What Huib (and others maybe) don't like about PzC

[Tortue Agile]

I may (or may not) be working on a game in progress which may (or may not) be an HPS game, and I have been bending over backwards for several years now, spending hundreds of dollars on books and thousands of hours on research. The thing is, no matter how much I constantly question myself "is this good enough" -- it never will be good enough for some people even if I spent the remaining days of my life perfecting it (and it will probably never be good enough for me either).

I agree with you, my little experience as designer of the French oob in France'40.

I remember I had to stop researching at some point otherwise the game would still be a work in progress. Also, the information available now is/was not always available at the time of conception.

[shawn_cardwell]

One of the few joys I have outside of my profession and family is the time I spend in front of my laptop enjoying the by-products of the sweat, blood and time of people like Glenn Saunders, Ed Williams, and others too numerous to mention, both on and off the payroll of HPS, who work to perfect the craft in ways I could never have the time or skill to do. They all have my thanks.

I look forward to the day when I am purchasing a new kind of wargame - one with levels of technical perfection unheard of nor even imagined by us mere players, and seeing that it was designed by Huib Versloot. Until that day, I think we are all in pretty good hands with the folks mentioned above.

Shawn

[jack1986]

One of the few joys I have outside of my profession and family is the time I spend in front of my laptop enjoying the by-products of the sweat, blood and time of people like Glenn Saunders, Ed Williams, and others too numerous to mention, both on and off the payroll of HPS, who work to perfect the craft in ways I could never have the time or skill to do. They all have my thanks.

I look forward to the day when I am purchasing a new kind of wargame - one with levels of technical perfection unheard of nor even imagined by us mere players, and seeing that it was designed by Huib Versloot. Until that day, I think we are all in pretty good hands with the folks mentioned above.

Shawn

Hear, hear!

[sergio]

I think that you need a lot of different sources' info to have enough detailed data to design a HPS' campaign.
So I really respect the work behind the 'original' PC scenarios.
Also, like Socrates said, 'all I know is that I know nothing'... the more info at hand, the less that you know...

I also respect all the work behind those that add new artwork (like the mapmods from http://web.telia.com/~u87221892/ ) or VM's alt art and scenarios, or all the other 'alternative' designers... It's not an easy task.

I have designed myself some very bad scenarios (yes, I know it) ;).
I know that they're not the best work possible, because my researching resources are very limited, or the data behind the scenarios are from unknow sources from internet forums, or limited info from maps, a few reference books or magazines, etc... but I designed the scenarios that I liked to have, like the Falaise Poket scenario, the Small Solution scenario or the Spring Awakening scenario. Although they have a lot of errors behind I tried to do them the best as possible with the data that I had available, and, of course, I tried to get fun from it... ;)

About the scenario data... there is always new researchers, new historical papers discovered, etc, and that make, IMHO, IMPOSSIBLE to correct the games OOBs, maps, etc, every time that a new info is disposable... You have to decide: to play a very stable/enjoyable OPERATIONAL SIMULATION GAME based upon real fact campaigns with the data available for the designers (humans) at the release date or get angry every time that you find an error... I decided not to get angry for that, I prefer to enjoy playing this games ;)

Just enjoy playing!

[JonS1]

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

HQs.

Supply dumps.

[Glenn Saunders]

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

Naw - I just say it because PzC\MC is not Wego.

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.

Maybe - but 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.

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.

There is one generic Air strike - a Typhoon - in the Sicily OOB and that unit was used in the game too. I've corrected that now.

I see what you are saying that the Air part of the Salerno OOB likely came from Normandy. I guess one can see how that might happen as Wig built Normandy and had Salerno done too - I just redid the ground units to the Salerno game felt more like Sicily and not Normandy. (I personally didn't like the unit density in N44).

In any case - as far as I can see, these additional Air Units in the OOB have not been used in the Scns. So these extra units that shouldn't be in the oob would have no effect on Game play.

Ya - it was wrong to leave them in the OOB - my bad. Turns out only 6% of the Air units that are in the OOB were used in the game. I've cut in half the number of Air Units in the OOB and in doing so cut 3/4s of those air units from the OOB. I could cut it down all the way but lets face it - this has no impact on game play I have better things to do with my time.

