Changes you would like to see

[P.Ako]

One thing that would be really nice to see is some kind of "weather areas", i mean the weather is not the same in all Germany (taking Danube Front for example) and there can snow in the Alps and make good weather in the coast, so the weather conditions should not be the same in the whole map.

Would it be feasible within the limits of the actual engine?

[Xaver]

Well, when i return to PzC or MC i can try search an example of the bunny trick but i dont usually play stock scens, only VM and with the 0 range in hard attack this problem only appear with the AT units and infantry and AT units are less but if an AT unit is stacked with infantry is infantry who shoots first not AT units, of course can do it but is like in Close combat when you can force enemy shoot with AT to infantry and then you show the "steel bunny" and PzC isnt a tactical game well, not all.

Isolation, is easy, what i do??? isolated enemy unit in turn 1, if you force it to open fire in the next turn you find an unit isolated with low ammo, 2 morale levels down the unit in 4 hours is out of ammo because isolation+low ammo is the same, even a A unit is reduced to C quality with another malus (for low ammo, isolation) and cant try nothing because assault or fire is psss.


Arty, i refer to use arty for support role, you select the arty unit, select the hex where you want the barrage, then select the units for assault, resolve assault, if you do have luck barrage is OK and you receive an assault bonus, if unit is C quality 20% for example (some similar to charge in nap series), more interesting in heavy defensive positions than direct fire because sometimes you cant do nothing with 75mm in direct fire because the true value of arty in direct fire is disrupt defensive units and then launch the assault, with barrage you can try to assault when enemy have their head in the floor, of course bunkers dont have this problem or have it in less %.


Bunker rule, well, to prevent "Gotic lines" add a limit to number of bunkers is a good idea, trenches dont need special materials, bunkers need it because in the game bunkers are concrete bunkers, for sand bunkers we have trenches not??? or use the terrain, is more easy buy a bunker in a city or special building than in open field but with a PDT value called "bunker limit" is ok.


But the true improvement for the serie is digital download well, this is for all series :chin:

[vionville]

Hope the TIS could be modified to only work when the targets are vehicles and undeployed infantry units. In our current PBEM game tanks with only minimal infantry support eliminate a soviet air borne division inside 8 hours——in woodland, very unrealistic I say. I don't say paratroopers can resist tanks indefintely, but send tanks without much infantry or artillery support into forest to hunt down infantry, just because they are equipped with TIS, is absurd.

[James Ward]

At the end of the game if Bastogne is isolated what good is it and why should you get any vp's for it, either side? Any units there might as well be POW's!

In the words of Brigadier General McAuliffe: NUTS!

I think that delaying the German offensive by holding on to a strategically important road nexus has a great deal of value, especially when you consider that the war doesn't end just because the game does...

And in game terms, can you think of a better motivation for holding on for dear life in the face of being surrounded?

If after 3 weeks of being surrounded and having the Germans advance 50 miles past Bastogne, what value is it to the Allies? Of course it would deny the VP's to the Germans but the Allies shouldn't get credit for it either.

[Hank]

I'm impressed with the activity of this thread. It makes me wonder though why its so active.

Has someone high up indicated there was going to be a round of changes to the PzC engine (and MC)?

I've seen these threads before and they did not get too far. If it does, I will get GS a list of the dialog boxes I want to be bigger however, its like he already said, those boxes if set to a specific size appear differently because of screen resolution. The best way is make the boxes sizeable. I don't know what programming language PzC uses but in VB and C, that's simply a property you set for the box along with the persistence.

Again, my other "want" is an independent AI artillery firing phase (separate from direct fire units (tanks, infy, etc.)).

And I do like the discussion on Bunkers. You would think if you left an engineer in a hex for a few days, bunkers would magically appear ... having worked in engineering and construction for 32 years now. Its in an engineers nature to do such things. ;-)

[James Ward]

I'm impressed with the activity of this thread. It makes me wonder though why its so active.

Probably because the way the game is displayed and plays really hasn't changed much over time plus all the hours of playing time that has been accumulated over the years lets people make good suggestions, even if some cannot be implemented.

[Mr Grumpy]

Sometimes threads "take off", sometimes not, i never quite understand why this happends? :chin:

[alaric99x]

The Tao of thread. You will obstruct your understanding by consciously trying to understand this force.

[Glenn Saunders]

I'm impressed with the activity of this thread. It makes me wonder though why its so active.

Has someone high up indicated there was going to be a round of changes to the PzC engine (and MC)?

Dog Soldier and I talked about such a thread but this got going all on its own.

I've seen these threads before and they did not get too far. If it does, I will get GS a list of the dialog boxes I want to be bigger however, its like he already said, those boxes if set to a specific size appear differently because of screen resolution. The best way is make the boxes sizeable. I don't know what programming language PzC uses but in VB and C, that's simply a property you set for the box along with the persistence.

I can't say why because I don't know - but making them all resizable is not going to happen. I've asked before and I get no where.

How far the thread goes is anyones guess - but I can say if people don't say which Dialogs need to be bigger and why, maybe even with examples why they are too small now, I can say with fair certainty that there will be no change.

Again, my other "want" is an independent AI artillery firing phase (separate from direct fire units (tanks, infy, etc.)).

Pass - not going to happen for any number of reasons, not the least of wuhich is file format in PBEM Games.

And I do like the discussion on Bunkers. You would think if you left an engineer in a hex for a few days, bunkers would magically appear ... having worked in engineering and construction for 32 years now. Its in an engineers nature to do such things. ;-)

With any luck, we'll get some traction on this - we'll see - no promises.

Glenn

[Glenn Saunders]

Hope the TIS could be modified to only work when the targets are vehicles and undeployed infantry units. In our current PBEM game tanks with only minimal infantry support eliminate a soviet air borne division inside 8 hours——in woodland, very unrealistic I say. I don't say paratroopers can resist tanks indefintely, but send tanks without much infantry or artillery support into forest to hunt down infantry, just because they are equipped with TIS, is absurd.

Never heard this issue raised before but I think I can see your point.

Perhaps subnit a BTL file from a stock scn ilusstrating two shots - one vs Vehicles which you feel is good and one again DEPLOYED Inf which presumaibly is not what you think is good.

What I am hearing I think is TIS you feel should only be for Vehicles and maybe Guns but should be allowed and reduced by some factor when the target is DEPLOYED Men units.

That and we'll see what other people think of this idea.

Glenn