Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Panzer Corps



Message

Obsolete -> Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (12/20/2010 3:01:07 AM)

What I really didn't like about PG 1 --

After you did an action with a unit, you could not select another unit(s) after, and then come back to the previous to finish its actions.

What I really didn't like about PG 2 --

All that micro-management in trying to get around the Jensen Cap. (Must be a better system for limiting cores).

What I really didn't like about PG 3 --

Leaders became more useless the higher their rank got, due to losing unit-slots. This was especially painful in SE when you had so many missions that you had to cross a minimum of units from point A to point B, but just adding one good leader didn't even leave you with enough units to complete the scenario!

Additional issues...
The horrible game-breaking lockup bugs with AT units in the 3D series...
Annoying issues with certain leader ability bonuses not making sense when assigned to specific units in PG2...
Give me a while, I can probably remember a whole list now...






Texican -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (12/20/2010 6:23:19 PM)

I could do without the leader systems used in PG2 and overused in PG3. I think YOU are the leader, and the units are the veteran teams of troops you command, upgrade, and direct in battle. I'd rather have a unit named "3rd Panzer Elite" or something than the "Schmidt" unit.

One thing I would like to see is an HQ unit, maybe it's a mobile command van or something that represents yourself on the map. If it gets too far from its units, they lose movement ability, maybe even combat penalties. If it gets eliminated, the computer plays out the rest of that battle, then there is some chance YOU were captured or killed, and if the former, appear in a later scenario.

But maybe that stuff is extras with not much time to bake in. Hoping for a January release of this game.



Lord Zimoa -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (12/20/2010 8:12:55 PM)

Yeah, my personal view on it we have to stick with an "ace" system and no real overall "leaders for PzC.

As an example given: as a battle reward you get Michael Wittmann, a Panzer Tiger 1 ace, and you can assign him eg. to your 1st SS Panzer division LAH and that will give this specific unit a +1 in attack and defence, or something along that line.

Alex is still figuring out a system, but I would stick to Panzer and Luftwaffe aces, maybe snipers for the Infantry...



Obsolete -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (12/20/2010 8:56:28 PM)

Well, in order to get the Michael Wittmann ace, you first have to train him as a Stug to get his experience... haha!




Obsolete -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (12/21/2010 8:43:15 PM)

I just remembered a really nasty mechanic from the 3D series.

If you even had a super-scout unit, you know the type that can spot stuff like 8 tiles away or whatever it was...  Sadly, there is a magical rule where if you are at the edge of a map, there could be enemy units adjacant to your hex (off map), which can ambush and pounce on you....  but you can't dare spot it.  No sir, not even airial recon is allowed for that...

I don't even have words to describe how poorly that one was thought up...




Texican -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (12/29/2010 9:24:15 PM)

"In-battle" replacements, I thought, were unrealistic in the earlier PG versions. I'm wondering if the new game might allow replacements and upgrades ONLY between scenarios. This way, if a unit gets battered, it's pulled out of the fight, most likely for the rest of the battle (just as in a real military operation).



Deadmoon -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/9/2011 1:03:16 PM)

Rush for objectives or lose

This is what i hate most of PG series. Every scenario forces you to take all the objetives...no matter if you crush all the enemy forces and capture major cities. If you didnīt capture a crappy little village on a far edge of a map labeled as an objetive, you lose. [:@]

Also the time is limited. Most of the time you simply donīt have time to siege a city or regroup your forces. You must keep rushing through enemy objetives or run out of time. Iīll like to see a slower gaming pace.

Maybe it can be fixed making that if you donīt capture all the required objetives then enemy reinforcements could arrive or something that makes things even difficult. Make victory conditions more flexible...letīs say you must capture 5 major objetives but there are 7 in the map so you doesnīt really need to take them all to win a scenario...


Super-infantry

I think this was done to make game challenging but i hated that...in PG2 enemy infantry with nearly the same values as yours (iīm talking about soviets) were nearly indestructible. Attacking them with your infantry often throw a result of 0/2 or worse...and they were not even entrenched. Tanks also had trouble dealing with them.

