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

[Barbarrossa]

my tuppennce worth.

Over the years I have bought numerous war games.
Some were childish, others bug ridden and often weird some just seemed to involve watching a computer moving the pieces, nothing in my view comes even close to John Tiller games as now put out by HPS or to their detail and support. They are in a class of their own.!

My only real general critism is that quite often the Russian Front games unduly favour the Germans when the historic result was otherwise. It is often too easy to be taken in by actual regimental reports as to this and that, but the writers are always putting a gloss on their achievements.

Similarly, the same applies to equipment comparision. The German equipment had wonderful specifications and was beautifully made in relation to crude but strong and reliable Soviet ones. This in its turn often persuades the designers to give the German an undue edge Most players as a consequece generally favour to play the Germans and change history.

:chin:

[von Nev]

Barbarossa said: "Similarly, the same applies to equipment comparision. The German equipment had wonderful specifications and was beautifully made in relation to crude but strong and reliable Soviet ones. This in its turn often persuades the designers to give the German an undue edge Most players as a consequece generally favour to play the Germans and change history."

As somebody that has played the full campaign for Moscow 41 and Stalingrad 42 as the Germans I can fully attest that I got my arse handed to me in each game as happened historically. In fact, in Moscow 41, I battled my way into Moscow and got within one hex of the VP Kremlin hex before I was beat back handily by a concentrated assault of arriving Russian reserves. In Stalingrad 42 I was beaten within 2 weeks of start of Uranus which was completely ahistoric. In fact, I am working on making changes to that campaign to give the Germans more of a fighting chance.

Additionally, I am playing an altered Minsk 44 campaign as the Germans and also having a very rough time despite having 10 more German divisions than happened historically.

I have played the Russians in Kharkov 42 and actually won that campaign. I played the Allies in Budge 44 and won that campaign. I played a long scenario in El Alamein as the British and won that scenario. I played the Russians in a Smolensk 41 campaign (the revised campaign by Mike Avanzini) and won that handily as the Russians. I also won it as the Germans too but barely. I won a minor victory on one of the last 15 turns.

I understand your point Barbarossa, but my experience playing campaigns doesn't align with what you have said. I really think that one of the biggest challenges of the PzC series is playing defense as either the axis or the allies. This issue I think drives a lot of what people think are balance issues with the game towards the Germans. Being the allies on defense is hard work, but the Germans can be defeated. For example, in the Ostkrieg campaign that is going on right now, for the same S41 scenario where the Germans are on offense the reported games have varied considerably from Major German victory to Major Russian victory. This is for a scenario that is considered balanced and has people matched based on ELO. In my game as the Germans against a very good opponent I pulled a Draw (on turn 24 of 25).

Just my $0.02.

[JonS1]

For me, the editor(s) essentially is the game. That and hacking the system to see if I can get it to do what I want. I spend way way more time fiddling than I do playing, and - given that - I've probably spent more time 'playing' PzC than any other game or system.

Having said that, there are things I wish PzC had - WEGO being foremost amongst them, closely followed by secure PBEM games. There are others, but those two are far and away the most important to me. WEGO I don't really ever expect to see in this series, to my sorrow, but the continued lack of secure PBEM is baffling to me.

I also - to a limited degree - agree with Huib about the research in places. Much of it comes down to a matter of opinion or interpretation, but other bits are shady, with a case in point being Salerno'43. I don't own that module, but I did have reason to look at the update patch some time ago and noticed that the OoB is IMO, to put it charitably, bad. A huge chunk of it - some 12% of the lines in the OoB - appears to have simply been copied and pasted out of Normandy'44. The same cut and paste appears in the Anzio scen OoB, although there it's not so marked (only 2%). I've just downloaded the latest patch for Salerno - dated 24 Apr 08 - and it remains the same (actually ... *checks again* ... the OoB is dated Feb last year, so no surprises it's still the same).

Out of curiosity I've just checked the latest Sicily patch, and the cut and paste is there too.

Does it matter? I guess not. Not to me at all, and no one else seems to have noticed.
Could I change it? Sure, but not owning the game makes it a little pointless, and I've plenty of other projects to work on.
Have I mentioned it? Not till now, but see above.
Is it alarming? To me, yes. The more so since it's in the official releases, and replicated in multiple places.

OTOH, the maps for the games I own I'm ok with. I've editted the bits (i.e., place names) that make me most unhappy, so in that sense I'm even ok-er. The continued support and maintenance is truly impressive. Seriously. The game is remarkably stable too - although even mentioning that says more about the state of the PC wargaming industry in general than it does about PzC in particular. The power of the editors truly rocks, even if the interfaces can be a bit clunky. Without the editors I'd have abandoned PzC long ago.

Regards
Jon

[Glenn Saunders]

Having said that, there are things I wish PzC had - WEGO being foremost amongst them,

:) Jon, if it was Wego, it wouldn't be PzC\MC

... closely followed by secure PBEM games.

John is reluctant to expend additional time on this as the feeling is, if people want to cheat they will find ways to do so.

I also - to a limited degree - agree with Huib about the research in places. Much of it comes down to a matter of opinion or interpretation, but other bits are shady, with a case in point being Salerno'43. I don't own that module, but I did have reason to look at the update patch some time ago and noticed that the OoB is IMO, to put it charitably, bad. A huge chunk of it - some 12% of the lines in the OoB - appears to have simply been copied and pasted out of Normandy'44. The same cut and paste appears in the Anzio scen OoB, although there it's not so marked (only 2%). I've just downloaded the latest patch for Salerno - dated 24 Apr 08 - and it remains the same (actually ... *checks again* ... the OoB is dated Feb last year, so no surprises it's still the same).

