Blitz Basecamp: Panzer General Online Opens Sign-Ups

By Jim Rossignol on October 16th, 2013 at 7:00 pm.


Panzer General Online is looking pretty slick for a browser-based thing, which I suppose shouldn’t be surprising: the tactics game is being rolled out by Ubi as part of their new free to play offensive. And it’s not relying on multiplayer, either, as they explain: “In the singleplayer campaigns you lead your army through historically inspired missions. All campaigns can be played as either the German or the US army.” Quite how much territory this will capture them isn’t clear to me, but it does seem like it could be a big deal in WW2-fancying tank circles, if just from the lovely presentation.

Anyway, the closed beta can be signed up to over here. So you should probably get on that.

, , .

25 Comments »

  1. Premium User Badge

    Don Reba says:

    So, I am only allowed to choose the “basic head” for my character. I mean, I am not complaining, I never thought of my head as all that exceptional. But still, that’s a pretty flat way to put it.

    As for gameplay, it looks pretty interesting so far.

  2. darkmorgado says:

    Why only the German and American armies? Why not Russia? Or Japan? Britain? Italy? France? It was a World War, after all. Also, the Americans didn’t get involved until a couple of years into it so that limits the engagements they can recreate.

    • airmikee99 says:

      Because America and Germany had the largest armies on the field. WW2 started in September, 1939. It ended in September, 1945. America entered the war in December, 1941. So America was present for almost 66% of the war, and since most of the engagements prior to America’s entry was simply Germany blitzing through the rest of Europe, there are more than enough actual battles to be recreated.

      • Erinduck says:

        Yeah, I forget about the Eastern Front all the time too.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Eastern_Front_of_World_War_II

      • tormos says:

        I’m sorry but that’s simply not accurate. The Red Army had almost half again as many troops at the start of the war as the US/UK deployed in total. The longest siege in recorded history happened on the Eastern Front. The bloodiest battle in recorded history happened on the Eastern Front. The largest tank battle in history happened on the Eastern Front. The only violent use of nuclear weapons in history happened in the Pacific Theater. The development of modern naval warfare happened in the Pacific Theater. Heck, the beginning of the war for America happened in the Pacific Theater. Ignoring these events is dumb and skips a lot of what makes World War Two decisive and interesting as compared to, say, the Franco-Prussian war

        • airmikee99 says:

          You’re right that the Soviets hard more men in the war, but who is ignoring any of those events? Most of the battles you list happened after America entered the war.

          And you made a key distinction, so I don’t have to, the US and UK deployed their troops into foreign territory, the Soviets spent most of their time defending their own land against an invader, no deployment necessary, just walk out your door.

          And you’re accuracy isn’t perfect either. The longest siege in recorded history lasted for 21 years in Candia.

          • Erinduck says:

            Who gives a shit if they happened after America entered the war? Literally the only thing America did was offer air support in like two battles. There’s a whole shitload of fuck that was happening in the Eastern Front and it’s absolutely an egregious oversight to only include America and Germany in this.

          • airmikee99 says:

            “Who gives a shit if they happened after America entered the war?”

            Uh.. since that was the point I made, and got contradicted on, I do? Derp.

          • Lengle says:

            airmikee99 – After your initial correction of darkmorgado’s ignorance for the US’s time spent in the war, I don’t believe anyone has contradicted you on the length and commitment of the US effort, so chill your beans my good fellow.

            I think you have to look at it from an actual game development view point. The Western Front stuff is probably the most known and most popular setting for a western audience, so it makes sense to come out of the gate with those sides available, if that is your biggest market. Then going forward they can release future content to cover the Eastern Front/Pacific/Afrika and forces such as the British/Italians etc.

            My point is (and I’m generally useless at making points) is so far most people on this thread have made a sort of personal expression based on their knowledge, background and sensibilities. But the fact of the matter is that they probably made the decision to roll with US vs Germany forces as they would be the most appealing to the masses. Then they probably have plans to follow that up with the various other theaters if they fit into the mechanics of the game.

            As for the real events themselves and who did what and when and how impactful they were etc. etc. it’s probably best if we all agree that everyone had a pretty miserable time of it, some more than others, others more than some, and that all contributions, regardless of how significant you feel they were, helped to end the conflict.

      • Remnant says:

        It’s actually interesting that you say that the war started in 1939, because historians are still grappling with this detail. The “World War” is said to start in 1939 because the Commonwealth and France declare war on Germany, while the Soviets invade Poland. America is not involved yet, directly, but nobody really claims the war begins on the arrival of one key player.

