 |
|
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 - Richie61 - 01-10-2014 (01-10-2014, 08:22 AM)Compass Rose Wrote: Dennis is paying me $5 a week not to play against you!  I can believe that  Chad is on a roll in 2014 
RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Strela - 01-10-2014 (01-09-2014, 06:53 AM)Richie61 Wrote: Sorry if I am asking a question(s) already asked, but I am a Squad Battle guy The graphics you have seen in this thread were specifically designed for Panzer Battles (PzB). They have subsequently been used in the mobile version of Panzer Campaigns (PzC) and are being retrofitted into Panzer Campaigns games available from John Tiller's web site. The Panzer Battle version is better quality as it uses the larger Squad Battles hex layouts as compared to the pixel doubling zoom in Panzer campaigns. The differences between PzC and PzB is quite significant. Both in terms of rule sets but also in actual 'feel' of the game when played. The variability in units as well as ranged fire have impacts. The play testers are all veterans of PzC and they have had to learn some new ways and dump some old habits. PzC is a Company/Battalion game while PzB is a Platoon/Company game. Squad Battles is a Squad/Platoon/Company game from memory. There is no facing for units. David RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Richie61 - 01-10-2014 David, Thanks for the information! The new style maps are very nice 
RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Xaver - 01-10-2014 Ummm i understand no facing with the 30 minutes turns but no facing impact in armored combat is not excesive??? and not only tanks i think in TDs/assault guns and AT guns where facing to the correct direction is the critical. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Outlaw Josey Wales - 01-11-2014 I agree about facing being very important, but it seems to me in this game, it might just be assumed they are deployed with the correct facing, considering it is a platoon. SBs has to have facing as they are individual vehicles, but with platoons and larger, you have many vehicles and they may not all be facing one direction. Some may be facing se down a road and some may be facing ne down another road. Also, what would you do if the unit is surrounded? Once this series hits the store, they will cover several levels of gaming. All we are missing then is a grand strategy type and one with individual men. Plenty of directions to go. RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Richie61 - 01-11-2014 Disclaimer: I don't play any of the PzC or CS titles, so I am thinking out loud  Just my opinion, but facing is very important. A platoon wouldn't have the support units at the head of a column and thus the armor/ infantry sections won't be spread throughout a column or area. If one platoon is 3 squads of around 10 men each and 3 platoons make up a company (90 to 100 mean), then facing should be factored into a combat resolution calculation - IMO. How can you flank or ambushed from behind an enemy unit(s) and their defensive value is the same for all directions? Is this the same in JTCS? This game has 500m hex scale and indicates facing for example. Now Granted Panzer Blitz (1970 board game) & Panzer Leader at 250m scale didn't have facing, but I think it's important to the combat. [img] ![[Image: flph.jpg]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/36/flph.jpg) [/img]
RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Xaver - 01-11-2014 For me this is the point, with 250m scale dont have the option to flank enemy... Tigers with a single defensive value made a good flanking attack useless, and prepare an AT trap in the flanks of enemy main attack doesnt have a lot sense maybe for me is not very logical use small scale in space (250m) with a relative long time scale... if you see nap/EAW/CW titles time scale is between 5-15 and we talk about 120m in scale. I have in mind the same game, for me this game made Tiller engine even more obsolete, realtime with WEGO turns and true tactical AI where units have separate infantry from his transports (an infantry unit has the infantry squads+transports+other support elements)... if they do a WWII version no colour and of course if they improve infantry model to made it based in number of soldiers no like in TOAW with squads model. We have very few info about the game but in this moment i see things a little strange, relative small scale with no facing and long turns... RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Richie61 - 01-11-2014 So if there is no real facing direction in PB, then won't the general overall strength of the tank(s) be reduced to make up for the fact of abstraction. Doesn't this make the Tigers as more invincible as one would hope? Squad Battles 40 meter hexes and 5 minute turns and you can be flanked easily, so I don't see 250m hexes from prohibiting flank or rear attacks. We could do it in Panzer Leader back in the mid 70's  I do find scale x time difference intriguing. PzB: 250m x 15 minutes. vs SB: 40 m and 5 minutes = 120m x 15 minutes - based on 3 times...... I must be overlooking something here? RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Compass Rose - 01-11-2014 Boy, this thread gets more interesting by the day. ![[Image: fc452dd474lecture.gif]](https://www.theblitz.club/uploads/users/fc452dd474lecture.gif) Keep it up guys; great stuff! 
RE: The Competition & Teaser Thread - Richie61 - 01-11-2014 (01-11-2014, 07:10 AM)Compass Rose Wrote: Boy, this thread gets more interesting by the day. ![[Image: benny-hill-copy.jpg]](http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/benny-hill-copy.jpg)
|
){kind=link}