The Competition & Teaser Thread

[jimcrowley]

The question of facing is perhaps moot at the company level; maybe less so when considering platoons. Unless I am misremembering, CS had an optional armour facing rule but, there again, that was a purely platoon based gamed. I'm intrigued by the 'mechanism' mentioned by David, above, and how it will reflect, or impact, facing.

One area that I found very frustrating in both CS and PzC was a very tight time limit on most scenarios, particularly the smaller ones. You could be very close to fulfilling all of your objectives and the clock would suddenly stop and game over - a loss or draw instead of the victory another turn or two would have yielded. This gave the scenarios more of a 'puzzle' aspect forcing you to keep trying until you got a decent result.

Of course battles were, to a great extent, fought to a time table but that often went out of the window and the battle was still fought to a conclusion, win or lose. I would love to see a feature whereby you could continue on past the allocated time, perhaps at the cost of x victory points for every extra turn taken, still losing if you take too many extra turns. Far more realistic and satisfying IMO.

The other area that always concerns me with an upcoming wargame is the potential performance of the AI. Seeing a lot of H2H-only or one-sided scenarios always suggests a poor AI and while I fully expect the usual 'not as good/fun as against a human', I do hope the AI in PB is robust enough to allow solo play from both sides, in all or most of the supplied scenarios.

[Strela]

Strela posted:

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.

Does this mean that if the new graphics are retrofitted to an old game it will have the new map graphics (larger hexes) or will they still be the same small hexes? I stopped buying and playing Tiller games because the hexes are just to small on a 27" monitor.

Hi Cdrost,

All the PzC/MC and SqB games now have the larger hexes. This was updated in the most recent patches.

The difference I was trying to describe was that there is different methodologies used to achieve the larger hexes that have a (small) impact on the visuals.

All zoom levels on titles will have the updated visuals. I also have a 27" monitor and old eyes and all my Tiller games are very playable.

David

---

Thanks David and others with knowledge of the game for sharing. Wondering two things.

1. How many units would one be in control of in a small scenario or a medium scenario (I don't care so much about number of turns).
2. Is the game mechanics the same as in Squad Battles and PzC? As in you fire each unit multiple times, etc.

I ask as one of the issues I have is the workload with these games. It seems that the firing for the AI or one's own side goes on forever.

Thanks again,

Gerry

Gerry,

In my current project a small scenario is usually a battalion. A battalion is usually 9 to 15 individual platoon/squads. Rarely are they used as all individual units and in most of the scenarios I have designed the attackers are deployed in companies which brings the counter count down to 3 or 4 per battalion.

A medium sized scenario is regimental and the largest is a corp ie multiple Divisions.

As far as firing, there has been some changes to the number of times artillery can shoot and direct fire can use the 'Ctrl Alt' key configuration to fire all shots at a target without manual intervention.

I think I mentioned previously I can play a medium scenario in an hour or less against the AI.

David

[Strela]

The question of facing is perhaps moot at the company level; maybe less so when considering platoons. Unless I am misremembering, CS had an optional armour facing rule but, there again, that was a purely platoon based gamed. I'm intrigued by the 'mechanism' mentioned by David, above, and how it will reflect, or impact, facing.

One area that I found very frustrating in both CS and PzC was a very tight time limit on most scenarios, particularly the smaller ones. You could be very close to fulfilling all of your objectives and the clock would suddenly stop and game over - a loss or draw instead of the victory another turn or two would have yielded. This gave the scenarios more of a 'puzzle' aspect forcing you to keep trying until you got a decent result.

Of course battles were, to a great extent, fought to a time table but that often went out of the window and the battle was still fought to a conclusion, win or lose. I would love to see a feature whereby you could continue on past the allocated time, perhaps at the cost of x victory points for every extra turn taken, still losing if you take too many extra turns. Far more realistic and satisfying IMO.

The other area that always concerns me with an upcoming wargame is the potential performance of the AI. Seeing a lot of H2H-only or one-sided scenarios always suggests a poor AI and while I fully expect the usual 'not as good/fun as against a human', I do hope the AI in PB is robust enough to allow solo play from both sides, in all or most of the supplied scenarios.

Jim,

Interesting suggestion regarding the length of a scenario. Let me have a chat to John Tiller. A new feature like that will not probably make this initial release due to timing, but I'll put it out there for discussion with the broader design teams.

