Panzer Campaigns update

[Fhil]

Thank you for your replies guys, I hope there will be more :)
Let´s take it one by one as I see that some of you missed the point slightly.

larsonney: well, looks like we will disagree as I think that there is a flaw in the system. I also think that a particular ´simulation´ (game) is as good as the players playing it are, (some players are really exploting the system that allows for many gamey tactics), but even the best effort in such a way cannot save the Don Bend scenario for example.

Take a look on it from that technical point of view - is it possible to retreat in such a manner like the Soviets did when you take a look on the second Smolensk campaign? It is not. Rifle divisions simply won´t sustain so much: engaging the German forces, retreating, meanwhile slowing him down or counterattacking here and there and still be able to put up a resistance few days later. Here you can simply take Roslavl and Smolensk at once, you will simply smash everything on your way as it won´t have the chance to retreat and will be consumed where spotted. And I´m the guy that prefers Explicit Supply definitely. But that is just a Smolensk Campaign, what about the rest? Look at the lines in Moscow ´41 winter campaign. There are few soviet counters facing holding the line, just open a hole getting through two-three of them and you´re rolling towards Moscow. And there are many more examples.

But I have to agree with you regarding many players playing ahistoricaly - Army / corps HQs in the front lines, mixing of units like it would be never possible, creating super packs of armor with 200 tanks etc.

Ocito80 - not sure if I understand what you mean. No way I want to cancel the disruption rule. I would like to see it´s effect on movement allowance removed. Just want to be sure we understand each other.

Regarding the rest of your reply - well, there were some decisions made (like the night turns duration) that were made to make the game more funny (are the night turns so boring?) for the players maybe, but then there is something strange happening here:

We have this historical campaigns, and we even have a What-if versions of the campaigns and scenarios. Now, it has no informative value if you cannot recreate (and I don´t mean 100%) or properly play even the historically set-up versions :/ i´m sorry but that is mostly true.

What is a paradox is that the Sealion ´40, a wholy WHAT-IF title is working perfectly. But it is because of the reasons I´ve stated above and does not suffer so much.

Strela: Thank you very much that you are even taking time to check out the stuff I wrote, I highly appreciate it. Will you keep us updated what are the possibilities, if any?

typhoon: thank you, yes, I think the games need an overhaul, though I believe there won´t be any big one soon. What I like about these games is that there were many interesting updates done to them, take such a Delayed Disruption Reporting rule. There is still much potential hidden in these games.

Pepe Botijo: Thanks, though I didn´t even consider the AI style play in my post, that is a completely different situation. You cannot expect the AI to be able to cope with such a big ammount of decisions to put up a real fight in any bigger campaign even if all of the stuff I listed was corrected - OOB structures, disruption movement allowance, quality modifier.. But working on that (the AI / SP game) would be a waste of time I believe. Don´t get me wrong, I play some small scenario against AI from time to time, but to play anything big is a waste of time.
It is nothing like playing against a human opponent.

Thank you all for now, please, keep them comming.