 |
|
The Competition & Teaser Thread - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Panzer Battles (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=280) +--- Thread: The Competition & Teaser Thread (/showthread.php?tid=65518) |
RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Strela - 02-07-2014 (02-07-2014, 03:00 AM)ComradeP Wrote:Quote:Wow, the unit art work is really, really nice. I'll be sharing how we built the soldier graphics next week. The AT/machinegun dude has a PPSH over his soldier. He was intended for another role, but he sort of slotted in as a crewman.... (02-07-2014, 03:05 AM)GerryM Wrote: Hello David: Gerry, I did screen captures. One for each group of three (company) essentially. They are actually quite good, looking at them and I may go and put them in the designer notes or even knock up a visual OB for the core units in the game for reference. Like all things it's just time....! David RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Wodin - 02-07-2014 This game really does look superb so far. Loving the artwork (so much better than any other Tiller release..by a long way). The mechanics sound excellent aswell. This has easily got onto my must buy list. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Strela - 02-07-2014 And on a personal note, I just want to congratulate my lovely wife on an amazing achievement today :) She is a 5 time winner! - Link David (Who is now working out when to build OB sheets for the community!) RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Wodin - 02-07-2014 (02-07-2014, 03:38 AM)Strela Wrote: And on a personal note, I just want to congratulate my lovely wife on an amazing achievement today :) Congrats! RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Compass Rose - 02-07-2014 (02-07-2014, 03:38 AM)Strela Wrote: And on a personal note, I just want to congratulate my lovely wife on an amazing achievement today :)  Hey David, are you talking about having a baby ![[Image: 7c4cca660fbaby2.gif]](https://www.theblitz.club/uploads/users/7c4cca660fbaby2.gif) or winning at the Olympics? ![[Image: 70b047dca2Champs%20123.gif]](https://www.theblitz.club/uploads/users/70b047dca2Champs%20123.gif)
RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Outlaw Josey Wales - 02-07-2014 I say congrats as well, but 5 time winner for what? That baby thing sounds pretty good. Then again, it could be bodybuilding or something like that. On another note about those rider casualties, one has to remember, even though ten tanks were firing, at the first sound of a shot, people become amazingly quick. I'm not saying no casualties, but I think it would rarely entail all of the riders. But again, I know a line has to be drawn somewhere. Oh Duh! There is a link. She has got to have some of the tonest legs in the world, those are a lot of steps and she has been at it for awhile. Cool trophy too! What other buildings has she done in competition? RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - GerryM - 02-07-2014 Hello All: Question re Morale: why are the Russians usually C and D while the Germans are A and B in Tiller games, e.g. PzC. (For example, In David's OOB graphic for PB the Guards are just C morale.) I know as the war went on that the Russians improved. Maybe they will have higher morale later? Wondering if the morale difference is a game mechanism to allow the Germans to deal with the numerically superior Russians? Thanks, Gerry RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Strela - 02-07-2014 (02-07-2014, 12:01 PM)GerryM Wrote: Hello All: Hi Gerry, A very reasonable question. We have worked very closely with Ed Williams (Volcano Man) on all the values in game. Ed had pioneered the 'Alt' scenarios for all of the Panzer Campaign titles and came up with unified values (the McNamara database) that is standardised across the series. Ed has built all the values for Panzer Battles and they have been implemented in this first title. One of the decisions Ed put in place was much more standardised morale values. The PzC manual describes morale ratings as follows; • A units are the Elite units • B units are the Superior units • C units are the Average units • D units are the Below Average units • E units are the Inferior units • F units are the Abysmal units. These values drive benefits and penalties. A C morale value is in the middle and the vast majority of trained militaries will fit into this value. For example most of the Western Allied forces (other than airborne) would be C morale. Ed's justification for the C & D values for the Soviets in PzC is as follows; Standardized Russian and Russian-Guards unit quality ratings. Russian line units are given D quality and Russian-Guards units are given C quality. For the most part this is already true in all PzC titles with the exception of a few units, usually given B quality for play balance purposes. With the McNamara OOB based changes, this is no longer required. Obviously, the quality standardization results in some Guards units changing from B to C but it also resulted in just as many Guards artillery units (and other supporting units) changing from D to C. It also resulted in many Russian units changing from E to D. This was all done for several reasons. Firstly, it is a logical assumption that a Guards division distinguished itself in battle, therefore it should be rated higher. More often than not, Soviet units had high casualty rates so instead of some divisions being high quality, the organizations as a whole remained at a standard level but unit leaders (HQ units) would be higher rated if it was a “good” unit. The other reason it was done is to remove the feeling of uniqueness within the Red Army (where, before, some units would be good quality and some would be terrible quality). Instead the emphasis is placed on quantity, the “horde”, individual unit ratings (of the formidable Russian