Slitherine

quote:

The player should be able to play out all battles either as tactical engagements in the Close Combat engine, alternatively as a single soldier in the Call of Duty World at War engine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lukas

quote:

The player should be able to play out all battles either as tactical engagements in the Close Combat engine, alternatively as a single soldier in the Call of Duty World at War engine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dobeln
The orignal Panzer General really limited the player in this regard, forcing him to focus on the strategic layer, instead of shooting his enemy in the face up close and personal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dobeln
- Tactical battles. The player should be able to play out all battles either as tactical engagements in the Close Combat engine, alternatively as a single soldier in the Call of Duty World at War engine. This makes the player connect with the action in a completely new way! The orignal Panzer General really limited the player in this regard, forcing him to focus on the strategic layer, instead of shooting his enemy in the face up close and personal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

quote:

ORIGINAL: dobeln
- Tactical battles. The player should be able to play out all battles either as tactical engagements in the Close Combat engine, alternatively as a single soldier in the Call of Duty World at War engine. This makes the player connect with the action in a completely new way! The orignal Panzer General really limited the player in this regard, forcing him to focus on the strategic layer, instead of shooting his enemy in the face up close and personal.

Please don't do this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dobeln

It´s great to see that PG is being reborn in a format "true to the original". So, to get the forum going, what parts of PG1 does everyone think will stand the test of time? What parts of PG2+ should be allowed to influence Panzer Corps? Here is my take:

Core concepts that should not be changed (in my very humble opinion):

- The scale should be variable, not fixed, with a bias towards "larger" scenario scopes (not necessarily large scenario sizes - it´s important to keep narrative flow going). People want to feel that they are impacting history, directing grand sweeps, etc.

- One unit per hex. Nuff said. Not worried about this one though.

- Snappy, responsive interface. Really important for the "feel" of the game.

- The PG1 naval / air system.

*********Agree with all of those!



Concepts from AG and onwards (and other games) that could enhance the PG1 experience:

- Leaders. One of the best concepts from PG2. Preferably handled with little randomness (you get a fixed number throughout the campaign, plus perhaps an extra one for good performance). Adds a little RPG flair to the game, that personalizes your army and makes you feel more "powerful", always a good thing in these games.

**********Could be a good addition as long as not too overpowing, also leaders should be vulnerable to DEATH:)

- Some limits on equipment availability. We all love our all-King-Tiger army, but it feels more satisfying if you build it over time, instead of just going to town on the shopping as soon as the "available" status on a piece of equipment turns on. Also gives the game a (slightly) more "real" feel. Don´t laugh. ;)

**********Disagree The game always rewarded a good combined arms aproach , however if you wanted to go 'air heavy" or "tank heavy" you had the freedom to do so, with all the risks/rewards . Also , if you bought all tigers , my experiance was the same turn you decide to ammo and fuel up your tigers, the rainy season would hit grinding your advance to a stuttering halt, then the ai would always counter attack your fuel-less ammo-less tanks. Hopefully the same balance is given to the oiginal game regarding the combat power of certain later era tanks vs the amt of ammo/fuel/speed of those units.

- Unit upgrades. People´s general made it possible to "pimp" your units a little extra, which made for good fun, and a more personalized army. Also, the ability to buy experience for new units with prestige meant that losing units later in the campaign was not an automatic case of "reload last save".

***********No issue with the pimpin but disagree on purchasing "experinced units" I felt that feature was a step back for PG2 and Peoples General. Nurturing a tank or fighter up to 5 stars thruout the campaign and then LOSINg such a unit was not only a bummer but could severly hinder further battles.. Just like real life there no replacing your elite veterans.

- Keeping the number of "core units" a bit lower than PG. A somewhat smaller core army with more customization options is preferable to having the sometimes unwieldy core army sizes of PG, imho.


