HPS PzC II

[USS Wyoming]

I only have a single title-K'42 and maybe some of these are already available and I haven't discovered them yet.

a. Highlight an organization and have the rest of the units disappear from view. Sometimes I have a tough time seeing which units are under the same command, even with divisional markings and highlights. I like the improved highlight colors for CS.

b. WEGO movement system.

c. I thought I read that artillery caused the most casualties - doesn't appear that is the case in PC. Perhaps I should use optional rules.

d. Air attacks-click on an available air unit and all the units not susceptible to the air attack are hidden from view.

I think a WEGO system would be the biggest improvement. I think PzC is one of the best titles out there, so wouldn't change too much.

[BigDuke66]

One thing that could be checked is the "alternate" scenario line for all the PC titles that is based on the McNamara database, maybe these will show more convenient results.
http://www.volcanomods.com/index.php?opt...&Itemid=27

[Buccaneer]

Smoke? In an operational level game? I think you are getting your scale a bit mixed.

Not sure, since the game accounts for individual items and events, what does scale have to do with it in this game?

I'm a little confused on the necessity to meet historical interpretations as that sort of defeats the purpose of the game doesn't it?

The purpose of the game? Why would detailing the applicable rules for a side, or units within a side defeat the purpose of the game? Armies are supposedly built on standards, organizations and weapons and such, but there are always variations. That could be accounted for in the rules and offsetting section, beyond what is given in the scenario. Using them in a manner to detail, or through a variable, historical or not, could add some interest to a game, eh?

I'm all for making the AI more intelligent, but forcing it into a historical script seems a step back.

Setting up an 'historical script' doesn't predetermine the moves in the game, it just makes the reaction of the AI to be more inline with the tendencies of the organizations involved. Every army could have used a Patton or a Rommel at every level of command, but they are rare individuals and could be accounted for on an individual basis. Someone of this caliber certainly can effect the way an army operates, but there is a limit to the extent of that ability sooner or later. Setting up a variable advantage offset throughout the chain of command would only reflect the abilities of the organization to coordinate and cooperate. I think that would be a good thing to take into account in a game.[/]


As for the needs of the player ... I can see where a certain amount of automation or setting of a doctrine could be helpful.

[i]Couldn't agree with you more on this point. Throwing in some variations might make for a more interesting AI process, less uniformity in its moves.

But again, this is an operational game and I think what you are asking for is more tactical in nature.

Good point! I'm always torn as to where or when the tactical becomes the operational. Are my suggestions for PzC II going to far? Could be! But if they are not included in the next-gen, even in a optional manner, how would we ever know?

Almost a larger version of Panzer Battles rather than Panzer Campaigns?

Sorry, I'm not familiar with 'Panzer Battles'. Great feedback, always good to see someone willing to express their opinions!

Dennis

Not sure, since the game accounts for individual items and events, what does scale have to do with it in this game?

Scale (time, distance, equipment detail) has a great deal to do with it. In Pzc each hex is 1 kilometer across and each turn 2 hours. In Pzb, each hex is 250 meters and each turn 30min. In Squad battles, hexes are 40 meters and turns 5 minutes. The larger the scale, the more that is abstracted. It's not that they aren't using smoke in Pzc, just that at the scale the game is being played at it is abstracted in the attack. In Pzb and Sqb, you will have that level of control as it is within the distance and time scale being simulated. And you will never have enough of it!



The purpose of the game? Why would detailing the applicable rules for a side, or units within a side defeat the purpose of the game? Armies are supposedly built on standards, organizations and weapons and such, but there are always variations. That could be accounted for in the rules and offsetting section, beyond what is given in the scenario. Using them in a manner to detail, or through a variable, historical or not, could add some interest to a game, eh?

Not clear on what you mean here. Are you looking for more detail on the weapon systems, how they were used, combat doctrine? Again, this may be more of a scale issue as much is abstracted at the Pzc level.




Good point! I'm always torn as to where or when the tactical becomes the operational. Are my suggestions for PzC II going to far? Could be! But if they are not included in the next-gen, even in a optional manner, how would we ever know?

It's all about scale ... and if you ask different people they will each give you different answer. I don't think your suggestions are going to far, just that they may be better suited for smaller scale where they would have a greater effect.





Sorry, I'm not familiar with 'Panzer Battles'. Great feedback, always good to see someone willing to express their opinions!

Another fabulous Tiller title I would highly recommend.

[dgk196]

Hello...


I get what you are saying... I hope. But as I said 'scale' has nothing to do with it. When the game keeps track of individual gun, vehicle and personnel losses, there is no 'scale'. Its one to one.

There is a map scale to be sure and there is a time scale. But again, its irrelevant. If I had a game where the hexes where 250m per then the ranges would become relevant to be sure... it would determine how close you need to get to use your weapons systems. And it would determine how much takes place at that scale for a given amount of time.

But, the results of 'attacking' would be the same if the scale of the map where 250m, 1km or 10 km. The units involved would still have their relative attack / defense factors, their relative ranges and the results of an attack would still be accounted for in terms of individual gun, tank or personnel losses.

That's what I meant when I said that scale doesn't matter. Hope I cleared up my somewhat vague descriptions!

Dennis

[BigDuke66]

Scale is always a matter, at least from a different series I know that the scale of a hex usually also has influence on the time scale and with that of course also on the values a unit uses.
When I have the scale down to 250m instead 1km the time frame of 2 hours would be too long, now adjusting that down to a 1/2 hour would also lead to a unit obviously not doing as much damage in this 1/2 hour compared to 2 hours.

