Which of these PzC would you like to see?

[Glenn Saunders]

I don't know much about making these games. Which is the most difficult (time consming) part, the map, the OOB or finding the correct situation (battle) that fits the game engine?

It is everything together - the balance of all things as a whole that makes up a Panzer Campaign.

To throw out a title without even considering the size of the map, the length of the CG, and all the factors together to fit the scale of the engine might be interesting talk over beers - but it is not reasonable for real game design considerations.

Let me throw out another example - one that isn't listed in the thread - that was seriously suggested on another forum a couple years ago and one I took the time to give a serious piece of consideration.

I'm an old Boardgamer and I recall playing Avalon Hills Guadalcanal Game back in the 70's. Great game - hours of fun and if I threw out Guad '42 as a title, it might even get votes by people who read and remember fondly the title (I still have mine BTW)

But if I included the additional info:

- Map is 20x20 (30x30 tops)
- The Full CG Length would be Aug 42 to Mar 43 - read say ~2400 turns
- and then I add a note that this would need a new rule - maybe a PDT values that would take into consideration that more soldiers on both sides would die to sickness that will affect some units worse than others, then were killed by enemy action - do you think Guad '42 would still hold the same appeal and get serious votes? I don't - but hell, maybe I am wrong!

Now if one factor only is out, maybe we can do something about that.

Guys - I can't tell you that a map 361 hexes is ok but 362 is not. Because there are no absolute limits. And it is normally more than one limit which kills an idea for a game at PzC Scale.

You can all see what we have in the series now. You can look at the big maps and the small maps. Long Campaigns and short campaigns. The games that work and the games that for whatever reason you don't like.

We know that we included a Normandy UNPLAYABLE CG Scn that is 750 turns long, so anything longer is ...well, not as likely to be done, especially if it has the same number of Divisions in the game because very few people if any will ever play it completely.

And without mentioning any title specifically, I will say the the LEAST POPULAR PzC we have, by number of copies sold and by the lack of posts discussing it also, is one where

- we had all the conditions for Map size perfectly
- and the OOB size was also perfect, and what was built is a master piece of research
- the length of Campaign right where we wanted it
- there was reasonable good access to solid information.

So why was it so unpopular ?????
....think about it for a second.

The problem with this game was that ground doesn't change hands very quickly.

So I say again - throwing around titles is all good fun and interesting reading. Polling the result might even have merit which is why I am suggesting a revote on SERIOUS TITLES. But I can't give you a list of "Serious Titles" because I don't have a list and I doubt I've given every possible title the due thought that it needs.

But if your list of possible titles contain topics without telling explaining to people what they are voting for will be very misleading.

And suggesting we build a map 1000 hexes long on a 1 km scale covering uninhabited mountains when we can look at ....what is it ... 20 or so titles, where we know the typical size of the maps, is perhaps a tad bit unreasonable. And if you even thought that could work and then saw the full campaign on this monster map would lasted 3 months or 900 turns than folks could would instantly be able to tell that it is not a serious title and move to the next one on the list.

It doesn't mean the battle in question will never be a wargame game.
But it is unlikely to be a PzC game on 1km hexes and 2 hour turns.

Anyway - I read pretty much everything up here. The good and the bad - the stuff we like to hear and the stuff you guys don't like too. We consider it and and we know just how fortunate we are to have this wonderful forum so we can capture your thoughts.

Glenn

[P.Ako]

It doesn't mean the battle in question will never be a wargame game.
But it is unlikely to be a PzC game on 1km hexes and 2 hour turns.

Anyway - I read pretty much everything up here. The good and the bad - the stuff we like to hear and the stuff you guys don't like too. We consider it and and we know just how fortunate we are to have this wonderful forum so we can capture your thoughts.

Glenn

Just one point, i know that in MC the hexagons are one square mille (1,60km aprox) so the scale is bigger, but look at danube front, i think that i never completed a turn in less than 3 hours! and one turn of Budapest is uncompletable in less than 2hours!

[Glenn Saunders]

Just one point, i know that in MC the hexagons are one square mille (1,60km aprox) so the scale is bigger, but look at danube front, i think that i never completed a turn in less than 3 hours!

Map size - 280x254 or 71,000 hexes

and one turn of Budapest is uncompletable in less than 2hours!

Map Size - 240x150 but in fairness, we could have made it 190 or 200 x140 or 27,000 to 36,000

...and in both cases the turns take a hell of a long time to play a turn. What is it they say - be careful what you wish for. If we keep trying to make games bigger and bigger, they won't be any fun to play.

Glenn

[-72-]

"And suggesting we build a map 1000 hexes long on a 1 km scale covering uninhabited mountains when we can look at ....what is it ... 20 or so titles, where we know the typical size of the maps, is perhaps a tad bit unreasonable. And if you even thought that could work and then saw the full campaign on this monster map would lasted 3 months or 900 turns than folks could would instantly be able to tell that it is not a serious title and move to the next one on the list."

I take it you are meaning Norway, Glenn. And I understand where you are coming from with that I guess, however too, there are other ways to show that map in terms of the areas where action was likely or relevant. Now I've heard other designers talking about "letting the gamer decide", and that is a valid point, however in the case on 1940, really the infrastructure of that country is mostly what determined where any meaningful action would have taken place.

