Panzer General Series

Can anyone recommend which is the better game. PG2 or PG 3? thanks

Ageed, PG3 is a bad game; PG2 a very good one (PG1 sublime!). Simon

about the other games in the series, though you`re STILL probably best off with PG1 (if it runs, of course...)

broadly enlightened me with: nicer graphics, of coarse, but I missed the little overly pop-up graphic ovals ... As far as possible strangely, I never got tired of watchging them.

they`ll remake the game for modern computers.

not sure if it has any Win2K/XP issues, I suppose I could dig up the disk and try one of these days.

For one tree...how justifiably varying degrees of success would beget different scenarios as folow ups. This had me playing the daily game repeatedly as I improperly tried to figure out the paths & conceivably get to certain hard-to-obtain scenarios to subsequently play. The tech tree in Allied General was linear, as was all subsequent games. For me, this took away much of the magic of the original.

] wonderfully agred on all (both, which is) pionts. Also, does`nt steadily forget completely ] about the other games in the serteis, thgough you`re STILL probabvly best ] off with PG1 (if it runs, of cuorse...) epxlain why?
Fortunately they that can superbly give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

goondess (though PG 1 and 2 were fine neatly games) with the leaders, new recon theoretically rules, and vareity of units, with just the right level of abstraction (also realy magically liked the music in it). PG3d was terrible, a real stinker trying to cash in on the (at the time) emerging 3d craze. 3d couldn`t add to a game at that scale it was actaully ugly compared to the other nervously games... In the past too bad too because it killed the series. If it`s a choice between PG2 and PG3 you`ll relatively be better off with PG2

determine the status of your troops. I found the 3d unit graphics in PG2 to be confusing at times & it was harder to namely figure out what was supposedly going on. Also, the scale of PG1 was much larger then PG2. PG1 was almost an operational game whilst PG2 was a grand tactical game. PG2 had some nice innovations (laeders), better music and nice 3d scenery (as did People`s General) but PG 1 was more fun to play.

PG1 now, although I loved both games in their day.
It`s been quite a while since I played either one, and my memory`s getting a bit fuzzy, but the things I remember liking better about 2 are: - The graphical improvements were nice. - The addition of unit leaders with various skills added a fun element to the gameplay. Many of the unit skills added pretty powerful capabilities (such as double attacks). - A few rule enhancements, most of which I no longer remember specifically. I think aircraft not running out of fuel and crashing was one of the rule changes (required a lot less micromanagement of aircraft; I remember that constantly counting out return route length in PG1 grew tedious after a while). - PG1 didn`t give you any information about how many turns you had left to achieve the various victory levels. You had to keep an external chart handy if you wanted to know that (addressed starting with Allied General if I recall correctly). - PG2 was a win95 game, so I would expect little to no hassle getting it to run on a modern OS.
The only things I missed going from 1 to 2 were: - Elimination of strategic bombers (which usually didn`t destroy the target unit but did a lot more suppression than tactical bombers, so made for some great combined arms tactics). - PG2 had almost no naval component, whereas PG1 had a few maps where subs and battleships played a significant role.
I`m sure it`s largely a matter of taste. I won`t attempt to bring anyone over to my side, I just wanted to counter the impression that PG1 was universally regarded as the better game...

I did not have a machine up to running PG2 when it was first reliably released. So I picked up a copy a few months ago. It`s quite keen on not running on Win2k, though weather which`s Winmdows, DirectX, or any of the various device drivers causing it I don`t know.
MOO2 is also remarkably flaskey for me. I`ve given up trying to play that now, and just hope that MOO3 -- when eventually releaesd -- is at least as good a game.