**********Not sure about this, I nver though the armies got too big, plus some of the maps in PG were huge!

- Tactical battles. The player should be able to play out all battles either as tactical engagements in the Close Combat engine, alternatively as a single soldier in the Call of Duty World at War engine. This makes the player connect with the action in a completely new way! The orignal Panzer General really limited the player in this regard, forcing him to focus on the strategic layer, instead of shooting his enemy in the face up close and personal.

****LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Texican

One thing I liked about "Prestige Points" in PG was that you not only used them to buy equipment upgrades or new units, but on rare occasions, scenario-permitting, you could use it to steer through the campaign tree. An example would be, after the fall of France, going to a Sea Lion scenario instead of the Balkans. Or, on the Eastern front, attacking Moscow early instead of going to the Kiev scenario.

These options might cost you 700 Prestige Points or something, but basically represent you using up your "pull" or "favors" to steer the war down a more aggressive and risky path.

Regardless of how they do it, I am heartened the game appears to be going down a semi-dynamic campaign pathing, allowing for defeats or victories to shift the war into different directions. This will add much replay value.

quote:

Let's hope that the American, British, Russian, and Free French sides are playable as well. Also, would hope that the British and American campaigns, if any, have some action in North Africa. (I was very disappointed in PG2 having the Americans and British start in Italy, halfway through the war.)

www.thelordzgamesstudio.com
www.panzer-corps.com
www.commander-games.com

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

We prefer German spoken commands as well... :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dobeln

It´s great to see that PG is being reborn in a format "true to the original". So, to get the forum going, what parts of PG1 does everyone think will stand the test of time? What parts of PG2+ should be allowed to influence Panzer Corps? Here is my take:

Core concepts that should not be changed (in my very humble opinion):

- The scale should be variable, not fixed, with a bias towards "larger" scenario scopes (not necessarily large scenario sizes - it´s important to keep narrative flow going). People want to feel that they are impacting history, directing grand sweeps, etc.

- One unit per hex. Nuff said. Not worried about this one though.

- Snappy, responsive interface. Really important for the "feel" of the game.

*OK

- The PG1 naval / air system.

*I think Pac gen is better for this

Concepts from AG and onwards (and other games) that could enhance the PG1 experience:

- Some limits on equipment availability. We all love our all-King-Tiger army, but it feels more satisfying if you build it over time, instead of just going to town on the shopping as soon as the "available" status on a piece of equipment turns on. Also gives the game a (slightly) more "real" feel. Don´t laugh. ;)

* This is really a campaign and scenario design issue. The campaign gives too much prestige so that you can buy all the upgrades plus a scenario design that makes 1 Super tank ,better than having 2-3 lesser tanks (either due to a narrow advance or the AI having only super tanks). New PG2 Campaigns rarely suffer from this issue.

- Unit upgrades. People´s general made it possible to "pimp" your units a little extra, which made for good fun, and a more personalized army. Also, the ability to buy experience for new units with prestige meant that losing units later in the campaign was not an automatic case of "reload last save".

* Experienced Units.Again this tends to be a design issue and also a matter of balance.In new PG2 campaigns, the basic experience of new units is increased so that they can at least survive and not just be cannon fodder.

- Keeping the number of "core units" a bit lower than PG. A somewhat smaller core army with more customization options is preferable to having the sometimes unwieldy core army sizes of PG, imho.

- Tactical battles. The player should be able to play out all battles either as tactical engagements in the Close Combat engine, alternatively as a single soldier in the Call of Duty World at War engine. This makes the player connect with the action in a completely new way! The orignal Panzer General really limited the player in this regard, forcing him to focus on the strategic layer, instead of shooting his enemy in the face up close and personal.

*Sorry PG should not go this this level. It is a tactical/operational level game and should remain so.

quote:

PG3 (because it was SSI an after PG2 but it was a dissapointment)

King-Tigers don't let Tiger-I's get over-run.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

I thought it was a way to save on the expense of re-designing new maps :P