Panzer Battles - Kursk Version 1.01 released

[wiggum]

Mechanically speaking, tank and gun units are treated as single entities in terms of the results they deliver, which is also why I rarely move gun units with my forces. The infantry guns remain parked where they start/appear as the risk of losing them to interdiction or artillery fire far outweighs their potential impact.

I really would like to buy the game but sentences like this make me stay away from it.
Tank vs. Tank battles are poorly done in Squad Battles and i hoped Panzer Battles would provide more realistic results in armor clashes or armor vs. AT gun clashes.

[ComradeP]

Well, the series will improve with every patch and new title, so it's likely to shake off the things that it borrowed from Panzer Campaigns or Squad Battles which don't suit it, like the way tank and gun combat works.

I still like the game, provided I don't play too many scenarios in a row and take a break from time to time. The changes in the patch remove some of my pet peeves, so that helps.

Aside from breakdowns and AA fire, interdiction also feels a bit rough for the hex size and the many small units you're using, but it can't be quartered for both sides as it's already 1 for the Germans. Maybe introducing a formula that adjusts interdiction chance for unit size would work, though.

[Xaver]

And dont forgive mortars... out of 120mm mortars their only value is smoke, i think that mortars need deal more fatigue when are in single units and when are together (4-6) deal fatigue to but with a great chance to score a kill over infantry.

In arty light/med mortars+infantry guns are not really very usefull and is much better dont care about them out of the victory points area.

Every patch improve the game, lets go step by step.

[wiggum]

I think i will buy the new Command Ops 2 then.
Panzer Battles sounds like a mix between Squad Battles and Panzer Campaigns using the same engine again and just "working around" its limitations at that scale (company/platoon sized units). Sadly there is no demo...

[ComradeP]

It's basically the same engine with different features, yes, but I'd say it will become a good series of its own. Panzer Battles: Kursk Southern Front isn't a bad game, the scenarios for example are well researched as usual. The fact that we're bickering about on one hand crucial but on the other hand also secondary parts of the mechanics is telling enough: the system has, overall, been refined over two decades or so.

It's just that, as this is the first game in the series and it borrows heavily from other series (or rather: it's built on the rules of other series, with some of its own rules added into the mix), some things work less well than they will over time.

The graphics are in the process of receiving a major upgrade, which is nice as well. I don't think graphics are the most important part of a game, but a less "vintage" look certainly helps with bringing new players in I'd imagine.

As to Command Ops 2: I was looking forward to that in 2013, but there have been so many delays that I've lost my interest. I understand that there will be delays for small developers, but Dave O'Connor promised so much on the Matrix Forums before switching publishers in terms of a release schedule that it's just bad PR that he didn't finish any of it at even roughly the time he promised he would. That wasn't a smart move by him.

He intended to release CO2 in parts, each of which would cost a fairly small amount of money, which may or may not have worked as a business model. At the moment, I'm not interested in Command Ops enough to deal with the unpredictable nature of the releases and patches.

I'm currently working on Unity of Command 2 and there have been serious delays there as well, but we didn't give customers a detailed release schedule of when we expected things to be done. You know there will be delays when you've just started with a project, so it's wiser not to mention a fixed release date (an initial release date tends to get pushed back anyway) or schedule before you know you can get things done on time.

The PzC and PB team are much more realistic in that sense: games will be released when they're done, with maybe a rough idea of what quarter or half of the year the next title will be released in.

[Xaver]

Well, PzB is a GOOD serie but is to new... even PzC with 16 years on it back is not perfect, is a question of time and try diferent situations (for example PzC has now fanatical nations rule even when is not used yet) to improve the engine.

Maybe as is now the AT combat is far from be ok but infantry combat with minor adjust is practically done, maybe one thing they can do is try center in PzB3 in a more infantry orientated battle or where tanks are more a support weapon and not a main weapon to strike enemy (maybe they are doing it, i dont know if leak that show FJ units is for a Kreta title or not) and same with PzB4 (why not a Pacific title??? Guadalcanal or an early battle in japanese blitzkrieg) because until AT combat is improved i feel we miss the Panzer point in title.

I like the serie but needs more time.

CO2... well, i feel cheated after buy some months ago in Matrix the full serie and see that now if i want modernized version i need buy AGAIN the same game... they can split all they want the game but is the same title and you pay 2nd time for it or even 3rd time AND add to this that they dont add practically none of the improvements for the new engine they promise years ago... maybe i prefer wait to see here a NEW title (the east title) before invest more money.

[wiggum]

Sorry but a wargame named "Panzer" Battles should provide realistic Armor vs. Armor or Armor vs. AT Gun combat.
So if AT combat is bad or mediocre at best then i think the setting is badly chosen
Even in RV it is ok becouse tanks just support the infantry most of the time but in a game with operational tank battles a top noth AT and Armor simulation/rule book is a must have.

[-72-]

The problem with that is that you are dealing with a game working in the scale of say Panzer Leader/Panzer Blitz but it sounds like you are looking for Tobruk (mind you I would love an armored warfare game on that scale ...).

I should add that -I would rather have a tactical armored warfare game at that level and detail as well. I was very much into Steel Panthers and Steel Panthers II -not so much Steel Panthers III (ok not at all ...).

---

On a uniform note, I was under the impression that the bordering on German WWII collars indicated an NCO?

An example can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veTKi6XcaL4

[Richie61]

I'm currently working on Unity of Command 2

Derailing thread, but I LOVED the first title

[Strela]

Sorry but a wargame named "Panzer" Battles should provide realistic Armor vs. Armor or Armor vs. AT Gun combat.
So if AT combat is bad or mediocre at best then i think the setting is badly chosen
Even in RV it is ok becouse tanks just support the infantry most of the time but in a game with operational tank battles a top noth AT and Armor simulation/rule book is a must have.

And you're basing your 'unrealistic' comment on what?

We continue to add armor specific features in the latest patch and the game as released was a very good facsimile for the loss rates and quantum at Kursk.

Don't be swayed by those that believe two Tiger tanks should by divine right hold off a brigade of Russian armor( 60 vehicles) on a regular basis. These were very much exceptions rather than the rule.

People are expecting Steel Panthers fidelity (individual vehicle on vehicle) for a 30 minute turn, platoon based game. That level of fidelity, was never part of the design - for example, facing was deliberately not built in.

We are listening to the community and trust me we have debated internally many of the proposals made. But in many cases its a scale consideration, does it make sense at a grand tactical level?

Despite the 'Panzer' in the Panzer Battles title I believe this is much more a combined arms simulator. No particular arm dominates, but has to be used in tandem to the other. I think the game gets that right more often than not. As we look at game engine changes its more with that in mind than trying to add features that at the end of the day add little or even break that model.

Every game system will have proponents and detractors, only the individual can decide whether the subject matter is for them.

David