 |
|
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 - Xaver - 02-14-2014 I leave this a few hours and we suffer a troll attack!!! when i see the west images a rash appeared in my arm  i have a bad feeling, i see more wargames covering the WWII wargames Bermudes triangle Normandy-Market garden-Bulge  More serious now, all new title is wellcome specially when PzB looks like the future in Tiller games, i wait PzB01 and PzB02, 03, 04... 69  and i dont say no to a title from the WWII triangle of wargames but i really prefer see other battles/campaigns (even if i stay in the west-east-Mediterranean and dont move to Pacific) i think with PzB scale is possible do a first aproximation to Berlin 1945 before see a PzC title for example.Thanks for the update OOB image, i think the document could be a good game seller, in general is easier sell something through the eyes  The image selected for the cover is a good option, you have captured the essence of Oklahoma  PD: i need ask it... february??? ![[Image: If_you_know_what_I_mean_.png]](http://www.jakuri.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/If_you_know_what_I_mean_.png)
RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Strela - 02-14-2014 (02-14-2014, 10:19 PM)Xaver Wrote: PD: i need ask it... february??? I keep telling you two weeks..... and two weeks from now is still February!!!  David RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Xaver - 02-14-2014 Thanks Strela but well, i am old in this sort of thing and we have time, tiiiime, valve time, Dr Who time etc etc For example i am waiting a game patch that has initial release date in last holidays, jump to january, them 10 february, 14 february and now waiting next week  is not a thing to open the window and jump... at least without parachute   When we enter in games world the time laws and rules are deformed like chewing gum
RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Xaver - 02-15-2014 A little question, in game germans have flammpanzers??? and if they have them they work as in PzC or there is something new in engine for them??? Thanks. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Strela - 02-15-2014 (02-15-2014, 06:40 AM)Xaver Wrote: A little question, in game germans have flammpanzers??? and if they have them they work as in PzC or there is something new in engine for them??? Hi Xaver, Yes there are Flammpanzers! There are actually a number of flame weapons for both sides. They work the same way as PzC's in that they have enhanced assault values. With a 250 metre hex it is hard to justify the flame weaponry having a range higher than zero. In the image below you can see a German PzKw III Flammpanzer, a motorcycle battalion flame platoon (yes the Soviets actually had these!) and a Static Flame Platoon. The assault values are high to reflect the flame armament. The Static Flame units are small but very nasty. They are point defence units and essentially were teams that remotely controlled 'flame mines' These were static, heavily camouflaged flame throwers that were built into a defensive position. In game these units can not move and will not reveal themselves unless they are recon spotted or the hex they are in is assaulted. Though small at 20 men, assaulting one of these units before its disrupted will almost certainly guarantee casualties. ![[Image: d512591425PB%20Graphics%2079.png]](https://www.theblitz.club/uploads/users/d512591425PB%20Graphics%2079.png) David RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Strela - 02-15-2014 Hi All, We got a new build today - possibly one of the last before release!!!  Though aesthetic, John has fixed an issue that had niggled me. The new code now displays the formation name much more logically. Two key changes have been made. When two or more platoons/sections are combined they now display the next highest formation name rather than the superfluous name of the first platoon in the combined unit. Secondly as a real play aid, the number of units combined has been moved to the front of the counter in place of the old +++. This provides the player with information that previously was only on the back of the unit data. Below you can see both the old and new format of reporting. The first unit group shows a company that has both panzer grenadier platoons and MG sections. In both cases they use the name from the first platoon/section and the +++ to indicate they are combined units. In the new format both units use the company name (the superfluous platoon number is dropped) and the component counts of three & two respectively are shown. On the back of the unit card the component count has been moved to the company line. ![[Image: a57b6d5cd9PB%20Graphics%2080.png]](https://www.theblitz.club/uploads/users/a57b6d5cd9PB%20Graphics%2080.png) Looking at the below two examples the first is the normal numbering when there are no grouped units and the second stack when only some of the components are combined. ![[Image: 74e03806a7PB%20Graphics%2081.png]](https://www.theblitz.club/uploads/users/74e03806a7PB%20Graphics%2081.png) David RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - ComradeP - 02-15-2014 Looks good, both changes should give the player more information at a glance and the return of combined units displaying the correct name for their size will also prevent some confusion. The Flammpanzer III has a low soft attack rating, but I guess that's because it only has 2 MG's aside from the flamethrower and the flamethrower is purely an assault weapon. Vehicles with MG's are always rated lower than infantry when it comes to their soft attack. I guess that makes sense as increasing vehicle soft attack ratings further would unbalance things, and decreasing infantry soft attack ratings would make them much less combat capable. I also guess the lack of schuerzen evens out the additional frontal armour to give it a defence rating similar or identical to a regular Panzer III M? Also: is that Soviet flamethrower platoon composed of assault squads or the like where one or two men have flamethrowers? I thought their flamethrower companies/battalions were composed of squads with only flamethrowers. