Panzer Battles Questions

[Kool Kat]

Gents: 

I'm a 10 year + John Tiller Campaign Series (JTCS) vet and have been eyeing Panzer Battles as a possible game purchase.

I've read several PB game reviews, AAR's and have followed various discussion threads here. I am also familiar with John Tiller game interfaces since I've recently gotten into the Panzer Campaigns (PzC) series with a purchase of Sicily 43.

What would help my purchase decision would be if PB vets could answer a few questions..  

Panzer Battles

Pros:

Cons:

How would you rate (Scale 1 - 10... 1 = worst and 10 = best) the following PB game components?

Game Play
Interface
Graphics
Audio (sound effects)
Rules

Many thanks in advance gents! 

[Compass Rose]

From the way things are taking shape, the PzB series will be one of the most active series for future titles.

Based on all that I have seen in the teaser thread, I would suggest purchasing PzB Normandy as your first title in that series.

It should be released in the next few months.


https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=68266

[ComradeP]

Instead of rating individual components of the engine, I'll try to explain things in terms of pros and cons.

I never play with in-game sounds on, except when looking at the final victory screen.

Pros:

-Engaging and fluid combat. Having more units than in a typical PzC title makes for a more fluid experience as the attacker.

This is one area where the later (in terms of the day the battles cover) scenarios truly shine in PB Kursk. Even though you're moving platoons around, it feels like you're doing something important.

-Does a good job of representing the differences between the opposing armies. With units down to platoon/gun section level, the differences in organization are more readily apparent than in PzC.

-The stock artwork for the map and units is good. This might seem like a minor thing, but the vintage look of the PzC series prior to being overhauled to Panzer Battles standard was a problem for many.

Cons:

-The interface is still the interface you've been using for decades. This isn't a problem for me, but it can be a make or break thing for some. Aside from the graphics, the most common complaint I hear about Tiller games concern the 1990's interface.

-PB: Kursk doesn't have many new rules to truly set it aside from PzC, it's mostly PzC with some SB rules thrown into the mix. Presumably, this will grow over time.

This also means that rules that can be problematic at times, like how losses for gun/vehicle/air units are determined and how assaults are resolved (in short: assaults are always less reliable than firing, which can be a problem for the side that relies on assaults to get going or relies on them because their fire values are lower than their assault value) are still there.

-Air missions need to be plotted 1 turn in advance, and in the case of tactical air units can only be plotted on hexes that are visible at the start of your turn. This can greatly limit the effectiveness of air power on the advance. One nice improvement would be that air missions can be plotted anywhere, but air support will only arrive at hexes spotted at the beginning of the next turn.

-Gun units can be too small to be effective, depending on their calibre and the type of scenario (if you're dealing with a bunker line or if you're fighting in the open).

[Kool Kat]

Gents:  

Helpful feedback!

Many thanks!