Wish List!

[dgk196]

Hello...

  What game series, eh? But, as with everything, through experience, everything can be improved.
With games its either an entire new series or one that has 'mods' developed for it. Feedback is the name of the game. Without it you couldn't get anything done. So, here goes.

  The number one thing that I believe the series needs is a 'complete' map-editor. By that I mean, users should be able to develop their own scenarios and the necessary maps as needed. A mod such as this should be made available for both the original series and the Gold series.

  The mod should not be limited in size, number of hexes. It should be able to import and / or combine maps from other scenarios. It should be able to make 'new' terrain types as needed. It should be able to import maps from a scanner and sources of other 'standardized' image types, more than one would be good.

  Since there are so many area's and battles of WWII that have not been covered, having this ability for the 'community' would allow these to be addressed. Think about the vast number of 'topics' not covered by any of the existing modules. For example...

   The vast areas of Russia that would cover from the beginning of the conflict, '41, to the end, '45.
Areas, and their associated battles for, Western Europe. Belgium, Holland, France, Luxembourg, Spain the British Ilses.  Norway, Finland, Sweden. Countries that border the Mediterrainean. The 'Middle East', that is east and west of the Nile. China / Burma / India (CBI). Afrika. Indochina, Korea, Dutch East Indies. Japan, Australia, Phillipines, various Islands chains throughout the Pacific.

Even if the Tiller Game Company could make just one module each for what I've presented, how many years would it take to make them all and the scenarios to support them. And how long would upgrades for existing games to address the functional areas that could use improvement take? Its not that I'm contending 'they' are incapable of doing this. 

But, it would take a massive commitment on 'their' part. So, we have how many dedicated followers of the game? I contend that making a 'complete map-editor' would result in many such campaigns and battles that maybe would never see the light of day, would be addressed by the 'community'. And with all of the resources available on the internet, we could reasonably expect good results. I think there comes a time, when a game either 'morphs' into its next development or begins to gradually fade away. For myself, I'd like to see it continue. In anyway possible. If necessary, to cover development, sell the 'Map-Mod' as a module! I'd shell out the cash for that.

Dennis 

[76mm]

Sign me up for the wait list for the map editor!

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

I don't believe that the addition of a "complete" map editor would necessarily equate to the development and play of new scenarios.

Here's why. Many of the existing out-of-the-box PzC scenarios are either under utilized or not being played at all.

Take Kharkov '43 for example.

Of the 35 scenarios that may be reported:

• No scenario has more then 12 reported games.
  
• 57% of scenarios have less then 5 reported games.
  
• 20% of scenarios have 0 reported games!
  

Also, having been a scenario designer (Campaign Series), I understand the hard work required to research, develop, and play test new designs. Recruiting dedicated play testers can be extremely challenging! Scenario development is a long process and in the end there are usually only a handful of developers and play testers who are willing to subject themselves to this arduous process.

So, given that many PzC scenarios are currently underutilized, and new scenario development is regulated to a small cache of developers and play testers (when you can find them!)... I don't see how a "complete" map editor really accomplishes much of anything.

[Strela]

Kool Kat brings up some really good points.

While preparing the Gold updates I realised how much great gaming there is in these titles. There is a lot of subtlety in many of the scenarios and the designers have really tried to understand the historical situation and then put the player in the same position.

Having designed a number of them myself (Kharkov '43 & Moscow '42) I know how many cool little scenarios there are, yet players have missed trying the bulk of them.

Same thing in Panzer Battles. I can tell you the Bluecoat scenario in Normandy is one of the best gaming experiences I have had for a long time. Dog Soldier & I probably play tested its various incarnations more than three times - and that's a multi-day scenario. Some of the changes such as variable victory points (by turn) that is coming in North Africa were the result of a wish list setup after playing Bluecoat. Brian also just completed a multi-player 'Longest Day' scenario covering the Normandy landings and it was gratifying to see how close to history the final result ended up.

So do follow lists like Kool Kat's where he calls out great scenarios and add some of your own critiques so other players can zero in on the gems....

David

[dgk196]

Hello...

   So, on with the 'Wish-list'. I don't know how difficult it would be to incorporate this into existing series games, but here goes...

In the 'Optional Rules Dialog'. First, make a dedicated 'Dialog' for each side (force) in the game.
Second, instead of a yes / no selection of the individual 'rules', change it to a selectable scale, with the use of a 'slider', from a value of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest).