The main, remote, but important area in Norway is around Narvik, and probably a few others in between there and where the northernmost point of the 1940 contiguous Norwegian rail net extended to. Maybe Namsos is one of the areas in between Narvik and this point - but I'm not looking at a map right at the moment (and am going on memory).

Conceivably these areas could be placed on a compressed map area much like what you already did with El Alamein and Malta. Also if needed I suppose that path links between each of these areas could be made similar to some boardgames' off map movement charts where a path of hexes (probably sealanes) is created between the more remote points (say Narvik.). Of course too I could be off on how large an area that the rail net covered (but then again inaccessible areas wouldn't necessarily need to be mapped either. I suppose that could lead to a relatively ugly map with loads of impassable terrain. However, that, may well have been Norway in 1940.

Given the strategy options that the PzC engine uses, it could be possible maybe to provide some variability in terms of who a side is sending where, and probable when (given the designers' best guesstimate).

Another consideration is that France '40 did not take in all of France, or even the entire campaign, but enough of it; so I am not sure why a Norwegian campaign would have to be treated any differently as to what has gone on before.

So I did vote for Norway, but my vote wasn't necessarily for a portrayal of the entire country, but more maybe a more limited approach could maybe be more workable, and consistent with what you'd done before. Anyways, that was what I was thinking when I voted (and in the past whenever I'd mentioned it). :)

And really all this is , is defending my vote as not necessarily completely unrealistic.... now as a business decision on whether it would sell or not --- that is an entirely different ball game.

[Huib Versloot]

I'm pretty sure my suggestion of the Rhineland battles would fit into the series. Actually most if not all the designer considerations Glenn mentioned I thought about. Perhaps because the last 3 years I have been busy making these battles for JTCS. They would just fit even better in the larger scale of PzC than in JTCS.
In the periphery of what would be the map several more operations than I already mentioned would also be possible. The border area of Holland and Germany IMO is simply screaming to be mapped for PzC. It is an area of about 180 long x 100 Km deep.

I would love to do it, both mapping and the oob and scenarios; not for any commercial gains but purely for hobby and out of historical interest of the battles. I talked about it briefly to Edward last year, but it seems really hard to get permission/acces to the map tool from Tiller for such projects. So I must admit I haven't even asked yet.

I do think I have more than enough experience from JTCS mapping/ designing to pull it off with a little help. I would need at least 2 or 3 years though and the subject did not score very high in the poll so commercially it might not be interesting for HPS. But what if someone made it for free and it was a free download... wouldn't we all benefit?

Well these are my thought of which titles I would really like to see. Not too optimistic it will ever happen, but an interesting thread nevertheless.

Huib

[-72-]

I slept on this (naturally the "Norway" post was my last post of yesterday night, so it was a lot of things, but maybe not entirely thought out as well as I'd liked.

I do think that a map of the useable portions of 1940 Norway would be consistent with the scale of other Panzer Campaigns titles, I don't think that is really a major problem. I do have board games on it, and understand Glenn's concern about mapping out a lot of unusable nothingness. So that is valid only to the point that even in the southern portion of Norway there isn't much that is really militarily significant in ratio to the areas that are militarily significant. Before anyone gets on me, what I am meaning is that there is the southern coastline, and then there are a couple of major valleys (one of which being the one that runs through Lillehammer), and then ports along fjords- a lot of them. There weren't that many units involved in the Norwegian campaign, and most of the movement (and movement in a game is really what usually determines if it sells or not) would be very localized, and/or advancing up a couple of valleys along the rail lines (up towards Trondheim and I think Namsos.

The question then becomes: Is that enough?

I am thinking, no, now after more fully considering it.

I don't even know that a Berlin '45 title would be able to stand on its own, maybe as part of an Oder '45 title.

[Glenn Saunders]

I take it you are meaning Norway, Glenn.

I am quite intentionally staying away from discussing specific possible titles.

Conceivably these areas could be placed on a compressed map area much like what you already did with El Alamein and Malta.

Right - but that is Alamein with a big Africa Map and what I think is a cool idea to include Malta. Not a collection where isolated battles occured.

Another consideration is that France '40 did not take in all of France, or even the entire campaign, but enough of it;

That is different too - there was mainly a big battle in France and Belgium. Earlier in the series people proposed a title called Sedan '40 (which would really be too small for a PzC) but I figured France was a better name and didn't think the Italian Alps would add much to the game.

Just saw the new post now

The question then becomes: Is that enough?

I am thinking, no, now after more fully considering it.

Well, again - I am not going to dis any proposed titles directly, rather just discuss things in general terms.

And really all this is , is defending my vote as not necessarily completely unrealistic.... now as a business decision on whether it would sell or not --- that is an entirely different ball game.

Right - and I intentional stayed way from any biusiness aspect of titles.

Anyway - I've pretty much said my piece here - not sure there is anything further I could add.

Glenn

[Lien Leposh]

Speaking of Kiev has made me wonder why noone has mentioned the breakout over the Dniepr north of Kiev in Nov 43. Nice attack and big counterattack... Plenty scope methinks.

[bwv]

What about WW1? Tannenberg or Cambrai perhaps

or Korea '50?

[P.Ako]

What about WW1? Tannenberg or Cambrai perhaps

or Korea '50?

The WW1 and some wars of the XIXth century would make some good games... but they need a modification of the PzC engine.

Korea '50 would be nice to see... it's only that the map would be enormous