Probably one of many similar threads.... however, during a gaming session... we noted several aspects of PzC that didn't exist or where (what we thought) in need of improvement. Also, there where 'new' or additional aspects too. So, I'm going to start by suggesting my additions for the PzC series.
A Full Map Editor! One that can accept graphics from scanned items as well as original designs. It should be able to be used with 'standard' graphics programs, in so much as it accepts files and objects from them. It should be unlimited as to the map size, and have user defined zoom levels and resolutions.
A Full Unit Editor! Similar to the aspects and abilities of the Full Map Editor in using scanned inputs and integrated with 'standard' graphics programs. Again unlimited size for objects, files and folders.
Keyboard Shortcuts! A user definable keyboard shortcut editor. Everyone uses keyboards and shortcuts, being able to define them to suit the users needs makes them relevant for the user and makes the game easier to use.
I generally agree with you; in the past on this forum I've seen arguments that adding a map editor would be "the end of the business" of publishing Panzer Campaigns games, but I find that wholly unconvincing, mainly because I don't think that any players would be willing or able to put in the massive amount of time and effort necessary to replicate the campaigns included in the commercial offerings. As long as John Tiller's team continues to publish games about interesting battles, there will be buyers.
I actually think that the argument goes the other way--I'm not sure if there would be enough people interested in the editing tools to make it a commercially viable product. I'd certainly be interested in a map editor in particular, but I'm not sure about others.
For hotkeys, there is no real need to wait; generally AutoHotKeys provides functionality for adding whatever hotkeys you want, although you cannot override existing hotkeys. But it works well enough for me...
Alas, the situation with user definable keyboard shortcuts is not solvable without major overhauling of existing PzC GUI or even rewriting it from scratch and that means large amount of work-hours and resources involved for JTS.
Current GUI is deeply rooted into Win 95/98 days and design/development practices prevalent in the 90ties i.e. it is still functional but inflexible and outdated by today’s standards. Third-party solutions like AutoHotkeys and other similar products are great workaround particularly for GUI hotkeys limitations.
10-10-2014, 08:51 AM, (This post was last modified: 10-10-2014, 08:52 AM by dgk196.)
Thanks for participating... I was getting worried there.. that no one had an opinion or suggestion on this thread... whew!
Yep, I agree.. most people wouldn't bother with making their own maps and counters and such. But on the other hand its possible there are some that would. It would be labor intensive and time consuming to make a map and unit editor....
So, how about an alternative? Now would be a good time to bring ADC2 (also an HPS product) into the 'new world' and then make it so that PzC II can use the maps, units and so on from it. Two birds with one stone.. an updated ADC2 and an updated PzC (ADC3 and PzC II). That way you get to update both products. That way you would have a 'board game' and 'computer game' editor to sell to interested parties. Two in one, who knows you might sell a few, eh?
One thing though.. do not let the person that wrote the instructions for ADC2 anywhere near the new one! Talk about 'stereo instructions'!
So, both should use standard window file conventions so that both would be compatible with those made with current 'paint' type programs and 'office' programs, for graphics (maps and counters) and data (scenario data and OOB's).
HPS has supposedly been working on ADC3 for years, although there is very little information about it. I'd be very interested in getting ADC3, but given HPS track record I'm not going to hold my breath, and I don't think I'd buy it until it had been out for several months and had been thoroughly vetted.
10-12-2014, 02:46 AM, (This post was last modified: 10-12-2014, 02:47 AM by PzKw43.)
I agree with you on that one. The detail level looks good, but the 'geometry' problem is not something I would have expected. The squashed hex-shapes, not really acceptable, eh?
For PzC II...
On map 'air-units'. 'Air Organizations' should have their associated units on the map, when necessary. Also, the air-units should be able to 'fly' various mission-types. Such as patrol, interdiction, close support, escort and so on.
Artillery Options. Artillery units should be able, when enabled, to use various artillery tactics. Such as concentrations, convergence, divergence, sweeping barrage, walking barrage, suppression. Indirect fire should be able to single out a target in a hex.
Attack Types. The attacking and defending units should have various attack and defense options. Such as limit losses, all out attack, retreat when a loss-level or result type is incurred or an odds ratio is reached of attack factors vs. defense factors.
Disruption. The effects of disruption should be cumulative as to the ability of a unit to effectively conduct an attack or defense. A change from the 'digital' all or nothing effect of the current disruption. I've had whole units 'disrupted' over the loss of one person in a 400+ person organization! So, the ability of units to handle disruptive situations should be more like the percentage of losses of a unit. It doesn't have to be the same as the percentage of unit losses, just some percentage reduction of effectiveness on attack or defense. The level could be tied to the 'quality' rating of the unit. A = best, F = worst. Recovery from disruption could be a units leadership to 'rally' a unit. Many possible variables here, with much room for improvement.
(10-12-2014, 03:20 AM)dgk196 Wrote: I've had whole units 'disrupted' over the loss of one person in a 400+ person organization! So, the ability of units to handle disruptive situations should be more like the percentage of losses of a unit. It doesn't have to be the same as the percentage of unit losses, just some percentage reduction of effectiveness on attack or defense. The level could be tied to the 'quality' rating of the unit. A = best, F = worst. Recovery from disruption could be a units leadership to 'rally' a unit. Many possible variables here, with much room for improvement.
FWIW, I consider such disruption results caused by the incapacitation of the unit commander. No leader = disrupted unit.
Dog Soldier
Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.
- Wyatt Earp
Yes, that's what we figured the disruption was simulating. I doubt the unit would be disrupted if the guy digging the officers latrine got zapped. But, on the other hand, most every military organization has redundancy built into it. So that it is not brought to a grinding halt because of the loss of one person.
One of the chain of commands functions is to allow the unit to keep on operating when casualties are incurred. Otherwise 'large' organizations would be 'fragile' in the way they are in the game now. I think maybe a change in leadership rating would be in order, better or worse is possible. As we are talking about 'large' units, word of the demise of individuals might not be known by subunits until long after it happens!? Also the time frame of a turn is 'long'. Even if there was some initial confusion as a result of key losses, would it really take 2 hours to overcome?
So, to sum it up... the option to select the level of effects and the type of effects, maybe should be an option for PzC II. That would allow a large number of variables so that scenario's could be fine-tuned for desired results.
While we're talking about leadership, I would love it if PzC paid more attention to the effects of leadership; currently AFAIK the only effect of leadership is the radius of the command circle.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