Well - Wig did the Normandy OOB. Actually he had Salerno built before Normandy but it was thought to be too small a battle for a game and it was left in favour of Normandy. But I had it as a developer and I used pieces of Salerno to make Sicily.

The Normandy OOB is VERY detailed - too much so for my liking as I find that title has so many units, it hard fo me to enjoy the play. So I chose to cut that detail out for Sicily. ANd I used the Sicily OOB to help seed a new Salerno OOB with the less detail. Salerno was then used for Anzio of course.

I am sure there are errors - in fact I found and fixed a couple things in the Sicily OOB three nights ago.

I am not going to redesign the OOB and I can't lay my fingers on every piece of infoI had at hand when I made the Sicly OOB for example. But I do make fixes where I find them. But like you I have planty of other things going too. One has to be very careful how any changes made affect games in progress.

Glenn

[JonS1]

Having said that, there are things I wish PzC had - WEGO being foremost amongst them,

:) Jon, if it was Wego, it wouldn't be PzC\MC

:) You say that like it's a bad thing ;)

... closely followed by secure PBEM games.

John is reluctant to expend additional time on this as the feeling is, if people want to cheat they will find ways to do so.

Well yeah, but you can limit the amount that's possible. Replaying turns is a really hard one to squash, for instance. But wrapping the OoB, Scen, and PDT into a single file along with the turn data and encrypting the whole thing would go a long way AFAIC.

I am sure there are errors - in fact I found and fixed a couple things in the Sicily OOB three nights ago.

Ok, let me rephrase:
2nd TAF do not belong in the Med. Bomber Command do not belong in the Med. 8th and 9th AFs do not belong in the Med. Typhoons do not belong in the Med. Lancasters and Halifaxes do not belong in the Med. Etc. The whole Allied air OoB in Salerno appears to have simply been copied from N'44. That is fine for MG'44 and B'44 (although those would still require a little adjustment), but definately not for the Med.

[Glenn Saunders]

Given a soapbox, use it.

Don't like the inflexible victory point scheme. Allow a scenario designer to assign victory points just like any other attribute.

I think what you mean here is as an attribute to a unit in the OOB - yes?

Just to review - the game cod assign the point values based on the unit combat values and quality as a way to level the playing field. I have thought of asking for a HIGH PT value, low comat value unit where I could assign points too - but I've never had a firm scn idea where this was needed.

If I am on the right track - where would you use such a feature? What game, what situation?

More, allow specific board-game-like conditions - "take this hex and you win" type conditions, without having to do bizarre point value work arounds.

I am not sure on this - sometimes these boradgame type vic conditions are (I understand) harde to code. But once again it is not impossible either.

What is needed to drive it is a reason or a place where such a thing is required. If you want to take this point off line, and I can get my head around it, I might be able to see how\if this could be worked into a new title.

If that were possible, than it would find its way into other games indue course too. But understand that there is reluctants to make thins more complicated unless they add an certain improvement to the situation being depicted.

To be clear, don't remove completely the vp scheme; having a built in, pretty complex system is good. Simply allow it to be overridden by a designer.

Understood - we can undo something ingrained by so many games already created.

Glenn

[JonS1]

If I am on the right track - where would you use such a feature? What game, what situation?

HQs.

[Glenn Saunders]

Mines are not the nuisance they should be: they are very hard to lay, very easy to clean, and do very little damage. When playing, I just ignore them for the most part. Is it not possible to give it a higher percentage for placing them - as much as the digging in, for example? I mean, one or two mines could cause a whole unit to be overly carefull in WW2...

Mines have always been problematic in the Series - for a start, while there are great examples of huge belts of mines, by and large they were not 1 km areas that we have in the game.

But in most cases people really hate it when they stray into them. So making them have more effect would likely meet with more calls for changes in this game aspect. I went to some extra lengths in the Alamein Notes to explain the design but people still hate it when they walk on them even if they have little effect.

Like you I ignore them and take my chances - I wish more people would do so as well and not worry if a couple men or tanks were lost here and there. I think the occasional disruption is the most inconvenience we cause with Mines.

So to be honest - I am not sure what could be don't with Mines which wouldn't mess with games we have. Annd making them more powerful might be something you would like but this is the first time I've seen a post where someone wanted them stronger.

Glenn

[Mike Bowen]

I really must learn how to use the quote thingy but last time I tried it was an unmitigated disaster.

Anyway the 3 things I would like to see improved are.

1 Engineers

I know it will not happen because of the impact on past games but clearing mines out to be a function of size to an extent. I had 2 men in a unit clear mines at the same rate as a full battalion yes I know thats an extreme but it should not happen.

Given Glenns comment on ignoring mines perhaps there is hope for that change (I cant do the winking thing either).

Being able to shoot and then switch back to mine clearing is an abuse and should be stopped (Why am I saying this its a great move).

Mine laying should be easier.

Clearing rubble should be easier.

Bridges should be capable of being left in place with the number of such bridges limited by a designer (bit like company breakdowns)

The ability to build bunkers in longer games.

2 Victory points

I think that the ability to be a bit more flexible would help

eg 1 side A could get points for a hex but B does not or Side A gets 500 B 50.

eg 2 Side A gets VPs per turn for a hex or for a limited number of turns this would allow points for a slow withdrawal or for an attack and then a withdrawal.

3 Helos
I know a lot has been done here but a few more tweaks would help tying them to a base range with becoming broken the penalty would stop the grabbing of supply sources. If disrupted have to land etc.

All of the above are not what I do not like I like all of Pz Camp they are things that might be done better in an ideal world with infinite resources etc. Given HPS size and the fact so many people give of their time and skills for free none of us especially the inept like me can really moan its not perfect but we can make suggestions to be considered.

Mike