These two changes would allow very fine detailing of the forces involved and take it out of the 'two German Armies' type situation that currently exists. Further detailing of this 'type' could be the ability to have a specific 'Optional Rules Dialog' for individual unit levels, or if needed, individual units. Not that you would need to have one for every unit in the game, but if you had a specific need, it would be a nice option. In this way you can avoid having an army of Audie Murphy's or an army of incompetents.

While I realize this would require more memory (?) then possibly needed for a current game (system requirements), the improvements in the speed and memory capacity of computers has increased many fold since the original release date of the game series. So, these sort of mods might not impact the average user as regards their system capabilities and capacities. I now this could possibly complicate play between 'remote' players, but the addition of mods always seems to improve most any game when put to use in a mutually agreed fashion.

Dennis   

[dgk196]

Kool Kat brings up some really good points.

While preparing the Gold updates I realised how much great gaming there is in these titles. There is a lot of subtlety in many of the scenarios and the designers have really tried to understand the historical situation and then put the player in the same position.

Having designed a number of them myself (Kharkov '43 & Moscow '42) I know how many cool little scenarios there are, yet players have missed trying the bulk of them.

Same thing in Panzer Battles. I can tell you the Bluecoat scenario in Normandy is one of the best gaming experiences I have had for a long time. Dog Soldier & I probably play tested its various incarnations more than three times - and that's a multi-day scenario. Some of the changes such as variable victory points (by turn) that is coming in North Africa were the result of a wish list setup after playing Bluecoat. Brian also just completed a multi-player 'Longest Day' scenario covering the Normandy landings and it was gratifying to see how close to history the final result ended up.

So do follow lists like Kool Kat's where he calls out great scenarios and add some of your own critiques so other players can zero in on the gems....

David

[dgk196]

Hello...

Sorry gents... didn't mean to make it look like I was ignoring your respones. I just wasn't paying attention and 'ran the stop-sign', so to speak. Your experience with the games and opinions are indeed very valuable for determining if or how such things can be determined to be practical, or even possible.

It's not often we get responses from experienced designers and developers. So, gamers, if you're following this thread, lets all look forward to their participation and responses. For me, its good to have people respond with their opinions, but its also good to get some professional feedback to 'keep it real', eh?

Dennis 

[dgk196]

Hello...

   I have mentioned several aspects of the games. But lets look at one in particular, okay?

Artillery! What would you change, what would you add? Are the current conditions for 'artillery' too generic? Would it be better to have much more specific aspects as regards, artillery types, artillery organizations, support organizations, order of battles and associated abilities and so on...

Dennis  

[Ocito80]

Artillery you say, my 2cents then:

I've felt individual gun units were a bit simplistic in their portrayal for a 1km hex and never really being representative of the soldiers that manned them. A gun can get knocked out, but the soldiers can still shoot with their rifles. An AT battery could have over 50 men, an AT company over 150. Thus, I wish there was a way to incorporate both the guns and men into a single unit. A battery should be that in which it is, both guns and soldiers. Some MAA batteries had upwards to 200 men for 4 guns, if not more. One could create two distinct units, but in that way I think it still defeats the idea. I don't have a solution for I think the game code can't handle such a concept.

My one real suggestion would be the allowance of a gun unit the option to switch from an indirect to a direct role, and allowing for separate values for each. An example:
76mm Zis-3 Russian Gun
Indirect = HA(5) / SA (10) / Range(14)
Direct = HA(10) / SA(8) / Range(2)

A gun with this option could be considered Dual-Purpose or simply direct fire and a box would be checked as one would normally select indirect fire when creating an artillery component in the OOB program. Switching to one role could take one turn to accomplish, removing its movement points for that turn, and must have full movement points to switch.

My other thought would be to treat arty bombardment in a hex somewhat similar to that of creating rubble. So much fire in a hex, or maybe just a percentage chance, could create "coverage" of 5-10% for defense purposes. Maybe only heavy artillery can create those craters for infantry to hide in. And limit it to terrain relatively open. Probably too complex for little overall value.

[bwv]

I wish the fog of war number of men would read something like '3xx' or 'xx' with an appropriate level of uncertainty, as it stands you can see if an opposing unit has tens or hundreds of men, but some of the scenarios have 900 men units intermixed with 100 men units. Similarly, it should be apparent under fog of war if an opposing unit has 10-20 tanks or 80-90, so maybe '3x' or 'x' with 20% margin of error