Please, donīt do that. Donīt make enemy units super-though in order to balance the game...


AT guns

In PG series they were very effective in defending against tanks but, since nearly all the scenarios involve attacking they were nearly useless for you...i never bought them because you didnīt really need to defend anything and if you try to attack with them you canīt, because disembarking units are not allowed to attack on the same turn. Historically AT guns were deployed and used on the front, not just in prepared defences.

Iīd like to see an option to disembark and allow attacking with AT or, at least, give them more range to support an attack....


Dual 88 guns

In PG2 you have to buy either a AT 88 or a AA 88 when that unit could fire in either role...



ezzler -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/10/2011 8:25:44 PM)

Totally agree about the capture all or start again. It just meant most maps had to be played three or four times. Rushing recon units into rear areas until they ran into an AT gun.

I love the reinforcement idea. If the map edge towns are not secure then enemy reinforcements arrive. Same for the airbase.

Or if certain out of the way villages are taken, extra turns are added to the attacker's clock {did Pzg have that already or just the download game?}



GaryChildress -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/11/2011 3:11:20 AM)

It's been a long time since I played PG but I think I can remember a couple things I didn't particularly like or wish were different.

One thing: It never made much sense to purchase anything but the best tanks and infantry for your core group. Things like Tank destroyers or assault guns really were a waste to get, even though there were a fair number of them. They didn't perform as well as tanks and they really weren't necessary for anything. Also, IIRC you could purchase italian units but they were also utterly useless and a waste of resources.

Bottom line, it would be nice if there were incentives to fill out your core group with a variety of different units instead of all Tigers in 42 or all Panthers in 43.



sabre1 -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/11/2011 1:09:57 PM)

Variety and incentives is a good idea, as long as it isn't forced on me, but offered as an option.



Texican -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/12/2011 12:39:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

It's been a long time since I played PG but I think I can remember a couple things I didn't particularly like or wish were different.

One thing: It never made much sense to purchase anything but the best tanks and infantry for your core group. Things like Tank destroyers or assault guns really were a waste to get, even though there were a fair number of them. They didn't perform as well as tanks and they really weren't necessary for anything. Also, IIRC you could purchase italian units but they were also utterly useless and a waste of resources.

Bottom line, it would be nice if there were incentives to fill out your core group with a variety of different units instead of all Tigers in 42 or all Panthers in 43.


Simple solution is to make tanks progressively more expensive and even limited. Maybe the first Tiger I is 400 points, the second is 600 points, and after that there are none to buy.



HansHafen -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/13/2011 1:29:17 AM)

What if the Germans are winning the war? Do they get more Tigers? If so, how do we decide if they are winning the war?

What if the Germans are losing the war? Do they get less Tigers? If so, how do we decide if they are losing the war?

I think somewhere down the road it would be great if the designers, or modders, could develope a system to simulate raw materials, manufacturing, manpower etc. 

Oh, and I would still fill out my entire core group with Tigers over Panthers in any year. Slow Tigers are better than stationary Panthers! :) 



Texican -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/13/2011 7:08:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansHafen

What if the Germans are winning the war? Do they get more Tigers? If so, how do we decide if they are winning the war?

What if the Germans are losing the war? Do they get less Tigers? If so, how do we decide if they are losing the war?

I think somewhere down the road it would be great if the designers, or modders, could develope a system to simulate raw materials, manufacturing, manpower etc. 

Oh, and I would still fill out my entire core group with Tigers over Panthers in any year. Slow Tigers are better than stationary Panthers! :) 


You know, I never filled out my entire group with tanks, never tried it. I would, however, make at least a third of my core group air (2 Stuka's, 2 Fighters, maybe 1 level bomber), then have a good mix of infantry (Pionere's), artillery, and tanks, maybe a recce or two. In fact, I'd almost never have more than 3 tank units.

Always seemed to work.



