Think of the fable concerning the tortoise and the hare. Not exactly what might come to mind when considering the first two games in the Panzer Campaigns series - yet that is how their relationship strikes me. Smolensk '41 is the hare of this pair, with its armored column thrusts and the fluid nature of the majority of the battles. Normandy '44 appears a tortoise in comparison, with its simulation of the grinding, step-by-step combat found in Northern France. Just as in the fable, Normandy '44 pulls ahead of its fleet brother in the end, based on the improvements made to the game system and the larger variety of terrain, units and the increased role of combined arms.

Normandy '44 certainly offers a different gaming experience than Smolensk '41 does, and it is important to make this distinction up front. Where Smolensk '41 featured dashing armor columns slicing deeply, Normandy '44 mostly features slogging, yard-by-yard attritional war. It's quite a gritty counterpoint to the open spaces of the steppes and hell-bent armored thrusts. Does that make it any less fun? Well, that decision is for each gamer to make, but I enjoyed the change and the challenges offered in the hedgerows of Normandy.


Hit the beach!	A 3D look at the initial invasion of Omaha beach.

The scale of combat is again geared toward the operational level, but that scale is stretched to accommodate the diminished defending forces on the German side. It is common to see company-level infantry forces, supported by small driblets of armor on the German side. On the Allied side, many of the invasion scenarios see units broken down to the company level, but it is easy (and usually advantageous) to recombine these into battalion-level units after the initial stages of landings. This stretching of the game system and scale works well in most respects, but it does appear to tumble slightly in representing the Germans' ability to delay larger concentrations of Allied forces with small packets of their own. If the option to use the optional manual defensive fire phase resolution is selected, this problem is significantly minimized (which makes it a preferred choice in my play). Why is this the case? Mainly, because the choice of using the individual phases causes the combat and movement portions of the turn to work differently. One example is that using this method means that a unit can't both move and assault in the same turn, which is a key reason why the default has trouble simulating the Germans' ability to slow the Allied advance with much smaller forces. Also, the penalty for being in travel mode during the turn is more serious, as a unit retains that status throughout the turn. The price of using this approach is a bit less fluidity and ease of play - so the gamer will have to weigh the "more realistic versus ease" choice before starting play.

Go to the next page

Are you enjoying this Review? Here you can send it to a friend.

© 2008, The Wargamer, LLC, a TM Interactive Publishing company. All Rights Reserved.
Protected under copyright and international treaties. No portion of this web site or the files contained therein may be obtained for other than personal non-commercial use nor may they be reproduced or otherwise redistributed. Violations will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties.
All other copyrights and products mentioned on The Wargamer are the property of their respective companies.