after playing the game for 6 hours straight, I found myself rubbing my eyes searching for background definition that simply wasn't there. Further, the titled feature of the program - the "3d" - is fun to look at but ultimately not utilitarian. The scale is large, therefore the majority of units may only attack adjacent hexes - making the beautifully textured hills and valleys rather tactically pointless.
The sound effects are pretty much standard for this style of game - clankity clank of tanks driving, the fire of guns. The music in the game's background was not extraordinary, and I really missed the voiceovers from PG1 (usually some anal Oberleutnant whining about how I hadn't completed the objectives). The voiceovers were cheesy and artificial, but in retrospect they upheld the suspension of disbelief in their own minor way.
The interface is generally improved from its predecessors, with the strategic view showing very clearly what units have actions left and which do not. Unit information on this screen is presented in an aesthetically appealing but not very space-thrifty way. I also found the leader/unit building screen sacrificed clarity for beauty. The information is there, but it would have been far more clearly presented and better organized in lists and tables (but, admittedly wouldn't make such cool screenshots!).
I was unable to find opponents for multiplayer, which highlighted the fact that player matching - either by website or by built-in service - has become de rigeur for good reason.
The lack of it was a disappointment.
Certainly, purists will object to Panzer General 3: Scorched Earth as a superficial and unworthy addition to their stable of wargames. I'd recall to gamers that it's a computer analogue to the Squad Leader card game "Up Front". There was no serious pretense of reality, nor more than a superficial effort to be historical (aside from the validation of some commonly-held national characteristics). But it still had wide popularity
among gamers as a game that was easy to learn, quick to play, perfect for limited opponents and you could finish a best-of-five series of games in well under 2 hours. It's much the same with PG3SE, it remains a fun and quick-playing game which will no doubt appeal to a wide audience of casual gamers.
