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

[Glenn Saunders]

I don't have complaints about the game engine nor the technical support, bug fixes etc by HPS. All fine.

Glad to hear we pass the grade in some areas.

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

Always? I can count on one hand the times I said "Go Away" and I think more than half of them are in reference to your picky map stuff.

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.

And as you have heard me say before - Greg Smith was the guy who lead the design on both both those titles and so there is only so many things I can do with someone elses title. Greg gets annoyed with me when I mess with his stuff and I don't mind telling you there I things I would do different.

I made those suggestions to him when we were making the game but it was up to him how he wanted to handle things. That dosn't me he was wrong and I was right - just that we would do things differently.

As for mapping. It's not about a single hex. <SNIPE>

Look - for the info of all - the maps is question are Bulge (a label is all I know about) and MG44. I don't have the map source BMP for ether of these projects. And the hex we talked about was something you wanted to make a new scn for a different battle.

Determining hexes only as "broken" is way too simplistic for Holland even within the limits of 1 km scale.

Well it is a one 1km hex game - so you pick one piece of terrain for each 1 km hex. Actually, the old SPI game covered more ground with a single hex.

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.

Sorry - "people like you" - I've never seen any of your design fixes for PzC series so I can't comment on how YOUR work has done anything for the series.

Other people have done stuff and we certainly appreciate what they do.

Adding a map editor would improve the game package tremendously.

:)

We feel it is not needed as the map is based on a period source at the appropriate scale. That and you well know we elect to not "kill the chicken because we live on the eggs."

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.

We look at all reasonable requests and have a long history of improving the game.

Thanks once again for your reply. Unfortunately the two titles you mention just happen to be projects lead by somebody else (Greg Smith - one of the guys who originally designed the system with Tiller) , and unfortunately, there is not much I can do for you - but then again you know that too.

But please send me any new PzC Scenarios that you would like me to host of download. I am always happy to add value to our games with works that player do, whether they are tinkering or completely redoing the game (like Avanzini did with Smolensk 41). We welcome these and will make them available to our customers complete with your comments in any write up which points out where the original game is wrong and why your research on the redesigned scns is better. Then players can pick and play whichever ones they like.

Or - you can stand back from afar and complain on what we've done and complain because we are not going to change the MG44 map to suit your needs. We agree to disagree on the ability to create a map on this 1 km scale and feel we have a very good game here. No doubt we'll talk about the MG map and your Bulge label again, and again and again, because I can't see them changing.

Glenn