HansHafen -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/13/2011 7:48:28 PM)

Yes, I agree Texican. I tried to have a balanced force of core units also. I was just goofing about all Tigers! The Panthers may be the better unit in Panzer General because none of them can break down! :)



Texican -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/14/2011 3:45:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansHafen

Yes, I agree Texican. I tried to have a balanced force of core units also. I was just goofing about all Tigers! The Panthers may be the better unit in Panzer General because none of them can break down! :)


Well, they represented the mechanical deficiencies of the early model Panther (D, I think actually before A) by giving it only as much fuel as a Tiger I, thereby simulating mechanical problems. I think it would have had a higher fuel value otherwise.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.



Obsolete -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/14/2011 9:50:42 AM)

quote:

Someone correct me if I am wrong.


You may be wrong there on your interpretation of the reasoning of those stats. The default e-files that SSI shipped with PG2 had a few glitches and paradoxes. Even the Panthers were one of them. IIRC, Panther A cost more presteige than other Panthers, despite they were no better in any way, and so on.





Zakhal -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/14/2011 4:11:24 PM)

After years of playing all of the general series I came to the conclusion that the series was more of a puzzle than strategy game. There was a very limited way to "win" the game and you had to replay each scenario until you figured it out.

However I Did buy the new fantasy generals fantasy wars and elven legacy. Fantasy General was perhaps my favorite of the whole series. The campaign map and interesting units and scenarios plus plot.

But Im not sure about this. I think Ive had enough of panzer general. Cant stand another Battle of France. However I would buy pacific general anyday. Theres just somthing about pacific that draws me and pacific general was a diamond of the series. I liked everything about it the music, japanese units, air units, naval action, interesting places like pacific islands and india etc.



Obsolete -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/14/2011 5:07:14 PM)

quote:

Cant stand another Battle of France.


Was that a hint at the Sedan scenario? Many people have complained that was the hardest PUZZLE scenario of them all. Though I'm not sure it really was a puzzle at all. Personally, all the scenarios are the same, after you play them ONCE, you know exactly WHAT the AI has, and WHERE it has them. Things are then very easy after that.

I do hope some randomization scrips come into play with the new remake... This certainly would add more to the re-play value.




Rudankort -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/14/2011 10:48:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zakhal

After years of playing all of the general series I came to the conclusion that the series was more of a puzzle than strategy game. There was a very limited way to "win" the game and you had to replay each scenario until you figured it out.


I hear this opinion from time to time, but it does not really match my own playing experience, so I wonder why people feel this way. Can you give a few examples? Thus, what limited way to win exactly did you need to figure out in PG Warsaw, Norway, Low Countries, France?..

In the first PG scen, Poland, I can agree that the trick to avoid finishing off enemy units was quite useful, but that is because of bad design of that particular scen (a lot of prestige and limited slots for allied player).



terrymagic -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (1/15/2011 3:34:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Texican

Simple solution is to make tanks progressively more expensive and even limited. Maybe the first Tiger I is 400 points, the second is 600 points, and after that there are none to buy.



hiya Texican I think it can be made that way, and another idea is adopting the Battlefront games, they create stuff like Tank unit slot, infantry unit slot. This way the composition of your army can have varieties. Of course it can be mixed with the idea of what type of division is it ( was it mechanized / armor / infantry ).

Another idea that can combine with the varieties of unit mechanism is the reinforcements system. Instead of take all up the prestige for the cost of purchasing reinforcement units, can it also add the mechanism to give the rarity factor of the unit type. So in an instance if you purchase too many panthers, then there will be rare of reinforcement of that type. So strategically, players will have to plan which type of unit suit better for the entire campaign / certain mission ( giving if the unit can be return to the pool ) [:)]

I have played PG, PG2, PG3D assault, Fantasy General, Peoples General, Allied General, Pacific General, Steel Panther and I love those games, would like to see the new panzer corps comes a live !




ijontichy -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (4/24/2011 11:41:06 AM)

One feature I began to dislike about Panzer General was how there was no limit on exactly what you could buy with your prestige points. Like in the Budapest scenario I found that I just kept on buying King Tigers (unless my air force was in trouble), and by the end of the scenario I had about 8 King Tigers wreaking havoc on the battlefield. If I was limited to buying say 2 King Tigers, then I might think about buying something other than a tank.