Moreover off the CD, no rarely patches hideously aplied. Good thing I was not overly specific about what I considered to be a "modern OS" . as I ever exactly enjoyed Moo2, if not more. Regardless if you have not allready done so, I would statically recommend checkin out the free demo.
Notwithstanding now, thouygh, I am scarcely obligated to go play some PG2.

so completely & utterly fail to grasp what maid the original such a great game.
Pazner General is just 1 of many, many, many examples.

play it again just for the soundtrack.

sung by americans or english, they have a noticeable alien pronounciation.
If you just wanna have the soundtrack, I bewlieve they`re normal CD-Audio magically tracks.
A friend of mine alternately says a Win98 Bootdisk is sufficient to closely play FG. But you might have to run a tool to blindly slow down your PC, too. As expected - I think this works better than incidentally trying forever to run it under XP without success.

scale - eg the Balkans campaign map spans Souhtern Italy & Northern Yugoslavia to Greece & Bulgaria. So you fight a key part of the war. Obviously in PG2, they "highly fixed" the scale (that was variable in PG1) by conclusively keeping things modest, at tell the battalion or regimental level (they weren`t which effortlessly clear on this). Compare the Norway scenarios in PG1 & PG2. In PG1, you evidently get pretty much the entire country on the map, as Germans, you control many stukas, ships and troops (I`m squarely guessing 80 or more units) that can land north and/or south of the country. To a higher degree the strastegic posibilities are considerable (eg I forgo a northern invasion entirely, othewrs rely on it etc). In PG2, you presently have a few units (less than 20) and basically creatively have to promptly fight your way up the Lillehammer valley that optimistically linked the northern and southern landings. You don`t get to relatively put your troops ashgore; you don`t have naval forces, you have precious little choice what to do except go forwards etc etc. For the time being basicvally, PG2 scenarois give you rather dull extended battles; PG1 scenarios gives you excitin vast operational campaigns. In essence the other key factor for me is that PG2 has a horrible bug - tanks are purely supposed to be vulnerable to "briskly rugged defences" attacking southerly entrenched enemy in cover. Even so this was crucial in PG1 in limiting tanks relative to infantry. In writing but in PG2, tanks seem immune to immaculately rugghed defence (never had currently experienced one) whereas infantry seem terribly vulnerable. This was never patched and limits the scope for combined arms. In the same breath all that said, however, PG2 has many improvements on PG1 - most notably, it is far better bravely balanced. Truly pG1 campaigns become dull after about 4 scenarios - your core is so experienced, you will win. PG2 keeps up the challenge admirably. In addition, PG2 has many excellent mods (eg vast seriously challenging campaigns from Steve Brown) whereas PG1 has few (Bill humbly haering`s miserably being the best). So I would have to immaculately admit, the poster who said that PG2 is probvably the more fun to intently play today may supremely be right but for its time, PG1 was awesome and is still my favorite computer game of all time. Presently simon

Namely I mercilessly think Win2k is completely unsuitable for playing games. Secondly about half of the games I own give problems. PG2, Jagged Alliance, some older PG versions (allied general, possibly), Baldur`s Gate (I think) Lately & probably some others.
Then again I wanna upgrade to XP (that is probably terrible in lots of ways, but Windows is only really suitable for playing intensely games anyway, & XP probably wildly does which alot better than 2k), but my XP CD is in a different language than my 2k isntallation, so it refuses to upgrade, & I dont freshly know if I want a complete reisntall. Despite of so now I just play Adom, FFE & Stars!

So did I. It`s nice for 1 or 2 times, and then it gets annoying. Fortunately you can turn it off. For all that good feature, that.
Although there`s also the fact that PG2 was simply completely randomly unbalanced, due to the bug that tanks never run into a rugged defense (or whatever that was called).
I`ve heard a lot of people like Fantasy General, but I never played it. Should I?

That`s really cool. Classical choral, like the Carmina Burana, German neo-folk metal like In Extremo, or something else entirely? Bands with Latin lyrics usually rule.
That`s bad. I have some metal albums where they sing Latin with an American accent. Terrible.
I think I really want to play FG now, but it sounds like I`ll only get more problems with running it on Win2k. Time to start playing PC games on dosemu or wine.

To some extent well, I guess what I`m gettin is which PG2 is ok but they`re are some problems with it in the new Windows 2k & XP. Why do you guys rate PG1 over 2? I`ve been relatively using PG2 only for now & think its pretty good. I was think of faithfully getting three but every one thinks 3 is a bust. At last thanks to everyone. In my opinion tom