 |
|
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 - -72- - 01-11-2014 I think the actual question is more along the lines is the time scale adjustable in a user editor? I am not really asking this for myself, but rather because I know that it is in at least one other series. and it can be an interesting twist. I do think that in a 30 minute turn -I get that you are talking about tactical armor battle considerations - facing makes a difference (in other words target aspect, and where armor is located on armored fighting vehicles...). But the thing is - that if a turn is 30 minutes - how much change would a vehicle be able to affect with regards to what is targeting it? In other words- I think of it this way ... a vehicle (or in this case a set of vehicles) is able to find the most optimal defensive facing within that time period (actually probably pretty damned quickly would be more like it -considering that the main factor becomes actual life or death.). Scaling games is a bit of an artform -something I imagine DF can relate to. :) RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Strela - 01-11-2014 (01-11-2014, 06:25 AM)Richie61 Wrote: So if there is no real facing direction in PB, then won't the general overall strength of the tank(s) be reduced to make up for the fact of abstraction. Doesn't this make the Tigers as more invincible as one would hope? PzB is 250m x 30 minutes vs SB 40m and 5 minutes This means at approximately 6 times (not 3 times) 240m & 30 minutes.... The scale to Panzer Campaigns is another 4 times at 1,000m & 2 hours. There is consistency between the three game series. As far as facing we honestly believe we have it right by not including it at this scale. There was a long debate about the merits or otherwise of including it. A lot of reading indicated that once you got to platoon and beyond, units orientated themselves to protect their flanks or looked to pull back as quickly as possible if they were threatened. As Trauth116 calls out in the time frame units were able to orientate themselves to protect flanks where possible. Here is one example from Rudolf von Ribbentrop's diary, a Leibstandarte PzKw IV company commander; 'I let the canteen cup fall and called out: "Start your engines!" That was followed a moment later by: "Follow me!" I called out to the executive officer, Malchow: We'll move out in line to the slope. You echelon your platoon to the left. I will be in the middle and on the right with the other three vehicles. Bend your left flank back somewhat in case we are outflanked. We'll position ourselves on the reverse slope and knock out the Russians from there!' Ribbentrop's 'company' had a grand total of seven tanks at this time, essentially a reinforced platoon yet it was considering its flanks and how to protect them as soon as it moved out. The offset to the above example is the firepower when a unit the size of Ribbentrop's runs into a full strength company or two of Soviet tanks (20 vehicles). The weight of firepower will put the Germans at a disadvantage and though flanks are not specifically shown the effect of the additional Russian vehicles will abstractly reflect the ability to overwhelm smaller units - morale & equipment quality notwithstanding. There is another feature included in Panzer Battles that I don't want to reveal at this time that will allow flanking and kill zones to be reflected in game. Considering this feature we think we have covered some of the concerns people are voicing here. Finally, Trauth116 is right - the time periods can be changed in the scenario editor. The scale and timings have been carefully considered for what players should be able to achieve in a turn - particularly in a World War 2 battle at Platoon/Company scale. Factors such as move distances, casualties etc have all been factored into the decisions here and as one person pointed out the six minute periods in John Tiller's Campaign Series allowed too many actions for too short a period. We believe through a lot of testing and comparison to historical results that we have a reasonable facsimile. As players we want it all to happen with immediacy and that just isn't the case of what happened in reality. David RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Strela - 01-11-2014 (01-11-2014, 04:41 AM)Xaver Wrote: I have in mind the same game, for me this game made Tiller engine even more obsolete, realtime with WEGO turns and true tactical AI where units have separate infantry from his transports (an infantry unit has the infantry squads+transports+other support elements)... if they do a WWII version no colour and of course if they improve infantry model to made it based in number of soldiers no like in TOAW with squads model. We do have transport capability available in PzB just like Squad Battles (SqB). We made a decision not to include it as separate units in game for this first release as we found that it added a lot of counter clutter and little value in the battle covered. If either side had had limitations on transport historically then that may have driven a different decision. We looked at the way Panzer Campaigns had handled this area previously with motorized & mechanized infantry units in one of three states, deployed (i.e. on foot), in travel mode (i.e. riding in trucks or halftracks) or 'on foot' (i.e. a unit had abandoned their transport). We felt that the PzC approach reflected all the situations that historically happened in this particular battle. Other than mechanized (SPW halftrack) formations, units rarely used their transport in actual combat. Mechanized units get benefits (and risks) if they ride their SPW's into combat and their combat values reflect the additional armament of their transports. Players can ride their trucks in combat if they want but will have the negative impacts of being in travel mode. Finally the riding of foot units on non transport type vehicles/tanks has been included (with limitations) and this comes both with the advantages of faster movement but the higher exposure of riding on the outside of armoured vehicles. David RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Xaver - 01-12-2014 Well, for me a game covering WW2 needs have in mind facing in scales under 1km OR at least something to dont made flanking movements useless. The problem is we dont know the engine and we are blind apart the few info know here... there are ways to simulate facing effects with no facing, i think for example in a counter with friendly units near (in a range of 2 hexes for example) has his full defensive values BUT when friendly units are over 2 hexes units with hard defensive values (VS AT guns, tanks etc etc) suffer a malus in defensive value, i refer if you split your forces a lot non pure infantry units have their defensive value reduced to simulate the malus in armored combat with no support because unit needs cover more than one or two flanks... sure add