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

[JonS1]

... I would consider [being able to shoot and then switch back to mine clearing] a function of some of the soldier in the unit are providing cover for the others who are trying to lift the mines.

I would agree if units had their fire effects AND their chance to clear mines substantially reduced (i.e., less than 50% for each task) because they are double dipping.

As it stands, they do both activities at full strength.

[typhoon]

The only thing not to like about Panzer Campaigns is that there are not enough of them not nearly enough. I spend nearly all of my free time playing one turn or another but if only they would make some more titles I'm sure I could find some more free time from somewhere.

[Dirk Gross]

OK, I've got an issue. When I use max speed for the replay in a large scenario, I can never successfully return it to normal speed for my turn. All the fire and return fire during my turn stays at light-speed. A workaround I use is to watch the replay at warp speed, then close it and re-open it without the replay (since I already saw it) and play my turn normally.

[Dog Soldier]

JonS1,

I never consider that any unit firing at "full strength" assumes every man/gun/vehicle is firing during every direct fire or defensive fire. This is my explanation why some fire results are on the low end of the possible outcomes.
Seems your indicating every thing pops each fire attack and some are good shots and others shoot the wrong way?

Dog Soldier

[JonS1]

Er. No.

What I'm saying is a unit that fires (3 times) AND clears mines is 100% as effective at EACH task as a unit that ONLY fires (three times) or a unit that ONLY clears mines. There is no penalty for double dipping.

On the other hand, since a 'unit' consisting of just one single engineer clears mines as effectively as a while battalion of sappers, perhaps the model is that there is only ever a single dude out there with a mine probe, while the other 699 sit around having a fag break. Having those 699 shoot at something instead of smoking is almost (699/700 = 99.86%) the same as having all 700 firing, maybe the difference is just too small to notice.

What I was talking about above (the less than 50% thing) was that I think a unit that double dips should fire at less than 50% effectiveness, and it's chance of clearing mines should be less than 50% of that for a unit its size. Not that for any unit firing 50% of guys don't know whether they should be shooting to the east or to the west :rolleyes: God knows where you pulled that idea out of.

Alternately, mine clearing could be handled the way other typical engineering tasks - AT-ditch breaching or bridge destruction - currently are: a clearing attempt costs all movement points, and an eDice is rolled (then modified by unit size, terrain, unit fatigue, unit morale, and possibly by current minefield size) to see whether the unit is successful or not. Oh, and engineer units should always take a few cas when they clear mines.

However, since mine clearing is currently handled as a special case, rather than a typical engineering task, and is totally independent of unit size, it seems likely that double dipping is set to continue.

[Aaron]

I remember an old game Patton vs. Rommel where u would have to rotate the direction of the front on the units to which way they where facing and if u got attacked from a different direction u were penalized. It would be nice not having the 360* defence.

Aaron

[Volcano Man]

I said my bit already but let me also say that I know where Huib is coming from here and it is only natural to come to expect quality. All of JT's games definitely have quality, but as mentioned, the quality can vary depending on the author -- as is true with anything else. This expectation of quality (and what passes as quality) is different when a PzC title covers an area which is right down the road from where you live.

I would say, given the very small size of the map, perhaps Huib can post the "major issues" with the map, something that he may consider the minimal corrections to make it respectable, and maybe they could be addressed? Who knows, but it could be a possibility. :)

[Volcano Man]

What I'm saying is a unit that fires (3 times) AND clears mines is 100% as effective at EACH task as a unit that ONLY fires (three times) or a unit that ONLY clears mines. There is no penalty for double dipping.

I agree. This is similar to what I was saying in the other thread about patrolling units which are digging in and how they had to have cumulative penalties or not be able to do both. In the end I think it was discovered that they indeed had cumulative penalties applied. Let us also not forget that the minefield clearing issue is not only dealing with firing, engineers can also remove the minefield clearing status to demolish an AT ditch and then set the minefield clearing status again when it is done with that.

The issue has always been a gray area where you could do both tasks depending on when you set and remove the mine clearing status. This always seemed like an exploit or loop hole to me given that a new player to series would not know how to do something like this. Personally, I think mine and rubble clearing should work the same way as bridge building, where you cannot instruct the unit to do so unless it has full MPs from the turn before. The engineer unit can enter the hex normally without suffering an attack but it should not be able to activate the mine clearing status until the following turn, and while it has the status it should not be able to do anything else.

[Al]

I said my bit already but let me also say that I know where Huib is coming from here and it is only natural to come to expect quality. For the most part these games definitely have quality but, as mentioned, the quality can vary depending on the author. This expectation of quality is even greater when a PzC title covers an area which is right down the road from where you live.

True & I think others have mentioned that compared to some other games or scenarios within games the PzC series ranks up there with some of the better researched titles. But to some, the correctness of their views is paramount above everything else & they seem to get overly annoyed when not everyone agrees with them. The editors allow changes so I don't understand why some get so worked up over these things. (The lack of a map editor is a dead horse that has been beaten enough already :rolleyes:)

I would say, given the very small size of the map, perhaps Huib can post the "major issues" with the map, something that he may consider the minimal corrections to make it respectable, and maybe they could be addressed? Who knows, but it could be a possibility. :)

IIRC, the infamous map issue involved one or just a few hexes & was originally brought up over a year ago. Again, IIRC, the hex in question had little, if any impact on overall play. But, the request for a change was done in such a noxious & ham-handed way that it was no wonder little headway was made.

Most here have little trouble presenting their issues or requests in a respectful manner. Others seem to lack that ability.

[Krak]

I play PZC, WWIE and a bit of HPS Napoleonics. I think HPS games are by far the best PC wargames on the market. They strike a great balance between playability and realism.

My only gripe is that some (not too many) of the CG's are unbalanced. As I only play CG's this is sometimes a problem. I wish the people who do all the mods would put some effort into play balance rather than just tweaking unit values, which sometimes just makes the play balance even worse. Which is why I generally stick to stock games.

But overall a great system and 'bug free' which is a big plus. Not to mention the efforts of Glenn. Only recently he saved a CG of Stalingrad for me from being ruined by a flawed release.

A bug thanks to the HPS team and Glenn.