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Xaver - 02-15-2014 Quote:The Flammpanzer III has a low soft attack rating ComradeP get out of my mind!!! really, i login to coment the same... for me the soft attack in Flamm III is a little low specially when the soviet flamm platoon has better soft attack... as ComradeP says i understand that vehicles with only MGs have worst soft attack than infantry but well, here we talk about 7 tanks with 2 MGs.. 7x2 is more MGs than the MG squad (i think they have 5-6) maybe to add in abstract the problems of MGs used in vehicles need leave the value under the infantry MG platoon... but not a lot... well i dont have the game and dont see flamm tank units in the big picture and maybe as they are now balance is good.If i dont remember bad MG platoon has 12/6 in soft attack values... i think that Flamm III can have... 10/4 or 9/4??? at least over soviet flamm platoon in damage and of course range but a little more than the original 3 value, the question is give them offensive defense VS infantry... i think in Ferdinand, sure has better soft attack value and better defensive value BUT without MGs it was more vulnerable VS infantry attacks and with no turret worst to defend him self. Apart this i allways want see the add a new rule for flamm units, something to improve the chance to disrupt an unit under their attack... they were more a morale weapon very good to kick out units even with low casualties, maybe flamm units when are added to an assault have a % of success disrupting assaulted units before solve the assault.... yes, i follow a little LnL Heroes of Stalingrad and even when i am not a board games fan i need admit they have some good things Thanks for the info and the pics Strela, take your time to test last version, i really prefer wait to the last week ... damn, i never think i can say this, age change me a lot apart reduction in hair concentration in head and increase in fat reserves WHY NOT IN THE OTHER WAY!!! 
RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - ComradeP - 02-15-2014 All the ratings are for single vehicles/whatever ground element makes up the majority of an infantry or gun unit. The soft attack value is a bit underwhelming, but in terms of the database used I'm guessing the flamethrower isn't counted. A flamethrower is a very potent soft attack weapon, but in this case it's abstracted into a high assault value (just like ski units in Moscow '42 have high assault values due to being composed of platoons with large numbers of SMG's). The abstraction in terms of scale also means some decisions need to be made: a squad 250 meters away from a Flammpanzer only needs to worry about 2 MG's, one of which might not even be able to hit them if the squad hits the deck. A squad at 50 meters from a Flammpanzer should be very worried. Generally speaking, the database used in PzC seems to favour high calibre weapons, as the leaps in soft attack and hard attack values are significant with each "step" to a higher calibre over 50mm. That's not a problem per se, but it does mean that the early war tanks are not really capable anti-infantry weapons unless they get a positive quality fire modifier. Even if a tank has a 37mm gun, it's still a tank, and if you can't do anything about it, given enough time it's still likely to kill or wound you or render you combat ineffective through pinning you down. In PzC, a vehicle with a 75mm/76mm gun is about 5 times as effective as a vehicle with a 37mm gun (before modifiers). Currently, T-60's (not to mention T-40's with their 1-1 ratings) are primarily useful for ZOC locking units in place or cutting supply, as they just don't leave much of an impression on infantry units. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Xaver - 02-15-2014 You are right ComradeP BUT this is not PzC and scale is divided by 4... a MG with this scale has more firepower value against infantry, even when a flamm III only have the turret MG as total usefull defensive weapon well, i think 7x1 is enough to mantein infantry at a non dangerous range for the steel box guys (i need say that flamm III only have a crew of 3, this is a good point to reduce the firepower compared with MG squads). Ummm i allways take vehicles in PzC like this: a tank is the same as 10 soldiers, if an infantry unit has 100 soldiers with a soft attack of 5 for me firepower (100% with no bonus or penalties) is 100x5=500, a unit with 10 tanks with a soft attack of 5 for me is 10x10x5=500, maybe i am wrong but i allways use this and for me works. I think they use here something like in Nap/ACW/EAW/SQB where weapons have a range table with weapon firepower by range, at least i think this work on this way but maybe Strela can say us something about this... i refer is not the same shoot at 500m (1-2 hexes) with a PzIII M over a T-34/76 that shoot at 1.000m (4-5 hexes). The problem with flamm weapons is range, you need move in SQB hex scale to see range attacks, in PzC and even here in PzB the power of his main weapon is only avaliable in assaults, you miss the most important part of the weapon... the fear factor, you only add value to assualt in brute force but not the morale eater factor over enemy. Today i wake up with excesive energy, sorry EDIT: i dont know how i can miss this... the static flamm units... well, why the have a big assault value if they are static??? is not better increase their defensive value a little??? they cant assault... or they can do it???. Oooo and is a great improvement see now the number of subunits joined in same unit over the old +++, great job!!!. |
){kind=link}