Introducing Wargame Design Studios

[Xaver]

Dont worry, is normal that a thread finished kidnaped at certain point when has more than 2 pages

Poor kidnaped guy "Damn, i open this thread to talk about my new ---insert here what you want present... book, company, project ect etc--- and look how i finish" 

Bad guy that assault threads "shut up, we are not in your thread to talk about your things... if you want do it open your own thread" HAHAHA

[Xaver]

Interesting post in the team´s web... how create a PzB title step by step 

They use as example Maleme combats in Crete battle and looks interesting because who knows, maybe this is the start of new and exciting titles-DLCs, not all OOBs are avaliable in english for example and well, usually is better use primary resources.

Waiting next news about this, thanks for it 

http://www.wargamedesignstudio.com/2016/...a-wargame/

[Xaver]

Update the "make your own wargame" serie, is turn of german OOB and as usual looks great.

http://www.wargamedesignstudio.com/2016/...eme-crete/

Next station allied forces 

[phoenix]

Been out of this for a bit, due to RL. But PB3 is looking exciting. I have a plea about the desert maps though, David. Hope this is the place to mention it. 

 I'm assuming you are importing the PC desert maps and converting them. I have major issues with the amount of trees in the western desert maps. It's bizarre, I think. You look at any period maps or photos, not to mention google earth, and it's clear that, for example, there are not all these 'forested' areas south of alamein or around Capuzzo. Tunisia is different - more green, obviously. But east of Tunisia right through to Egypt we are talking about a few oases here and there. I have raised this before in connection with the PC maps and had no real satisfactory response as to why all those trees are there. I have asked the question from the realism point of view. When all these trees were placed on the western desert maps in PC, was there a reason for it, a reason for placing them where they are - ie research and a period map showing them, or even trees in that position on google earth etc? - and it's clear there was not. They seem to have been put in randomly. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I really, truly hope that you don't just carry over all those random trees into the PB3 maps. Getting rid of all of them would be a more realistic default option. 

Cheers,

Peter

[Strela]

Been out of this for a bit, due to RL. But PB3 is looking exciting. I have a plea about the desert maps though, David. Hope this is the place to mention it. 

 I'm assuming you are importing the PC desert maps and converting them. I have major issues with the amount of trees in the western desert maps. It's bizarre, I think. You look at any period maps or photos, not to mention google earth, and it's clear that, for example, there are not all these 'forested' areas south of alamein or around Capuzzo. Tunisia is different - more green, obviously. But east of Tunisia right through to Egypt we are talking about a few oases here and there. I have raised this before in connection with the PC maps and had no real satisfactory response as to why all those trees are there. I have asked the question from the realism point of view. When all these trees were placed on the western desert maps in PC, was there a reason for it, a reason for placing them where they are - ie research and a period map showing them, or even trees in that position on google earth etc? - and it's clear there was not. They seem to have been put in randomly. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I really, truly hope that you don't just carry over all those random trees into the PB3 maps. Getting rid of all of them would be a more realistic default option. 

Cheers,

Peter

Hi Peter,

Nice to see you back.

Firstly, every map in Panzer Battles 3 has been hand created - we were very unhappy with the maps generated off the automatic system using the PzC source maps.

We're a lot happier with the end result.

Of interest the reason there is so many 'trees' in PzC are that the original map makers misinterpreted the source map.

Here is  a section of that map and you can see the green portions marked as brush/woods. They took these too literally;





We have treated these areas as having more brush than normal. Our brush is different to what you have seen in the other titles.

We have treated as very low sage like plants that will help concealment but won't block line of sight. The other three predominant terrain types are broken, oasis and wadi. Broken (rocky areas) also does the same as brush (concealment but no LOS impact) while Oasis & Wadi due to the heavier/higher vegetation do.

Here is a section of map with the visible hexes turned on and you can see the different terrain types blocking (or not) from the point of reference.





Hope this helps.

