What Huib (and others maybe) don't like about PzC

[Glenn Saunders]

OK - I'l bite and give Huib his own thread.

-HPS historical research is not up to standard. At least not up to mine and a lot of others. Some titles literally contain hundreds of errors. With the rate HPS has been putting out titles this is perhaps no wonder.

I don't know - what else can I say except this is wrong!

...but then again you did say "his standard" ! But if Huib owns the game, then he has the map, and with that the OOB and Scn editor so he can do whatever you want to make them HIS STANDARD.

But if I were you Huib, I think I would just go away and buy someone elses game and not spend any more money on these. I hate to say this but really - nobody wants an unhappy customer and you always seem to have more issues than anyone else.

Lets be clear - there is nothing wrong issues. We have a long history of addressing issues and player concerns - one needs only to look at the changes.txt file for Smolensk to see how many legitamate concerns have been addressed since the series has been released.

-It is impossible to correct the map errors.

As I've said many times perviously, the game map is created based on a PERIOD source map using a scale consistent with what the game uses.

It isn't easy doing maps at a 1 km scale because the world is not made up of 1 km areas. So there is always a judgement on things like what is the terrain in a give 1 km hex. This is why we use PERIOD source maps that are appropriate to the GAME SCALE and not tactical scale maps.

I also know where this comment is coming from a single hex which on our Source map is clear and Huib would like it to be a village hex. But John Tiller made this map himsef. He checked his source map and it shows as clear. I think it is als fair that we want the full game map kept consistent with this source.

That Huib have an example of another historcal map at at tactical scale that shows a hex should more correctly be a village hex is unfortunate. We can't map all of the MG44 map area at 1:50,000

Even if we had the entire game area at 1:50,000, if we rescaled the image to the game scale - like what we do when we make the map - then overlay our hex grid you wouldn't be able to read anything.

I also think it was Huib (might be wrong here) who complained about a ridge line on the Bulge map. Here again we checked our source - didn't find that ridge labeled, and removed it as it was NOT CORRECT with our source. Others will tell you that you won't find that ridge line named on any period source map so we've provided everyone a way to change any labels on any of our maps.

Seems like a perfect way to address this issue!

-The 2d graphics are just acceptable but 3d graphics are awful and nothing has ever been done to change it.

And this is just not completely true either.

I'll agree the original 3D Unit Graphics were crap - I hated them but then again the series was new and TOAW had 3D Icons and so did previous Tiller games. And we wanted players to be able to see the MAP in 3D too. But there is no budget for paintng and creating the 3D Icon art that was in the Talonsoft Series.

So these 3D Icons were left alone for a long time.

That nobody used them still didn't sit right with us. So we created te 3D Counters for use with the 3D Maps. That we ADDED the 3D Counters and we left the 3D Icons in, not simply replacing them, was something John wanted to do in case new players to wargames - people who had no experience to the traditional Wargame symbols could instantly tell INFANTRY from TANK on the map without looking at the unit window.

Anyway guys - we appreciate all comments - and we all know the game system is not perfect. There are many issues which we deal with as BLACK AND WHITE when the world is in shades for grey. I could give you my list if you like but it would serve no purpose.

As fans know, the series does work for this scale. And you all know that we are committed to supporting the series and enhancing it as we go along.

Yesterday for example we fixed an issue reported by Tom Bridges when a Engineer wth a Full Water Bridge is destroyed while a unit ends its turn on the bridge. The game didn't crash - but it sure looked odd. So we fixed it and that fix will be inevery game after the next update.

Panzer Campaigns\Modern Campagns was first released under Windows 95. And everyone of these titles have now been updated, tested right into VISTA - except ME67 which is still in test while on of the guys who does Mods to that title adds some new stuff to his scns using the new MC features like Nukes ect. As soon as that mod is completed we'll release the ME67 patch and be 100% Vista compatible.

I know of no other company (although there may be some out here) that are supporting, and actively updating their games wiith new features on a regular basis, this long into the life cycle.

