"Shiny and New" - The New "Must" Have?

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

I preface my remarks with this comment:

"I like "shiny and new" stuff as much as the next player! 

I'm ecstatic over the devs announcement that the PzC Series is being revamped with refreshed maps, units and the inclusion of alt-scenarios!   Long overdue and very much appreciated by this player! 


However, it's interesting (at least to me!) that while some PzC players are lamenting the perceived "lack of attention" to the PzC Series and the need to give the series some kind of "shot in the arm" (e.g. map editor, various map and unit mods, etc.)... if you look at the reported PzC games in the Blitz DB, there may be is an "under utilization" or "lack of attention" of existing game titles in players collections?  

Take Kursk '43 as an example.

Of the 48 scenarios that may be reported:

• Over 50% of scenarios have less then 10 games reported.
  
• 45% of scenarios have 5 or less games reported.
  
• 15% of scenarios have 0 games reported. Two of these scenarios are H2H approved!   
  

I am sure there are a myriad of reasons why players may not have played various scenarios:

• Balance issues.
  
• Content not interesting.
  
• Alt-scenarios (Variations on existing scenarios) not interesting.
  
• Dislike "hypothetical" encounters.
  
• Other stuff?
  

So maybe... with the Holidays upon us and folks having more down time from RL jobs, etc. , it's time to look back into your PzC Series game titles (Some players have all 21 titles! ) dust them off and fire up some "oldies, but goldies" scenarios!

Periodically, I will go back into my PzC game title collection and have another "look over" of various scenarios. Sometimes, I even find an interesting "new" "old" scenario to play! 

[Lowlander]

I used to only PBEM campaigns games, but now only play against the AI as we look after our grand children.

As attacker I set the AI advantage to +30%, when defending the AI advantage is +40%.
Found out the hard way that some opponents play the same scenario over and over, that is one reason for playing only the large campaign game.

And I seem to keep going back to War in the Pacific/Admirals Edition.

[76mm]

There is certainly something to what you say--I own seven PzC titles and have literally never played four of them, although two of them I bought only so that I could mod them. The other two I haven't played are both winter games, which I learned (after playing another winter game) that I don't care much for. I'll probably play them at some point. Of the PzC games that I don't have, I am only really interested in one of them (Kharkov 42). The others are not interesting for one reason or another (wrong theater, wrong season, boring battle (Kursk!!), etc.

And the fact is that there are many people, me included, that like to tinker with games as much as they like to play them, if not more.

[Warhorse]

Tinker, yes!!! I'm very guilty of more tinkering than playing, sorry to say!

[Strela]

I have to agree with Kool Kat. There is a huge volume of gaming across the range. Even repeat playing of previously contested scenarios means there is always more that can be learned.

As I continue to work through the update process I'm just seeing how diverse the range of gaming there is in each title. If for example winter is not your thing then look at the desert or the range of summer titles. There is no shortage of them.

There is a thread with player's favourite scenarios, that's also worth revisiting and looking at why those scenarios work. That said the asymmetric scenarios are great for reverse pbems where players play both sides and compare results. Another great one is to pull out a title and pick a scenario neither player has done before. That's an interesting experience - go read Gstockbridge's AAR over in the PZB forums to understand how that impacts play.

Finally, there will always be more titles than time to design. At WDS we have a backlog of PZB games and yes PZC titles. With an average time of 18 to 24 months from start to finish there is only so many titles that can be released. I can tell you trying to do tasks concurrently just complicates things further. Over the last six months having the PZB Normandy and Kursk patches as well as coordinating both the PZB demo as well as PZB 3 has been a challenge in logistics much harder than anything I have done since starting design work back in 2009 on Kharkov '43. Add the updates for PZC and there is little time for further projects. Adding more designers doesn't always simplify things as there is usually a bottleneck somewhere in the process that requires the service of a single overworked individual.

None of this is excuses but an explanation of why things tend to trickle out. Please do revisit released titles in the meantime. I know for example I put 2x times more content in Moscow '42 than previous titles and people have hardly scratched the surface there. Very playable titles such as Sealion have languished, yet who doesn't love a good air/sea invasion? Add to that, though hypothetical, it was based meticulously on the actual German plans for the invasion. The same thing goes for the related series, FWWC is a very different animal to PZC yet uses the same basic engine. The same thing for PZB and it just underlines the versatility of Tiller's engine overall.

So do consider that 'shiny and new' goes beyond the interminable wait that we put you through for new titles, but games you may not have dusted off for awhile, or not added to your collection...

David

[Warhorse]

Me and a friend just played a Sealion scenario, very enjoyable, actually!

[Kool Kat]

I have to agree with Kool Kat. There is a huge volume of gaming across the range. Even repeat playing of previously contested scenarios means there is always more that can be learned.

As I continue to work through the update process I'm just seeing how diverse the range of gaming there is in each title. If for example winter is not your thing then look at the desert or the range of summer titles. There is no shortage of them.

So do consider that 'shiny and new' goes beyond the interminable wait that we put you through for new titles, but games you may not have dusted off for awhile, or not added to your collection...

David

Hi David:

I agree 100% with your comments! 

Looking for mobility and "sunny" conditions - try one of the desert titles. Note - some armored cars will travel 24 kilometers during a 2 hour turn - that's 24 hexes per turn and the unit is NOT in travel mode!  

Don't like the desert? But still want some mobility, "sunny" conditions and more varied terrain then found in the desert titles - try a PzC title like Tunisia'43.

Look for PzC games that have "bonus" scenarios - for example German Air Assault on Crete 1941 in Salerno'43. BTW, the Crete scenarios are exciting and action-packed with several alt-scenarios to simulate different airborne invasion plans. I've played the Crete scenarios more then the "regular" Salerno ones!     

Eastern Front - 11 titles. Western Front - 5 titles. Mediterranean Front - 5 titles.

I might have to try that Sealion game myself?

Something for everyone?   

[Mr Grumpy]

Back in the day when titles were released on a regular (if ad hoc) basis I always felt that the last title released had been barely scratched before interest moved onto the new title, when I bought my first title (Sicily 43) I soon realised it would take me a long time and multiple games to explore what the title had to offer and in the time I was doing this two new titles were released and Sicily was quickly forgotten.

It always seemed to me that there was a section of the community who's attention and interest in the series could only be maintained by regular new releases, while I always felt there would not be enough time to play the titles that existed even if no more where ever released.

So the lack of new titles has never been an issue for me, I am happy to hear that the existing titles are being given a bit of TLC and if that is where the PzC resources are going to be deployed rather than new releases then I have no issue with that.