As far as AI, it's not too bad. It is always better as the defender, particularly if the attacker has to take on fortifications. That said it does ok in a number of game situations as the attacker or on the counterattack. A number of scenarios have been designed for AI only play specifically.

As I said before the 'unmentioned' feature will be a boost to not just facing but also how the AI plays and reacts. It is a very appropriate feature at this scale.

David

[Compass Rose]

I would love to see a feature whereby you could continue on past the allocated time, perhaps at the cost of x victory points for every extra turn taken, still losing if you take too many extra turns. Far more realistic and satisfying IMO.

Interesting idea......I like it!

[PzKw43]

Strela posted:

All the PzC/MC and SqB games now have the larger hexes. This was updated in the most recent patches.

Are you referring to the blurry 2x view (it's terrible) or the new larger map hexes used in Panzer Battles? The map graphics should have been updated years ago. I'm looking forward to any Tiller game with the new map graphics used in Panzer Battles. Thank you for the information you have been providing us on the game's development.

[Strela]

Strela posted:

All the PzC/MC and SqB games now have the larger hexes. This was updated in the most recent patches.

Are you referring to the blurry 2x view (it's terrible) or the new larger map hexes used in Panzer Battles? The map graphics should have been updated years ago. I'm looking forward to any Tiller game with the new map graphics used in Panzer Battles. Thank you for the information you have been providing us on the game's development.

Personally, I don't think they look that dramatically different.



Panzer Campaigns with the zoom function on;




Panzer Battles at highest zoom;



David

[-72-]

@ DF:

I think he was talking about the zoom in used in the Panzer Campaigns titles now - whereby it is basically just stretching the existing graphic file as opposed to calling on a larger graphic file which is what you have in PzB.

____

Not directed at anyone in particular- but rather more just an explanation about what the difference is between the 2 looks on the technical side.

The reason that the one set looks clearer than the other is basically that- with the present PzC titles in effect what it did was take the largest file and then double the size of the pixels (in effect making everything about 4 times the size.

..
.. as opposed to . if that makes sense.

So it does end up looking a bit "blockier" just b the nature of what is happening.

Personally I am looking forward to working with this new style of map graphics - it ought to be a blast (I am meaning this from a graphic editing perspective -full stop.).

[Richie61]

PzB is 250m x 30 minutes
vs
SB 40m and 5 minutes

This means at approximately 6 times (not 3 times) 240m & 30 minutes....

The scale to Panzer Campaigns is another 4 times at 1,000m & 2 hours.

There is consistency between the three game series.

David

Ahhh...my mistake. Sorry. That makes a lot more sense now.

Thanks to David and Steve for explaining the system & scale!

[Strela]

@ DF:

I think he was talking about the zoom in used in the Panzer Campaigns titles now - whereby it is basically just stretching the existing graphic file as opposed to calling on a larger graphic file which is what you have in PzB.

Hey Steve,

Yeah I know!!

The top shot IS Panzer Campaigns with the 2x pixels. If you go to the JTS site, John has started to sell some of the Panzer Campaigns directly. He has started to use the new map in these builds. This shot is from the Sealion '40 page here; http://www.johntillersoftware.com/Panzer...ion40.html

The bottom shot is Panzer battles - my point is there is not a massive difference between the PzC's pixel doubling and Panzer Battles graphics when using the new map look.

David

[Xaver]

Well, the AI is for my a sparring to learn game mechanics (or retraining them) and try some different aproximations to a tactical situation (i think in small or medium scens) because the AI problems for me start in PzC/MC on the big picture, the tactical AI is not bad at all and in the last time we can see a good selection of scens with programed AI doing a good job.

For example in the mobile versions i notice the AI attacks a little better but well, you can move it where you want but in same way as you can do with a human player, i play with Quang Tri one scen as American/ARV and i can manage to canalize enemy attack to stay last turns craking enemy flank until send NVA out of the objetives, basically i use a great part of my reinforces to cover a critical area and use the other one to win and push enemy north flank and assault all the time D units to clear the key areas and in the critical moment do the same in the other line corner to clear the 2nd objetive... was specially hard because AI now select better how attack and use more the human tactic of first soft second assault, i dont see assaults with no preparation and no assaults from a single direction.

Ummm then units can do all their range attacks in a single attack... this made me think in how nap title deal with big stacks or the WWI title where you shoot to the hex no to the unit in hex.

Well, when i want know something i ask hehehe.