Anyway - I will look into this thread as well as the one where guys are talking about what they like. And if there are any legitimate concerns about any title that I can have addressed - just like Tom Bridges bridge thing yesterday - rest assure they will be dealt with.

But we can't do everything so we'll pick and choose from the ideas that come up and fit best with ne titles in the works. And we'll keep making games like this and with the same quality of research as long as there is an interest from guys like you fellas here at thebltiz to support our efforts.

That includes Huib even if he doesn't buy new titles. We address all bugs and where possible make enhancements to the series that make sense to the overall game series and direction of the product line.

Thanks all for supporting our games as long as you guys have.

Glenn

[alaric99x]

Well, I said in the other thread that the support was amazing. Glenn, you're a busy guy, I've seen your posts on other forums too. Wherever the discussion goes, you're always there to clarify things or respond to what might need to be changed. As far as the OOB is concerned, if anything isn't correct, we have lots of talented people who are providing updates and alternate interpretations. The important thing is that the game engine, and the support, are superb. I don't know about a disagreement about some particular hex, but if someone is going to make an issue about that, well then we're just kicking around mouse turds.

You're doing a great job, just keep it up. My compliments to you and the entire HPS staff.

[Mr Grumpy]

I love the whole series, i don't play anything else.

Enough said. :)

[timshin42]

Glenn,

Thank you for your very clear and rational explanation, and fine education on the logic and makeup of the PzC/MC graphics. While I was vaguely aware of the methodology , your explanation made it far clearer to me. It is irrational to demand 1:50,000 accuracy in a hex based game; just not feasable! While it would be "nice" to have a map editor, it could produce a lot of fantasies based on opinions. I am quite familiar with the terrain along the western end of the DMZ, and find the graphics of that area in Korea 85 to be more than satisfactory. Sure, it would be nice to see my Batteries locations far more accurately; this road is here, this stream goes that way, there is a village here called Pangogi ("Chestnut Hill"). But that just isn't reasonable to expect with hexes; besides, how would it make the game play any better (vanilla ice cream versus strawberry!)

Thanks again for your very personal support of our hobby/vice!.

Harry

[Sgt Barker]

Given a soapbox, use it.

Don't like the inflexible victory point scheme. Allow a scenario designer to assign victory points just like any other attribute. More, allow specific board-game-like conditions - "take this hex and you win" type conditions, without having to do bizarre point value work arounds.

To be clear, don't remove completely the vp scheme; having a built in, pretty complex system is good. Simply allow it to be overridden by a designer.

[Huib Versloot]

Glenn,

A separate thread is a bit too much honour IMO, but since you start it...
I don't have complaints about the game engine nor the technical support, bug fixes etc by HPS. All fine.

Your answer always seems to be "if you don't like it, go away because we do everything right"

But ...research ... if a company singles out a specific battle/campaign for a game and decides to sell it for $50, you better (to speak with Don Fox' words from a thread years ago) bend over backwards to get it right. And that's what I'm missing at HPS. In the battles I have good knowledge of, I find so many errors in the HPS versions that the only way to play the game as a simulation would be to remake the whole campaign. The lists of changes of the VM Alt scns for B44 for example actually speak for themselves, I don't even have to prove my point here, others have done that already.

As for mapping. It's not about a single hex. Well you know that. I don't even have to go into that, since it seems you are just trying to score a cheap point here. The MG44 map is simply a failed product. I don't know what source map was used. I do know that I have all of Holland in 1:50.000 period maps. In this case lack of knowledge from HPS side must have lead to misinterpretation of the map's legend or something and I can't explain how they JT could not have read the elevations, but he missed them on parts of the map. If you want to make a map of Holland 1944 you have to know, what were fields, what were moorlands, swamps, what were villages and what were not and which roads were paved and which were not, even if you can't display them all. But why leaving them out when you CAN display them?
Determining hexes only as "broken" is way too simplistic for Holland even within the limits of 1 km scale. Again I don't have to prove my point, you just have to look at some 1:50.000 or even 1:100.000 or 1:200.000 maps of the area (which I have too)... they don't lie.