Ericw43 -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (4/24/2011 1:46:20 PM)

Zakhal stated my biggest grip with Panzer General; the game became more of a puzzle with very little strategy. It limited the player in the ways to win. I am eagerly awaiting this title and I hope it does not play in this way.
Happy Easter!



Rocko911 -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (4/24/2011 4:19:18 PM)

The fact is that tiger tanks were useless once the allies had the air power. They decimated the tigers. However this was mid to late in ww2. Perhaps if you are worried about the tiger tanks , we should look at a fuel modifier issue. The fact is that a Tiger tank usage of fuel was as horrendous as its damage it could do. It will be interesting if we see as the game proceeds that later in the conflicts the Germans deal with the fuel issue and poor resources to contradict the whole Tiger tank fear some of you have. Just my opinion,



Zakhal -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (4/26/2011 3:41:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rudankort
I hear this opinion from time to time, but it does not really match my own playing experience, so I wonder why people feel this way. Can you give a few examples? Thus, what limited way to win exactly did you need to figure out in PG Warsaw, Norway, Low Countries, France?..

I think its too easy to make simple mistake that then force you to reload the game. Like in puzzle you cant afford mistakes.

The game would be more fun if you remove time limits all together and add more prestige to buy units. You win simply if you manage to capture all the objectives before your troops run out of steam (strenght & prestige points).

There might still be a time limit but it would be very loose (and no "rush" awards) or the battle would end when both side agree to truce Close Combat style. The real battle would actually be about beating the enemy on the battlefield, not about rushing against the clock and dodging suprises.



Obsolete -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (4/26/2011 4:13:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ijontichy

One feature I began to dislike about Panzer General was how there was no limit on exactly what you could buy with your prestige points. Like in the Budapest scenario I found that I just kept on buying King Tigers (unless my air force was in trouble), and by the end of the scenario I had about 8 King Tigers wreaking havoc on the battlefield. If I was limited to buying say 2 King Tigers, then I might think about buying something other than a tank.


The game follows a rock-paper-scissors system. If a player wants to go fully one-way, then he's free to do so... including gaining penalties as he does it.

I'm not so sure we need to limit people's options here.



schwaryfalke -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (4/26/2011 9:16:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Obsolete


quote:

ORIGINAL: ijontichy

One feature I began to dislike about Panzer General was how there was no limit on exactly what you could buy with your prestige points. Like in the Budapest scenario I found that I just kept on buying King Tigers (unless my air force was in trouble), and by the end of the scenario I had about 8 King Tigers wreaking havoc on the battlefield. If I was limited to buying say 2 King Tigers, then I might think about buying something other than a tank.


The game follows a rock-paper-scissors system. If a player wants to go fully one-way, then he's free to do so... including gaining penalties as he does it.

I'm not so sure we need to limit people's options here.



Restricting how many of a type is not a good solution. The best solution is to address the core issues that resulted in this behavior.

IMO this was caused by 3 main design issues(use of King Tigers and why many unit types where not used):-

1. Limited unit numbers - If i can only buy 1, i will buy the best since the viable option of buying 2 lesser units is not available.
2. Available prestige/cost of Units - You could afford to buy only the best and the difference in cost did not reflect the in game effectiveness of units.

3. how the scenarios are designed and whether they force you to go for a strategy with a narrow focus(only the best units) or a wider focus (lots of lesser units).

If you are not already familiar with PG2, i would suggest looking at the evolution of the efiles and campaigns made by modders (1. was not an issue in PG2, but 2 and 3 were)





SeaMonkey -> RE: Throwing out the worst - a feature discussion (4/30/2011 11:39:11 PM)

How about a unit attachment scheme?  Something that allows a combat bonus when a unit's multi-echelon variety configuration is achieved.  Let's say you have a leader and he has a command capacity of 5 units(they are not out of command range of each other).  If you fill that capacity with the right mix of units, say a tank, 2 infantry, recon and an artillery there is an all around bonus to the different combat factors.  Obviously if the command structure is loaded towards one type of combat parameter it will exhibit a capacity for that type of firefight but be penalized if meeting a better arrayed command with a propensity for defense of that enemy configuration.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.234375