 |
|
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 - Tide1 - 02-09-2014 (02-09-2014, 09:56 PM)Xaver Wrote: Well, use images is a good thing but not allways, in this case when i see the bicycle iXaver you gave me an idea for a new flame thrower unit ![[Image: 86bd96d26bfire.jpg]](https://www.theblitz.club/uploads/users/86bd96d26bfire.jpg)
RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Strela - 02-09-2014 (02-09-2014, 04:54 AM)Al Wrote: One question about the infantry gun units attached to the regiment. Do the 2-gun units realistically do any damage or do they need to be combined to achieve any real effectiveness? Maybe some playtesters have some thoughts on that. Al, Personally, if I can combine guns I do it at every opportunity. In the bulk of cases I set them up combined in a scenario. One important (possibly contentious!!) comment is that we made the infantry guns for both sides direct fire only. We did this fairly late in the piece but we did it for two reasons. Firstly, both sides doctrine used them very close to the front line as direct support for the infantry whether on the attack or defence. Secondly, it removed a huge number of units from the artillery dialog. This sped up both play in the game as well as ensured players moved these units forward with the forces they were attached to. This motivation of streamlining the artillery dialog resulted in combining indirect fire guns/mortars wherever possible. Players can obviously though break units down whenever required. David RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - ComradeP - 02-10-2014 That Soviet airborne soldier holds a PPS 43, which wouldn't be impossible at Kursk (if it's a Kursk game), but I don't believe the weapon was common at the time as main production runs had only just started. In War in the East, Soviet airborne units switch to predominantly SMG equipped organizations in late 1943, and were still fairly conventionally organized in 1943 with more or less standard Rifle squads (a leftover of their conversion from Guards Rifle formations I guess). David, I'd say if a battle had clear phases that were distinct and not directly related/fought on the same terrain, people might be willing to pay for two titles if there's enough content. To use Kharkov '43 as an example: maybe a Star/Gallop game and a German counterattack game. The problems with the Star/Gallop game would be that there wasn't a lot of fighting until the Soviets got close to Kharkov and Belgorod after the initial Axis frontlines were breached in the northern and central parts of the front (so after the Soviets break through, then what do you cover?) and that you'd need a very big main map on the Y axis to model the full initial Soviet offensive, but only a relatively small X axis to cover the interesting initial operations. If you'd split it up, there might not be enough content. The German counterattack takes place in a more geographically confined area and would thus be more suitable for representation at this scale, although the map would still be huge. There are not all that many battles that offer interesting scenarios where both sides can be the attacker in the same timeframe in a fairly small area (not larger than 100x100 kilometres). Kharkov (both 1942 and 1943), Smolensk, Stalingrad, Leningrad (though I'm not sure if a lot of fighting in forests and swamps will be enjoyable at a 250m scale), Moscow, Kursk, Kiev/Zhitomir or Zhitomir/Rovno (please?  ), Korsun, greater Budapest area+parts of western Hungary, Debrecen (this could be interesting too, but I'm not sure if it would offer enough content as a standalone battle). Of course, these could be mostly covered in a single title, possibly two for Kharkov '43 and Hungary '44.As there were no replacement portraits in the earlier screenshots for the divisional commanders of III Panzer Corps that were killed/left their command during Rumyantsev, I'm guessing the game will focus primarily on the German attack and Soviet response, if it's a Kursk game, but the Soviet response was so significant that it counts as a Soviet attacking phase I'd say. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - 76mm - 02-10-2014 (02-09-2014, 11:15 PM)Strela Wrote: ed to hear if people would consider multiple topics on a battle...? I think that the PzC titles have about a perfect focus, and personally I doubt I'd be interested in multiple full (PzB) titles on the same (PzC-level) campaign, but maybe some kind of expansion pack for a reduced price would work. I guess the problem is that the "expansion pack" wouldn't really be any easier/cheaper to produce than the original game? RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Xaver - 02-10-2014 Thanks a lot for the "how its made" section, i dont remember see this kind of info in other Tiller titles. I allways prefer in art when we talk about infantry see portraits with rifles over SMGs, i allways try see them in specific units like raiders or ski troops, but is a question of taste... the airborne guy looks great, very similar to the one used in Volcanoman mods but here he has more details, the medals are a good to aim them  Oooo and thanks to showering the bicycle soldier  heheheMaybe i can suggest you add one scen to the game to show OOB like in Nap titles, here the number of units look similar and is a way to offer a fast visual to the OOB (apart documents). Ummm maybe i remember this bad but PPSH43 introduction in mass was in Kursk battle... no??? i remember something about a 42 model... Talking about titles... my 2 cents: For me PzCampaigns cover a full campaign where you can find 1 battle or more battles linked, for example Kursk43 or Sicily43, time scale is similar and they cover is a single battle even when are 2 diferent combat areas (Sicily USA sector UK sector, Kursk North and South flank...) but are PzC titles where you have in same title