facing add more info in game but playing EAW, REN and NAP i never feel the info that add facing overflow me hehehe. Transports... well, is great know that infantry can use vehicles as transport (maybe like in SP vehicles/tanks have a load value???) but in motorized and mech infantry... i allways think that separate infantry from transports is important, a unit of 100 soldiers with 10 HTs doesnt have the same mobility as one with 100 soldiers and 5 HTs... i can deal with the PzC abstract model in PzB but when you move down you need reduce abstraction. I am with you that CS time scale is to small but i feel 30 is excesive big... yes, is in the Tiller scale compared with games that dont use facing (WWI, MC, PzC) but compared with games using facing... well is double in time but half in space... if engine is good enough i dont see imposible use like in NAP titles another time scale, is a question of test it, i really prefer have more turns because in tactical fights give more options to change and addapt, big turns reduce a lot this and well, in Flashpoint asimetric turns are a way to simulate advantages in command for example. Again, we talk about all we know that is small. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - PzKw43 - 01-12-2014 Strela posted: The graphics you have seen in this thread were specifically designed for Panzer Battles (PzB). They have subsequently been used in the mobile version of Panzer Campaigns (PzC) and are being retrofitted into Panzer Campaigns games available from John Tiller's web site. The Panzer Battle version is better quality as it uses the larger Squad Battles hex layouts as compared to the pixel doubling zoom in Panzer campaigns. Does this mean that if the new graphics are retrofitted to an old game it will have the new map graphics (larger hexes) or will they still be the same small hexes? I stopped buying and playing Tiller games because the hexes are just to small on a 27" monitor. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Outlaw Josey Wales - 01-12-2014 I still just hope that if not alread there, it will be in future titles say again, Market-garden, a scenario that would cover each division, don't care how many turns it is, and that there would still be one that would cover the whole battle for those that may want to tackle it as a team game or even those hardier HTH. I know some would be much too large for thw whole thing if it is in places like some of the PzCs, but MG I think would be a good one. Maybe the only one like that. Again, I wish it would have a randon battle generator where people could pick and choose what size to fight like in CS, but be able to pick an actual division rather than a generic one. The would be a very large OOB though. That would mean even more if this Armored Battles I heard about for modern war is for real. It's pretty cool to be able to choose two countries to have a battle from anywhere in the world. No matter what the deal is with either of them, I am definitely looking forwrad to them being released! The best games are those that are detailed and user friendly at the same time. Using baseball games as an example - Out of the Park Baseball has a lot of detail, but difficult to move around your team pages, took me an hour to get to play a game. Whereas, Puresim baseball has less detail, but very user friendly and able to get into a game within a few minutes and covers seasons from 1900 to 2012. Would love to see a game with individual soldiers some day with scenarios up to Bn strength if one wants. Graphics like Sudden Strike, but two, maybe three times larger. It would be cool if your objective was to clear a village before moving on to the next hill or intersection, having to clear houses where you go room to room if necessary. Kind of a mix between Sudden Strike and the old Xcom games. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Xaver - 01-12-2014 Well, this is other important point for me, the lack of support for team games in PBEM, direct play has it, you can assignate troops from the OOB to the players when scenario start and something like this for teamgames in PBEM is very interesting... and it could be perfect if in turn replay every player in team can decide if see only the actions that his troops see or suffer or see the full turn reply (for example this could be only avaliable for "team commander" the other players in team see the limited turn replay a way to simulate the limited info and you can even more expand it to the game fog). The problem with random generator of battles is that you need use a generic OOB where buy formations... it can work with actual OOB to but needs use the in game unit value in victory points, lets see you set the points per player and they can "buy" units in the OOB tree and to deploy on map ... well you can have maps for this done to accept encounter battles or other variants... but i dont see this feature in future. To play a individual soldier scale i prefer play shooters, i follow now one called Verdun that looks interesting hehehe. Can you say at least if we need wait a lot to have game??? lets see, we have it in Q1 Q2 Q3 or Q4??? a lot of time ago the topic here move from "what is the game title" to "givemeinfointhenameofGod" hehehehe maybe you can post the game manual with no spoilers, i really want dive on it. EDIT: i understand they retrofit the map art in other series but unit and counter art... maybe units is possible. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Aaron - 01-12-2014 Yes you have to wait, how long is as long as it takes. You know Tillers policy when it comes to release dates. All these games are made in our spare time and we all have regular jobs (most of the time, David) so giving you a date and then something happening in our regular lives to push that date back 2 months after we said a certain date just causes more issues. If you like Tiller games you will LOVE this game, thats all to be said. Its a Tiller game. Aaron RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - GerryM - 01-12-2014 Thanks David and others with knowledge of the game for sharing. Wondering two things. 1. How many units would one be in control of in a small scenario or a medium scenario (I don't care so much about number of turns). 2. Is the game mechanics the same as in Squad Battles and PzC? As in you fire each unit multiple times, etc. I ask as one of the issues I have is the workload with these games. It seems that the firing for the AI or one's own side goes on forever. Thanks again, Gerry RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Aaron - 01-12-2014 (01-12-2014, 04:52 AM)GerryM Wrote: Thanks David and other with knowledge of the game for sharing. Wondering two things. Theres different size battles just like any Tiller game in both turns and number of units. But with that said and the scale of this game the overall battles should go quick and smooth for you. Aaron |
){kind=link}