medium and heavy tanks and their artillery), and HQ unit ratings. Several books (such as von Mellenthin’s “Panzer Battles”) make the observation that the Red Army lacked individualism which is characteristic of western armies. This lack of individualism produced an almost automaton adherence to doctrine without any creativity whatsoever at the tactical level. The real strength of a unit was in how it was wielded at the strategic level. The individual fighter in the Red Army was, either intentionally or not, submerged into the “crowd” or “herd”. To that end, there is no real justification for Red Army units to be of sporadic quality levels between B and E but, rather, a standard average quality of C and D for combat units and varying quality levels ranging from excellent to terrible for individual HQ, based on their ability. These quality levels for HQs affect many variables and, given that “out of command” or “detached” units produce realistically severe effects (ie. artillery spotting by detached units get reduced artillery strike effectiveness and detached units gain less replacements), these individual HQ ratings can thus be extremely important. As mentioned above, this standardized quality approach takes focus off of individual unit’s (battalions) effectiveness and instead treats them as a collective. Finally, it is said that even in 1944 the German soldier knew and felt that his unit was superior to his Russian counterpart. However, German divisions were like tiny stones in the midst of a vast ocean of endless Red Army troops. It should be noted that Russian troop quality, as a whole, was indeed improving gradually from 1942 to 1944, but this is inherently reflected in the fact that the number of Guards divisions were increasing as these divisions proved themselves and the organizational changes that improved over time (more artillery, air superiority etc). Records show that German units could stand their own ground even when outnumbered 6:1 but when Russian units are given high quality (B) this becomes impossible. By taking away emphasis of a few “good” units it encourages a Russian player to play with a “horde” mentality. I'm in complete agreement with Ed's take and have used the same approach in the two PzC's games (Kharkov '43 & Moscow '42) that I have been involved in. Hope that helps! David RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - 76mm - 02-07-2014 (02-07-2014, 12:35 PM)Strela Wrote: Several books (such as von Mellenthin’s “Panzer Battles”) make the observation that the Red Army lacked individualism which is characteristic of western armies. This lack of individualism produced an almost automaton adherence to doctrine without any creativity whatsoever at the tactical level.I see...so the basis for giving most Sov units D morale is that "several [German-biased] books" and (German) "records" show that even in 1944 the Red Army was automatons incapable of attacking at less than 7:1 odds? Oddly enough, reading Sov sources gives a distinctly different impression... (02-07-2014, 12:35 PM)Strela Wrote: The individual fighter in the Red Army was, either intentionally or not, submerged into the “crowd” or “herd”. To that end, there is no real justification for Red Army units to be of sporadic quality levels between B and E but, rather, a standard average quality of C and D for combat units and varying quality levels ranging from excellent to terrible for individual HQ, based on their ability.I find this statement rather strange, another reference to the inferior Sov "herd"...I would think that the soldiers in all armies (at least since Troy) are "submerged into the crowd", rather than running about as individual heroes, and yet German units can have distinctive quality ratings and Russian units cannot. Frankly, this approach (I've refrained from calling it a "bias") is a significant turn off for me. I guess the Sov defenders in Stalingrad would also get C and D ratings, since you know, they are militarily incompetent automatons? RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Strela - 02-07-2014 (02-07-2014, 04:45 PM)76mm Wrote: I see...so the basis for giving most Sov units D morale is that "several [German-biased] books" and (German) "records" show that even in 1944 the Red Army was automatons incapable of attacking at less than 7:1 odds? Oddly enough, reading Sov sources gives a distinctly different impression... Hi 76mm, Let's be clear. The 'practice' of giving Soviets C & D morale started a significant time ago with PzC. This is not something new to PzB. This is the third game I have done using this basis for morale ratings and it works to be honest. I try very hard to focus on what various forces achieved historically and then see if we can emulate that in a scenario. The morale rating is just one of the inputs that is considered in that mix. In looking at these historical outcomes we have looked at very significant resources from both sides. There is no 'Germanophile' bias being applied. In this PzB title, we have the loss reports for both sides by formation by day. There is no way we would get the casualties the Soviets officially recorded if we upped the morale factors, particularly considering the adequacy of both sides weaponry. I can guarantee that you'll be able to find umbrage with every single value in the game if you want to. Some already have (losses to tank riders for example) and I will go back if there is a strong enough case and review it. So if you would like to lay out your reasoning for moving the Soviets to higher morale ratings I'm all ears. Finally, there is an editor included in game that will allow you to change the morale ratings (or any other for that matter) so your not locked into what the designers have decided. If you want to change the morale for the Soviets to 'A' or 'B' you can literally do it in one click - all of 5 seconds work. David |
){kind=link}