        But what about the war in Asia? That had been going on since 1937, and Japan lasted even longer than Germany – it also tackled as many opponents, such as the US, several Commonwealth countries (even British troops), China and, at times, Russia. Why do we peg importance to the European front, when several very big powers were already tussling?

        If you then count Japan’s significance, you see the war starting as early as 1937. In which case, the US was involved for only 50% of the war.

        • airmikee99 says:

          So you’re claiming that the world war started with the 2nd Sino-Japanese war?

          Why not say WW2 started when the Spanish Civil War started in 1936?

          Why don’t we just say it started when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935?

          I’m just guessing that most people peg the start of WW2 when the world went to war with itself, when Germany invaded Poland and the UK and France declared war on Germany in turn. Not so coincidentally, that was September, 1939.

          • Remnant says:

            Well, the question then is, do you count the END of the war as being the surrender of the Japanese? And if so, why is it that the Japanese activities in the Pacific are significant enough to count in defining the war’s end, but not the beginning? China and Japan were right up there in terms of casualties, higher than the US, the Commonwealth or France, so this was not a paltry theatre of war.

            If you consider the world war to end when Germany surrenders, then obviously this point is moot. Yet it’s actually an interesting point of contention among historians (with no easy answer).

          • Premium User Badge

            lurkalisk says:

            The most logical way to look at it, I think, is to mark the first major hostilities that directly involve a sovereign participant in the war, provided said specific hostilities did not end prior to any other hostilities associated with WWII itself. Likewise, the war would then be seen to have concluded when no two participants were still in any state but peace. That would mean 1937-1945, 8 years. But that’s just how I look at it…

        • neonordnance says:

          The war in the East started when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, not 1937.

          Although I do think that a distinction needs to be made between the various smaller wars, and their eventual combination into a world-wide conflagration. In my mind, WW2 was not the opening of hostilities, but the point where the world got involved.

          So, yes, I think that 1938 is correct start date, because that was when war was declared in Europe and therefore most major powers were drawn into the war.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasion_of_Manchuria

      • Remnant says:

        “America and Germany had the largest armies on the field.”

        Well, that’s just incorrect. The Soviet Union fielded the largest number of personnel in the entire war, not the US.

        • airmikee99 says:

          Are you not reading other replies?

          “You’re right that the Soviets hard more men in the war”

          I said that over an hour ago.

      • notenome says:

        This is one of the most overwhelmingly ignorant comments in regards to WWII history I’ve ever seen. America’s contribution to WWII, especially compared to the Soviet Union and Britain, is paltry.

        Eastern Front: The USSR had the largest army in terms of men, material, tanks, airplanes, vehicles and pretty much every other (non-naval) metric. The vast majority of German casualties occured on the Eastern Front, which is where the vast majority of German servicemen were stationed. As David Glantz once noted, it’s hard to meet a German veteran who fought against an American. Also, saying that America participated in most of the war because of the date of entry is absurd, just because the US declared war on Germany doesn’t mean it was participating in the battles. Even during D-Day, the majority of servicemen were British, not Americans. And to those who think that Germany was rampaging through Europe until winter 41, German casualties in July 41 were its highest until Stalingrad.

        Western Front: The decisive battle of the Western Front was the Battle of Britain, where an outnumbered RAF managed to hold off the Luftwaffe and prevent the establishment of German air superiority over Britain (Hitler’s interference also helped). This allowed the Allies to keep a foothold in Europe with the logistical capacity to serve as sprinboard for a future invasion. It must be noted, however, that when that invasion did finally come, the Wehrmacht had been reduced to a shell of its former self, thanks to 20 million dead Russians.

        As for the nonsensical argument about Russians walking out the door, you do realize that the Siberian reinforcements that stopped the Germans in late 41 came from, well, Siberia? It took months to move them to Western Russia, a trip (in time and distance) much longer than what a US servicemen leaving from the Eastern seaboard would have to endure.

        tl;dr: read When Titan’s Clashed and stop watching Hollywood WWII movies (or at least accept them for the fiction they are).

      • P.Funk says:

        You make it sound like the other Allies just sat around and did nothing. lol

    • Borsook says:

      It’s a start. When they get two armies right and the game is popular I am sure they will add more

  3. Razgovory says:

    That has got to be one of the worst trailers to a game I’ve ever seen.