[Buccaneer]

Hello...


I get what you are saying... I hope. But as I said 'scale' has nothing to do with it. When the game keeps track of individual gun, vehicle and personnel losses, there is no 'scale'. Its one to one.

There is a map scale to be sure and there is a time scale. But again, its irrelevant. If I had a game where the hexes where 250m per then the ranges would become relevant to be sure... it would determine how close you need to get to use your weapons systems. And it would determine how much takes place at that scale for a given amount of time.

But, the results of 'attacking' would be the same if the scale of the map where 250m, 1km or 10 km. The units involved would still have their relative attack / defense factors, their relative ranges and the results of an attack would still be accounted for in terms of individual gun, tank or personnel losses.

That's what I meant when I said that scale doesn't matter. Hope I cleared up my somewhat vague descriptions!

Dennis

If scale is irrelevant, then individual weapon systems (smoke included) are also irrelevant.

For instance, where does your smoke land in a 1km hex? If each turn is 2 hours, how long is that smoke going to remain visible and effective? All individual weapon systems, ammunition, and supplies are abstracted into the attack/defense values of the unit and have no bearing on the combat results.

Depending on what it is you are trying to simulate, scale plays a very big role. I also believe that the combat results we see in Pzc are abstractions. Sure, it says an individual gun, man, or vehicle, but those are nothing but abstractions of attack/defensive values.

[dgk196]

Hello....

I still don't think that I'm giving a good explanation as to what I believe are the effects of scale and time. My bad, eh?

To be clear, as regards the actual units, since the game keeps track of individual guns, vehicles, personnel then there is no 'scale' as regards the units. Not like in say a game like PanzerBlitz, where the 'units' represent some number of components and individual losses are not kept track of. In such a game you either effect the entire 'unit' or you do not.

As to the games physical 'scale', the distance from one hex to the next that will determine the 'range' of the weapons in the game and how many units you can put in a hex. At least that's my understanding of the situation. But you know, I could be wrong.

As to the duration of the turn. That will determine the number of times you can conduct attacks, based on the required number of action points that must be expended to be able to conduct the various attack types. As far as I know the game doesn't increase the effectiveness of the attack because of the duration of the turn. It just allows the relative (target to attacker) attacks to be conducted some number of times, depending on the type of attack.

As to 'where the smoke lands'. Well, I would presume that it lands on the enemy unit that you are trying to 'mask' with the smoke, for whatever reason. Say to allow your units to close with the enemy without incurring direct-fire, or indirect-fire attacks, (or say, just reducing the effects of those attacks) as it is executing an assault, which could potentially disrupt their assault. Or to 'blind' units that have been positioned to 'support' other friendly units. Lets say you are trying to mask a bridging operation. You would apply a smoke screen at the location of the bridge ops. I mean you don't have to 'smoke' the entire hex, the 'bridge' isn't a kilometer wide or long.

I like the feedback.... 'points' that make you think about the game more carefully, end up being useful. The more you understand the better it is, eh?

Dennis

[USS Wyoming]

I'll try to swing this further on topic as the scale of PzC II is not going to change and therefore the maneuver and combat results are going to continue to be designed to the existing scale. As there are company sized units, and this may already be abstracted in the game, the unit may or may not have smoke capability. If they don't already do so, the game designer's could include smoke in the TOE at whatever level they think prudent.

A game example could be attacks on river crossings (bridges, fords, etc). If the attacking units (company, battalion, etc) don't have smoke in there TOE, then the planned attack may result in higher casualties once executed. You wouldn't see any smoke, but the results of the attack may reflect its use.
I trust the game designers to abstract it appropriately.

[USS Wyoming]

Automated Movement Orders – In many of the larger scenarios, there are fixed or scheduled reinforcements that need deployed when available. I would like to be able to assign movement orders to a formation’s immediate HQ to a specific hex. That HQ will calculate the best route based on a sub-orders menu, such as fastest, safest, covered, etc. Included would be the additional ability to either maintain formation cohesion or advance all units at maximum range without rest.

The formation movement order would remain in effect through subsequent game turns until the objective was reached or some unforeseen event occurred (such as coming under fire by a hidden enemy).

I would like to see these automated movement orders apply to individual units as well, such as when I want to relocate an artillery formation and it will take several turns to get it to the new location. Perhaps the computer could display the route options before I select one based on the earlier criteria I described above. The ability of the individual units to perform automated movement could have some bearing on its current communication with it’s HQ.

[USS Wyoming]

Selecting/Identifying Units – While a unit icon can be “highlighted” to make them easier to find on the map, I think the ability to “hide” the unselected units would be a welcome addition. Instead of adding more buttons in the menu bar, consider making the “organizational hierarchy” an active button.
In this example, if I wanted to locate the HQ and its subordinate units of the Das Reich Motorized Division, I would have the option of selecting it from this hex info box menu. Once selected, all other units would be “hidden” on the map. It would be effective for all the formations listed in the info box.



In addition, this unit info display could include a generic “Formation Effectiveness” display of some kind. For example, the formation “PanzerGruppe 2” might have a percentage of 73% displayed adjacent to it that indicates the average level of “effectiveness” or some other appropriate term. This would not mean that all the units in the formation were at that level-(The Das Reich Armored Troop could be at 100% while the 46th Panzer Corps is at 65%). That would tell me that I had better review other formations in the Panzer Corps!