In any case I will take steps to correct this appearance of poor research now that they've been brought to my attention - thanks for the input.

Glenn

[Marquo]

When all is said and done, the only thing that is really problematic with these games is the AI. The AI is a a pathetic opponent. These games are not great for solitaire, unless one wishes to play both sides.

All else pales in comparison. I almost choke in violent fits of laughter when I read that Huib appears so put off by the designation of one frickin' hex in a map of thousands of hexes, or someone gets upset because the number of tiger tanks in brigade that fought more than 60 years ago has one too many or too few tanks. All of the issues except for few such as the potency of mines or map issues can be fixed with the editor. Even the VP issues can be addressed in the game editor.

I, too, anxiously await a better product, but I won't hold my breath. BTW, if a better product does come along, I wager that it will have the stamp of Tiller-Blackie-Saunders all over it; it will not be born from the brains of whiners and complainers.

Marquo

[Sgt Barker]

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?

You're not only on the right track, you're speeding along in exactly the direction I meant. :)

I have very little experience with scenario design, so it may be a lack of knowledge on my part. That, combined with a raft of board game experience leads me to think of board game style victory conditions. Take hex 'x', exit unit 'y', etc. Many times without casualties playing a part in the equation. And it's the lack of ability to 'turn off' the loss vp, or modify them (it's important to conserve your armor, but not infantry, in this battle, for example) that I first noticed cramped my style in design.

Second was simply not understanding exactly how the VP worked for a given unit, meaning how many points it was 'worth' when designing. Wanting to make a 'rear guard' that was literally expendable, worth nothing to the attacker, but not really being able to, so having to try to adjust the conditions to reflect it. As I say, probably just my lack of knowledge.

But even not knowing the point formulas and such there is at least one area where the 'hard coded' vp values we have now are problematic. It's come up in the N44 Omaha scenario we're playing - it's better to simply never fire the LCT-r. They do minimal damage, yet counter battery fire can easily rack up 30 - 75 VP for the germans when they get sunk. In the short scenario that can make a big difference. Should losing LCTs really make such a difference in who wins? I'd argue not, but there's no way to change it now. So it's a choice between a 'gamey' tactic (don't shoot!), or playing with a handicap.

The specific scenarios I've dinked around with designing use Moscow 41; building a "Borodino 41" game, both a 'campaign' of over a week and a set of smaller scenarios. The strategic situation was such that losses were pretty much irrelevant to the Soviets - the front had been torn open and their entire task was to stop the Germans taking the highway into Moscow. Cost didn't enter into it. The VC I had in mind would reflect that - losses cost the German, but much less for the Soviet. Loss wise the Soviets didn't care... except for Katyusha units. Still 'top secret' at this point, woe betide the commander who let the German destroy or capture one. So they should be worth a lot of VP. While again the infantry is expendable - just keep the German off the highway till nightfall, even if you all die doing it.

(Another related issue that came up in these scenarios, away from the points assigned units, was trying to make geographic objectives time dependent. Take village 'x' by turn 10 and it's worth 100. But if you roll into it on turn 30 it's worth nothing. Exit a battalion on turn 30 it's worth a lot. On turn 70 not nearly as much. I can't figure out how to do that with the current vp system.)

At any rate I think I know the philosophy behind the current design - force preservation is *always* a priority to a commander. Not to get in an argument about Zhukov :) philosophically I agree. One of the complaints about board games is the 'fight to the last cardboard counter' tendency. Made it too gamey, and not realistic enough. But in the end this is a game. Giving people the flexibility to design in different values on the pixel troopers may end up less realistic, but I think would open up more scenario opportunities.

[Aolain]

Man, I kind of like HPS games.............consider them a great value for the money............guess I am not critical enough.

[Dog Soldier]

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).

Mike,

The quote thingy.....as you call it can be accessed by clciking the quote button at the bottom of each post. Then just edit unit you have the qoute you which to reference.

On the quote above, I would consider this a function of some of the soldier in the unit are providing cover for the others who are trying to lift the mines.

Dog Soldier