Panzer Battles - Kursk Version 1.01 released

[Strela]

Ok - so returning to this thread after smacking Wiggum (just buy the game, man!)

Let me tackle a few of these comments & suggestions;


The Game Engine - Part One

It is what it is. In sales you're always told to sell what you've got - not next years model. There is a pretty even divide between players that like the 'Tiller' system as is and other that want something more 'modern'. War games for whatever reason have always been quirky when it comes to interface and individual designers even more so - anyone play Grigsby?! Now the good news is that the move into mobile has meant a range of new tools have become available. I know John has moved across to new compilers etc that allows him to generate code for a range of operating systems quickly. This will allow new interface features to become available over time. One example is zoom. Currently we have to build counter sets for each zoom level which is both time consuming and hard (daunting is a real good word when applied to PzB 2). John has indicated that we will see 'fluid zoom' based on the tablet experience where you can pinch to zoom or expand at will (probably using the mouse wheel on your mouse or touch with Win 8/10 and an appropriate monitor), no idea when, so don't quote me, but you can imagine the difference just this one feature might make.


The Game Engine - Part Two

The Tiller engine is ultra configurable. The parameter file has so many settings that can be tweaked to get a completely different game with the flick of a few switches. This is both awesome and daunting for a designer. It takes time to work out what gives you the appropriate feel for a title and that can only happen through trial and error. A lot of this is only revealed by play testing and in some cases means starting over when a parameter is changed. There are some parameter values that can by themselves impact the whole game. Two examples are the new hard fire mod and the 'old' Infantry strength effectiveness, these will single handed change the values of both hard and soft attacks. Add to that different Combat high/low values as well as stacking and you have a different system. Ed Williams and I have discussed a lot of the values used and you won't be surprised to know that many of these align to Panzer Campaigns. Now is that right or wrong - maybe, but we found they gave the most plausible loss rates over time. The original team that was working on PzB 2 (when it was PzB 1) were struggling with excessive casualties and just couldn't get a combination to work - we tried PzC's as a base for Kursk and things just seemed to fall into place. The fact that there is this level of configuration is the whole reason why there has been little change to the engine and the ability for it to simulate so many different periods and situations. Does this mean that PzB is just a mini PzC? The answer is no - but with all our units using Ed's McNamara database, its not surprising similar parameters are needed to get the expected results. The bottom line is, YOU can tweak these all to your hearts content to get a feel for the game you want to play - all the levers are there to try.


Mortars & Infantry Guns

You want more fatigue? Increase the soft values for these units. We could get a code change, but then someone would quote that we had the 'kill' ratio incorrect. For mortars in particular we started to allow these to combine to get enough firepower out of them, this was more problematic with infantry guns as there were only a few pieces per regiment. These guns were originally able to fire indirectly but this was changed once it was obvious that it created a huge artillery dialog and their usual doctrine was to be used
in a direct support role. So you want to make them more effective, just change their soft attack values. Are the factors wrong in the current iteration of the game? Let's consider again, could three mortars or two infantry guns effectively suppress a platoon of 30 men for half an hour? These are the questions that needed to be answered when making changes like this.


Rush to contact

We are having a vigorous debate of the merits or otherwise of some of the suggestions regarding short engagement ranges. There are some big positives and negatives if we impact mobility due to fire. Be assured though that it is being looked at and any solution will take into account that we are simulating a 30 minute time period, not 5 minutes.


AT/Tank combat

I'm continuing to look at this area but like 'Game Engine - Part Two' this is an interplay of a range of different parameters & factors. For example, if you want to kill more tanks at 1,000 meters, reduce the range effect below the current 1.5. This will favour the longer range weapon systems such as 88's. You want to increase the overall armour casualties? Up the hard fire modifier above the current 1.0 and see what happens. All of this can be done today if you want it. To date we have been more holistic and looked at casualties over the course of a scenario rather than the individual results of each shot/engagement. This has been important from a scenario balance and plausibility perspective, but inevitably results in people seeing there own version of reality. Finally, as mentioned in a prior post AT/tank combat is not the focus of this series but rather as Bayes correctly says a 'sophisticated interplay between unit types'. You have to look at this game with a slightly larger prism where each combat arm is necessary to be successful.


Have we as designers got it all perfect? Absolutely not. I'd be ecstatic if people started trying some different parameters and reported their results back, you'd be surprised the variation that can be created and if it ended up with an 'improved' simulation of reality it would be considered for future use.


David