diferent battles, for example Tobruk41 has Tobruk scens, Crusader, Rommel arrive... and practically all PzC titles have this mix of diferent battles but part of same campaign (expect Salerno43 the game made of battles in diferent moments and zones). PzBattles as the name says is to cover battles, we can see a lot of titles in PzB made from a PzC title, think in Stalingrad42... you have the initial german attack, the defense of Stalingrad, soviet counterattack and even german counter attack to soviet counterattack... this means... ufff 4 titles as minimum!!! I think they first made the big map from PzC and them cut the portion they need to the PzB title they want release maybe with this situation a good point is try select good battles from PzC titles and made a good PzB title and dont try take one PzC title and have all battles from it in PzB, this could means 2-3-4 titles about same thing. I suggest them start jumping from diferent periods and fronts in PzB, for example after PzB 01 go to desert, them move to west (Market garden for example or something new, maybe an Italian title.. Monte Cassino??? Ancona??? Sicily???) and if they want do a title linked with a previous PzB title... well, i dont say no but some kind of "gift" to buyers of one of the linked titles could be a good option... think that PzB 01 is only about South front, if they release one title to cover north front a discount to buyers of one of them is a good option and maybe sell them as a pack with the option to have both titles in a single installation (you know, prevent have a lot of game instalations hehehe). Something i need ask, you talk here about campaigns in game... how they work??? is a system of linked scens like in other Tiller titles??? thanks. Oooo and thanks to showering the bicycle soldier heheheuPD: Tide1, you mind is dark, very dark... FlamMeowaffe I SURRENDER!!!  
RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - ComradeP - 02-10-2014 In WitE, Rifle squad size is 9 men with 1 guy with an SMG at this point of the war. All of that is theoretical and cutting manpower per platoon didn't necessarily have to mean the squads went from 11 to 9 men. Considering the production run of the PPS 43, Kursk would indeed probably be the first major battle where it was used in larger numbers. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - GerryM - 02-10-2014 Hello David: Well this got me smiling this morning! And it seems some of the learned members on here are trying to figure out that question for you. Gerry (02-09-2014, 11:15 PM)Strela Wrote: Gerry, RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - GerryM - 02-10-2014 Just curious about reading ahead! After seeing the OOB, parts of the map, etc. is the consensus that the title will cover the southern part of Kursk? Thanks, Gerry RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - ComradeP - 02-10-2014 That's a reasonable summary of the previous 40 pages or so of speculation by Xaver and me The commanders match (some died shortly after Zitadelle was cancelled during Rumyantsev, which made it easier to narrow things down), divisions match (example: the 167th ID was badly mauled during Rumyantsev and wasn't really all that combat effective anymore until it crossed the Dnepr, in the timeframe the battle for Kursk and aftermath was the only operation it could take part in at a meaningful strength level), the equipment matches. The only thing I'm not really sure of is what part of the area the game covers, as I posted earlier (based on David's comment on the map's dimensions). If it covers historical operations, the boundaries I posted should be reasonably accurate. As things stand, it seems likely Ricky B will win. The information pointed to Kursk but I decided to guess Zhitomir anyway as a form of wishful thinking. Ricky B's guess was the first likely correct one anyway. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Compass Rose - 02-10-2014 (02-09-2014, 11:15 PM)Strela Wrote: Does the average consumer want 100+ scenarios on a particular battle or would they prefer 50 representative scenarios of the whole battle? I would rather see 50 scenarios, in one title, covering one whole battle than seeing JTS automatically having multiple title releases for one battle. That way if a title is received really well, you could always easily justify taking the option to revisit it with a second companion title, down the road. Also, if John Tiller decides that the PzB scale will be used in some type of Pacific Battles Series covering the Pacific Theater, you have great possibilities for several titles to cover that theater, too. On the other hand, if you plan on doing at least two titles minimum, for each battle, it will take 100 years for the series to advance through WWII, due to all of the time constraints involved in creating, developing, play-testing, and releasing a new title. From my POV, that will take way too long. The demand for this series is now. Ten to fifteen years from years from now, demand could easily be something totally different, due to the quickly changing advances in technology or the possibly the of the creation of brand new JTS series. I feel that the quicker that JTS can dive into the different theaters of WWII (Eastern, Western, Mediterranean & Middle East, and Pacific), the more successful and popular this series will be, because it will be drawing on the different interests of your target market. I don't see this happening if multiple titles are required to cover just one battle.  Thanks |
because my worst fear had fulfilled, NAZY ZOMBIES ARE COMING!!! 
well, this was the 2nd thing i think, after see a few days ago Captain America movie i think more on this![[Image: Captain-America-The-First-Avenger-Movie-Review-12.jpg]](http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Captain-America-The-First-Avenger-Movie-Review-12.jpg)
){kind=link}