(02-20-2014, 12:50 AM)Richie61 Wrote: Speaking of John Tiller. I thought this answer was really interesting.
Maybe this is where he came up with the idea for Panzer Battles?

http://www.1up.com/features/john-tiller

Quote:CGW: What's the key decision in a game?

JT: In wargaming, the single most important decision is scale. For example, take the Squad Battles games set in Vietnam. The higher you get in scale, the more discouraging the result becomes. But by staying down at the squad level, the level that individuals fought, and by just focusing on specific battles and not trying to include higher-level considerations, it is possible to create something that is representative of the tactical fighting and interesting to play.

(02-20-2014, 02:55 AM)TheBigRedOne Wrote:

(02-20-2014, 12:50 AM)Richie61 Wrote: Speaking of John Tiller. I thought this answer was really interesting.
Maybe this is where he came up with the idea for Panzer Battles?

http://www.1up.com/features/john-tiller

Quote:CGW: What's the key decision in a game?

JT: In wargaming, the single most important decision is scale. For example, take the Squad Battles games set in Vietnam. The higher you get in scale, the more discouraging the result becomes. But by staying down at the squad level, the level that individuals fought, and by just focusing on specific battles and not trying to include higher-level considerations, it is possible to create something that is representative of the tactical fighting and interesting to play.

That looks like a very old interview, based on the answers.

When I was a newbie trying to determine SB versus PzC, I actually EMAILed Tiller about that very question, and he steered me toward Squad Battles. I think he likes the intimate aspect of the battle without having to worry about things like supply lines and the like. I feel the same way, truthfully.

I believe PB is a trying to be hybrid of both series, giving a combination of infantry and especially armor, which many SB players struggle with/bitch about. If this game models armor well, with the interplay of ground level infantry fighting, it should be the best of both worlds....

(02-20-2014, 03:04 AM)Tide1 Wrote:

(02-20-2014, 02:55 AM)TheBigRedOne Wrote:

(02-20-2014, 12:50 AM)Richie61 Wrote: Speaking of John Tiller. I thought this answer was really interesting.
Maybe this is where he came up with the idea for Panzer Battles?

http://www.1up.com/features/john-tiller

Quote:CGW: What's the key decision in a game?

JT: In wargaming, the single most important decision is scale. For example, take the Squad Battles games set in Vietnam. The higher you get in scale, the more discouraging the result becomes. But by staying down at the squad level, the level that individuals fought, and by just focusing on specific battles and not trying to include higher-level considerations, it is possible to create something that is representative of the tactical fighting and interesting to play.

That looks like a very old interview, based on the answers.

When I was a newbie trying to determine SB versus PzC, I actually EMAILed Tiller about that very question, and he steered me toward Squad Battles. I think he likes the intimate aspect of the battle without having to worry about things like supply lines and the like. I feel the same way, truthfully.

I believe PB is a trying to be hybrid of both series, giving a combination of infantry and especially armor, which many SB players struggle with/bitch about. If this game models armor well, with the interplay of ground level infantry fighting, it should be the best of both worlds....

What's the complaint about armor in SB?

(02-20-2014, 03:10 AM)TheBigRedOne Wrote:

(02-20-2014, 03:04 AM)Tide1 Wrote:

(02-20-2014, 02:55 AM)TheBigRedOne Wrote:

(02-20-2014, 12:50 AM)Richie61 Wrote: Speaking of John Tiller. I thought this answer was really interesting.
Maybe this is where he came up with the idea for Panzer Battles?

http://www.1up.com/features/john-tiller

Quote:CGW: What's the key decision in a game?

JT: In wargaming, the single most important decision is scale. For example, take the Squad Battles games set in Vietnam. The higher you get in scale, the more discouraging the result becomes. But by staying down at the squad level, the level that individuals fought, and by just focusing on specific battles and not trying to include higher-level considerations, it is possible to create something that is representative of the tactical fighting and interesting to play.

That looks like a very old interview, based on the answers.

When I was a newbie trying to determine SB versus PzC, I actually EMAILed Tiller about that very question, and he steered me toward Squad Battles. I think he likes the intimate aspect of the battle without having to worry about things like supply lines and the like. I feel the same way, truthfully.

I believe PB is a trying to be hybrid of both series, giving a combination of infantry and especially armor, which many SB players struggle with/bitch about. If this game models armor well, with the interplay of ground level infantry fighting, it should be the best of both worlds....

What's the complaint about armor in SB?

Being pretty infantry-centric, the armor tends to model on the weaker side. Too easy to kill, not as powerful as many players want. It's a tough balance in terms of playability, one that the design team (I've been a playtester since Winter War) has tried to even out with varying degrees of success.

Making the armor very strong can lead to gamey tactics like using them as battering rams to crush the infantry, in a non-historical and less than tactically sound sense. Modeling the M1A1 in Modern War (Iraq/Afghanistan) was a real challenge, given just how powerful and hard to kill those tanks are. If you were to put accurate values on it, it would be nearly invincible against light infantry targets, which would make the game not a whole lot of fun to play from that side.

Some adjustments to the ability of armor to enter certain types of hexes has made that phenomenon a little less prevalent, but there are many that just don't like how the armor plays out. Tiller has said that SB remains an infantry centered game and hasn't been willing to make a ton of adjustments towards armor. PB may be that shift that SB players could get into.

Any playtesters on the PB side play both PzC and SB? Does it play like a combination of both?

(02-20-2014, 04:22 AM)Tide1 Wrote: I don't play SB unfortunately just not enough time in the world. Although play testing PB I found that if you try to use your tanks to assault infantry your going to pay a stiff price.
Yesterday I was in a hurry to capture a vp hex and tried to take it with two weak tank platoons and a command tank- Russian by the way - I lost the command tank and two others and didn't take the hex. I could see a German HQ but with persistent concealment I didn't know if there was something else in the hex.
You can infantry assault tanks of course but it's better to wait until the tank platoons have been disrupted or taken casualties otherwise your infantry will take serious damage.
I'm not very articulate I hope that gives you an idea of the game though.