David

[phoenix]

That's great, David. Thanks. Brush I definitely don't mind! Looking great. I will certainly buy! The maps - I'm certain - will be far superior if youre not using the automated process. None of those irrational kinks in roads and rail!!

I guess it's more than a year off completion, no?

Peter

[Xaver]

Thanks for the info... interesting, you create a specific terrain for desert (well for Pacific at least you need create jungle terrain... i dont know if you are going to create diferent levels of jungle like impasable, heavy jungle and med jungle)... remember me a little marsh terrain... and talking about marsh and desert... terrain in PzB3 is going be like in PzC??? i refer that desert terrain has +20% penalty to defensive value (like in beaches) in PzC but here... desert terrain is going receive negative bonus???

I asume that Oasis are going to offer a small defensive bonus (10% maybe) but bush terrain... only hide units or is going to offer some kind of defensive bonus???

Wadi... maybe a terrain with special use of action points for tracked-wheeled units??? better mobility on this kind of terrain???

Searching Bir Bu Creimisa... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Point_175

Again thanks for the info.

[Strela]

Hi,

To be honest the new maps are great - we also showed one of them in the PzB 3 link at our website here; http://www.wargamedesignstudio.com/panzer-battles-3/ 

This shows some similar terrain to my previous post including salt pan (marsh).

As far as 'new' terrain types - currently yes and no. We are using redundant types to represent new types of terrain. For example the original Swamp is being used for Oasis. As mentioned Salt pan shows as Marsh. Airfield is originally Paddy (see example below)





Brush is Brush, Wadi is Wadi etc. So there are only a few 'misnamed'. We're yet to decide whether we adjust these names officially or there is a enough association with what we have.

As far as defense values, we're still trying a few things but I think we have it right now.

Rough & Wadi are -25. Oasis (swamp), Village & Scattered are -20. Broken and Brush are -10. Salt Pan (marsh) is +10 and Sand is +20.

Importantly, Clear is 0. When I looked at the numbers, the reason that PzC used '+' modifiers was due to the 'lack' of covering terrain. Most of the combat in that title was at one hex. With the ranged fire in PzB I found a better way to represent vulnerability was to reduce the range attenuation modifier. What this represents is that there are very few impediments to vision. Units have longer to acquire their target and ensure a more accurate fire solution. There is essentially little to no cover in the clear hex and the increased lethality at range reflects this. This change also helps the 88's in particular to be much more effective at range.

Finally, talking about irrational kinks etc, Chris Haigh has stepped in as a map researcher for us and has done a mountain of work on Normandy. It is now pretty much a hand crafted map and we have adjusted a number of scenarios accordingly. We will be releasing Chris' work with the next official Normandy patch which will follow the upcoming Beta release.

David

PS We are posting onto our http://www.wargamedesignstudio.com weekly currently and there is a way you can subscribe if you want to know when we update our blog.

PPS Pity the desert image in my prior post was reduced so much. If you have Google Chrome, just right click and open in a new tab to see it full size.

[Xaver]

Thanks for the info.

With this info looks like desert is going to offer some cover for infantry (or at least enought to create defensive zones for poor infantry supported by AT) and at same time give room to move armor.

I am curious about changes in the AT model at range combat and the impact combined with infantry in good defensive positions.

Talking about defensive... do you explore the idea to remove the feature that made when an unit leave a defensive position this lose 50% of defensive value??? at least for trenches and heavier defensive positions, sometimes is a little .... play moving non first line combat units to mantein the max number of defensive positions operative when you move combat units to the combat (HQ, AA units...) and well, lets see if we can see some "sand screens" to help defensive and offensive when units move or shot.

Interesting, changes in PzB2... lets see.

I think i have next Tiller title for my collection... even when i dont know title 

Good luck and thanks for the info.

[phoenix]

Thanks, David. All very positive stuff! Really look forward to the next Normandy patch.

Peter