Why We Like PzC

[Jazman]

How about we mention what we like about PzC? Threads often tend to lean towards what is missing / lacking. I don't pretend this is a perfect game system, but it's good enough that I keep playing (and paying for new installments). I'll start with a couple:

I like being able to play historical situations, without having to learn a new game system. I did the bulk of my rules memorization as a teen, my brain's about full now.

I like how everything is kept up-to-date, so even Smolensk is the same engine.

[Steel God]

I grew up in the 70s playing AH and SPI games...in the 80s I moved into more detailed and historical simulations. As PC games hit the scene and began to develop I thought most of them left me cold, except some of the tactical games...but I missed the operational and strategic level games that were available as board games, The Panzer Campaigns games gave me that detailed, yet playable, feel of an operational war game that I loved as a child and young man. So many wargames are graphics intensive, which is nice, but worthless if the meat isn't there to make it a good simulation. I want to think when I play and I want the decisions to have to take into considerations the type of choices real commanders need to make. That's what I like about HPS Operational level games.

[Marquo]

1. Uncompromisung attention to detail
a. OOB
b. MAP
c. Historical Research

2. Playability and Replayability
3. Developer Support and Responsiveness
4. Easy to find opponents at every level at the Blitz.

Marquo :)

[keif149]

Good game flow and a overall feel of "just right"
:smoke:

[Volcano Man]

This goes for all Tiller games:

A perfect mix of complexity and playability, which is a hard balancing act that many other games never get right.

[FLG]

Scale - Rgt level for a full campaign
Detail - Oodles of everything
Feel - The mechanics of the game give a realistic feel
Robustness - Virtually bug free
Range - Many major campaigns in Europe avaliable

[Mr Grumpy]

Great thread, well done Jazman for a positive subject! :bow:

I agree 100% with all of the above, but would like to add the fact you have fantastic editors included in each title! :)

If there is any aspect of a scenario you don't agree with just change it! :chin:

Some of the best fun i have had is editing and playtesting modified scenarios, how many other games have the numbers "locked in" and you just have to put up with them? :hissy:

Well done JT, GS and HPS.

[alaric99x]

An accurate and elegant simulation with tremendous depth. I'm still learning new things with almost every game.

The support for these games is amazing, probably unprecedented.

[Jim]

Jeesh! You guys have touched most of the stuff. Y'all will probly laugh at me, but I also like the graphics. Having cut my wargaming teeth on board wargaming (Europa, SPI, Squad Leader, OCS, AH, etc), the graphics are board game-like. I never play in 3d mode, and mostly play in the normal 2d (not zoomed out) mode. In this mode, the game resembles the old board games I used to play, but much prettier than most.

Also, it's been mentioned already, but the game is damn stable compared to most games out there. I hardly ever have a glitch, and never a crash. Only thing right now for me, is the replay issue I mentioned in another post. Far from being a game killer, it is only a nuisance.

One more thing. Its versatility. Whether it is the scorching desert, or Russia in winter, or the Bocage in Normandy, the game is suitable for just about anything you want to simulate.

I'm sure most of you have done what I have done. Tried a whole buncha games and systems out there. While they all have some good ideas in their games, and some real strong points, I always seem to come back to PzC. There always seems to be something about the mechanics that just don't work out in those other games.

I would like to thank JT, HPS, and the people who run the Blitz for a fine game, and support that is unequaled in the hobby.

[Huib Versloot]

Well I guess I'm a little bit less positive then... Don't want to spoil the mood of others but IMO only VM's work and a few others has lifted the game to an acceptable and in some cases high level.
-HPS historical research is not up to standard. At least not up to mine and a lot of others. Some titles literally contain hundreds of errors. With the rate HPS has been putting out titles this is perhaps no wonder.
-It is impossible to correct the map errors.
-The 2d graphics are just acceptable but 3d graphics are awful and nothing has ever been done to change it.

The game engine is great and good enough to survive for a long time to come but that is really the only thing you get for your money if you're serious about history. If you want to have a decent historical simulation you have to build the campaign from the ground up for each title by yourself. Without a map editor I found that to be impossible, but I support those who venture it such as VM and Rev Rico.
IMO the game will seriously improve when a map editor is released and HPS abandon their monopoly on new maps/campaigns. That may not be good for the money the seem to want to squeeze out of it but for the quality level of future campaigns/scenarios it will be a blessing.

Huib