Why We Like PzC

[Bigwig]

I agree with pretty much all the positive stuff above, but there's something else beside that: the games are just fun. I don't know what it is, but I just find the system much more enjoyable than most others.

[Jazman]

Well I guess I'm a little bit less positive then... Don't want to spoil the mood of others...

It's not a "mood." They were answering my question.

[typhoon]

I think it just plays better than anything else and also offers more choice than most. Something for everyone.

[FLG]

One other thing I forgot. It has the best selection of tools for finding your way around a huge map and OOB of any game I have played. A lot of other games are just plain annoying, trying to find a particular unit or move to a specific area of a map. Or even just identifying all HQ's under all the stacks.

[FLG]

Well I guess I'm a little bit less positive then...

Maybe someone needs to start a thread "Things I don't like about PzC".

Just don't blame me when people start to throw their toys out of their prams

[Sgt Barker]

Lots of the reasons already given, plus

1) Scalability. A division or an army, and everything in between, can be used as the basis for a good scenario.

2) Terrain matters. The "feel" of the desert, the steppe, forests and swamps are different enough that it just "feels" like a different game reflecting where/when you're fighting.

3) Optional rules. They are *great*, actually game changing. They bring huge flexibility to the designer.

4) Unit design. Ability to design for platoons or battalions, in a way that makes sense in play, give the designer both depth and a great "cool factor" to work with.

5) Technically it's as stable and as close to bug free as the best softwarre out there. Oh, and small pbem files are great!

6) Graphics. Saying it again, as an old board gamer I like hexes.

7) Interface. A wealth of easily accessed, relevant, information is easily available.

I could go on... :)

[Mr Grumpy]

Well I guess I'm a little bit less positive then... Don't want to spoil the mood of others

Huib,
That's fine you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion. :)

But we have threads pointing out what players don't like all the time, so it is nice to have a positive thread for a change, that is why i gave it 5 stars.

I think the general concensious here is that the good far, far outweighs the bad.

[Tide1]

I like the HPS games for the board game look and feel. And I've never had a problem with them in a technical respect. I guess I can say I'll play and buy all the future ones also. ;)

Gary

[Aetius]

This is a great thread!

I must disagree with anyone that thinks that the historical research in these games is poor; in fact I believe it is one of the great strenghts of the series. Is there any other game out there in which the OoB or the map is more accurate than these?
Just a few examples out of memory: Battles in Normandy puts a whole division, the 319th, in Cherbourg at the time of the landings; V4V Velikye Luki has a game start date wrong by a whole week; some scenarios that are out of the box in TOAW III (Tunisia, for example) have units (divisions) that were not present there and other important ones missing. America Invades ... well, I could go on indefinitely. And many of these games do not go into the level of detail (battalion and company) that PzC does.
HPS research may not be 100% accurate, maybe not even 95%, but I think that they try not to make the kind of mistakes that could influence the historical result of a battle. They are not trying to make a Phd thesis.
I also have the experience that HPS, and Glenn particularly, try to correct mistakes whenever they find them: some years ago, when France'40 was out, I pointed out that the British 15th Infantry Bde should not be in the game because it was in Norway. Glenn immediatly corrected the scenario - I mean in the same day I posted this - provided a solution correcting it to whoever wanted it and then issued an official patch incorporating the needed changes. I have never seen this behaviour in any other wargame company.

All this gives these games an historical feel. That and the absolute reliability of the engine are their major strenghts.
How many times have I dedicated countless hours to a game (wargame or not) to reach a point where I had to ditch everything because of a bug or a serius design error? That never happened with PzC.

Rui

[Tbird3]

I just had to throw my measly two cents in here. The best way I can explain my appreciation of OPS is by comparing it with two other solid computer wargames. The first that was previously mentioned is TOAW. This is a great game too that is very flexible, however, for whatever reason you were never for sure what was actually going on under the "hood". It generally made sense but still left you kind of wondering why you got the results that you did. There is no doubt with the PzC series. You clearly understand the system and how it works. This takes much of guess work out trying to figure the optimum method to use.

The second solid game system is the Decisive battle series from SSG. This is also a very good game system, but for whatever reason the game feels, like, well, too much like a game. There is something about having Step losses and showing dice rolls that just took something away from the game. PzC feels like a simulation versus a game. The tracking of individual losses and other key features just makes it feel more like a simulation. It is one of those personal gut feelings I guess.

Overall, PzC is the best operational simulation floating around that focuses at the Corps and below level. It maintains a very good balance between giving you a taste of the tactical challenges while trying to manage multiple corps/division. Hats off to HPS and the folks that work and support them.