I may have more issues than others, perhaps because I buy more sources and read more languages than the researchers at HPS? But in the end it's people like me and other custom scenario designers/researchers that can lift the game a few levels higher. HPS should appreciate that.
Adding a map editor would improve the game package tremendously. HPS decides not to do that for commercial reasons, but in that case IMO they are then obliged to deliver a decent map which they didn't do in case of MG44 (there are also PzC maps where you won't hear any complaints from my side). They should use this sort of criticism instead of seeing it as nuisance IMO. It's a chance to improve the game.

In the end it's only a game... no worries.

Huib

[Aetius]

To use a little of the soap box myself...

Mines are not the nuisance they should be: they are very hard to lay, very easy to clean, and do very little damage. When playing, I just ignore them for the most part. Is it not possible to give it a higher percentage for placing them - as much as the digging in, for example? I mean, one or two mines could cause a whole unit to be overly carefull in WW2...
Something else I use all the time, particularly in the Normandy landings, is to toggle off the mine clearing flag of the engineers, shoot their whole alowance and then toggle back to clearing mines, which they do, all in the same turn.

But I think what bothers me most at the moment is that it has been more than a year since Budapest'45 was out. I need a new game.

Rui

[alaric99x]

I may have more issues than others, perhaps because I buy more sources and read more languages than the researchers at HPS? But in the end it's people like me and other custom scenario designers/researchers that can lift the game a few levels higher. HPS should appreciate that.

My compliments to you for your strong and confident sense of self-value. How many languages do you speak and understand? Your command of the English language is almost flawless. Undoubtedly, the HPS staff is duly appreciative of your contributions. I further commend you for recognizing "designers/researchers" other than yourself.

[Kuriltai]

Adding a map editor would improve the game package tremendously. HPS decides not to do that for commercial reasons

I enjoyed that part especially.
Why you would not just directly ask them to cut their own throats and go out of business is beyond me.

[Volcano Man]

I may (or may not) be working on a game in progress which may (or may not) be an HPS game, and I have been bending over backwards for several years now, spending hundreds of dollars on books and thousands of hours on research. The thing is, no matter how much I constantly question myself "is this good enough" -- it never will be good enough for some people even if I spent the remaining days of my life perfecting it (and it will probably never be good enough for me either).

I think the only thing that a designer can do is get it reasonably good that any mere mortal can attempt, then commit yourself to address any glaring errors that are uncovered post release. It is not that the lack of research caused an error, it is simply that something could have been overlooked or improperly deduced. For the most part, the good game designers (such as Glenn in my opinion) commit themselves to address any errors that are found, the bad designers do not. The bad designers cannot be bothered by a mistake or probably never even play it once the game is released. The fact is, no matter how much you research and how much you slave over it, a mistake is inevitable so the only thing a good designer can do is attempt to address them.

Beyond that, it is easy for someone to take a painting and add a brush stroke to it, but it is something totally different to start with a blank canvas and make in into a painting that resembles something. If you take the mods that I work on, I try to make sure that I never disrespect the original designer because I respect the work that they have done. For the most part the mods that I work on are just adding brush strokes to the painting, with new artwork and different unit ratings. Of course, to show that I am unbiased I have even modified my own game (Korea '85), redoing it into _Alt scenarios. For the stuff which are considered "glaring issues" like missing units, it is respectful to the original designer to bring it to their attention first before a mod is made which supposedly addresses a mistake I think. That said, most of the adjustments and tweaks to the _Alt scenarios are made because many changes are required to shoe horn the _Alt values into the existing scenarios, not that many of the original scenarios were incorrect to a large degree -- but it really depends on who designed the original game. In most cases, if the designer was not Glenn then you can pretty much forget about an issue getting addressed so I don't bother to report issues (because the other designers are pretty much out of touch with the community).

I just think a customer must take the individual title at face value by who researched and designed it and judge it that way, similarly to an author of a book, not apply a wet blanket judgment across every game in the series.